by John Siciliano | Sep 15, 2017, 11:00 AM
The Trump administration is looking to create a “red team” to challenge the accepted science on climate change and the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on the Earth’s temperature, but there is no timeline on when that exercise will occur even though it is “very important,” according to Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt.
The EPA administrator sat down with the Washington Examiner for an interview that included discussion of the proposed red team-blue team process that he says will open up a dialogue over the science behind global warming to see what is true and what is not.
“The red team-blue team is still being evaluated,” Pruitt said. “I think it’s very, very important. I think the American people deserve an open, honest dialogue about what do we know, what don’t we know with respect to CO2 and its impact.”
The Trump administration has been criticized in recent weeks by environmentalists and others for ignoring the effects of manmade global warming in the wake of Hurricanes Irma and Harvey. Although climate scientists are careful not to equate weather with global warming, they do say that the increased intensity of the storms is a result of a warmer planet.
But the Trump administration feels a need to test that. The red team/blue team process Pruitt wants to set up has been widely used by the military to test assumptions when it comes to an enemy’s wartime capability. A red team would challenge the assumptions of the blue team.
In the case of climate change, the red team would include scientists known for their skepticism of the science held by the majority of climate scientists who say human activity is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise and will have disastrous consequences unless abated.
The Heartland Institute, which actively challenges U.N. climate change findings that the broader scientific community accepts, has been tapped by the Trump administration to recommend who should staff the red team.
But Pruitt wouldn’t give a timeframe for when the exercise would begin. “As far as the timing, that has not been determined. But I think it’s important for the American people to be able to consume that, to see that, to participate in that,” he said.
“I want it to be an open process where we literally put scientists in the room, both red team and blue team scientists, and they critique one another and talk to one another and inform each other about about this very important issue,” Pruitt said.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yikes! This: “In the case of climate change, the red team would include scientists known for their skepticism of the science held by the majority of climate scientists who say human activity is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise and will have disastrous consequences unless abated.” will be a disastrous mistake.
Skeptics can supply countering evidence, but should never ever actually be on the Red Team.
Neither the above nor Pruitt’s: “I want it to be an open process where we literally put scientists in the room, both red team and blue team scientists, and they critique one another and talk to one another and inform each other about about this very important issue,” represent a real Red Team exercise.
The only way to have a Red Team exercise is to use only “non-combatants” — disinterested world-class experts not currently involved in the Climate Wars.
What Pruitt describes is like something solving an international war by bringing the opposing Generals into a single room and asking them to decide who should win the war.
Usual mess — politicians acting on half-understood concepts, getting most of it all wrong.
“The only way to have a Red Team exercise is to use only “non-combatants” — disinterested world-class experts not currently involved in the Climate Wars.”
Given the nature of the subject matter, who could be called upon as a “disinterested” world-class expert?
sy ==> Oddly enough, nearly any scientist not currently working in the field. What is needed are Physicists, Ocean experts, statisticians, mathematicians, computer modelers from other areas, atmospheric chemists,
geomorphologists, experts in chaos and dynamical systems…this list extends for some time. There is nothing special about climate or its study — any good mind can grasp the fundamentals.
Almost none of the senior climate scientists today studied climate science in university — there was no such subject and no such specialty. We needs the worlds smartest and sharpest minds.
The REASON fore a Red Team is that the subject known as Climate Science today is very likely simply a reflection of the prevailing bias in the field — the same thing found in many medical specialties.
Bringing in the OTHER side, the opposing BIAS, will not resolve the science.
A few Feynman’s and a few Asimov’s would fairly swiftly sort through the existing pile of knowledge, the major journal papers representing the fundamentals, sort out the chaff, spot the biases, and point out where the field needs to go.
” The REASON fore a Red Team is that the subject known as Climate Science today is very likely simply a reflection of the prevailing bias in the field — the same thing found in many medical specialties.”
Agreed, however, that “prevailing bias” acts more like a swarm of killer bees to an intruder when it’s challenged. Hence my question regarding “disinterested” experts. Whomever accepts the call of the “Red Team” is likely going to be at best ridiculed on the world stage, at worst fired from their present position and black-listed from future ones.
I wonder if you’re rather going to need individuals willing to stand in the heat of King Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace, so-to-speak. If they haven’t already shown themselves as such, e.g., Spencer, et al., whom would you nominate as a potential willing participant to self-imposed career destruction?
Kip, that is a really good idea. Especially the part about including mathematicians and statisticians.
sy ==> If universally respected scientists are picked because of their standings in their fields, all tenured at their institutions, beyond reproach of vested interest, the outcome will be accepted with much less rancor.
Because they have not to date taken sides in the squabble — they will be immune from harm, even if attacked for findings the Truths of the matter.
Think Feynman and the Challenger disaster. Outsider, not a Rocket Scientist, not en engineer of rockets, not part of the space program, no connection to NASA, not anti-NASA…….in effect, a one-man Red Team to review “What really happened? What caused it?” His finding did NOT please NASA — but he was not vilified by the “United Rocket Scientists of America” — his report was accepted, perhaps grudgingly, but because it was demonstrably true, he achieved acclaim and fame instead of career-ending attacks.
That’s the goal and the hope of a CliSci Red Team.
A re-hashing of the decades-long battle will achieve nothing more than an airing of the disputes and disagreements — which will have some — but not much – value.
“Because they have not to date taken sides in the squabble — they will be immune from harm, even if attacked for findings the Truths of the matter.”
Respectfully, I suspect “immune from harm” is likely an untenable assumption:
“There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do.”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/
This isn’t NASA versus Feynman, at worst a temporary embarrassment to NASA. This is the potential loss oftrillions of dollars of currency from practically every developed nation on the planet flowing a certain direction toward a certain end. This is the ability to centrally micromanage how human beings fundamentally go about their daily existence. It would seem even from my puny vantage point there are extremely powerful individuals, groups and governments who are licking their lips at the opportunities they see before them to raise the human race up in the way that it should go…at least according to them.
Regardless, that even talk such as this is going on at the EPA is an encouraging sign!
They will say bring in the top math and stats guys.
We did that on our red team of temperature.
skeptics still think they know better
KH, yup. Related to my audience concerns above posted. Nice Pruitt idea, but does not fly.
Better to kill the beast with simple garlic and silver stakes. Stuff like the pause, lack of modeled troposphere hotspot, lack of accelerating SLR, survival of Arctic summer sea ice and polar bears, whatever else they have got wrong the past 30 years. They will repond with children’s children and precautionary principles. At which point we break out laughing. Done. Most Deplorables will figure out the belly laufh without having to know the rest. Done.
Yes, the polar bears – thirty years ago there were at least 7,500 polar bears in the world. Today there are only about 25,000 left.
You are confusing the role of Umpire, who should be as objective as possible, with that of the “combatants”, who should be as well equipped with the pro and con arguments as possible so that no significant point bearing on the science will be overlooked.
skorrent1 ==> You might benefit from a quick read on the proper methodology of Red Teams.
Red Team/Blue Team exercises are not games of any sort — they are not contests — they are not debates.
Although climate scientists are careful not to equate weather with global warming, they do say that the increased intensity of the storms is a result of a warmer planet.
About extreme weather, warmist alarmists are as wrong as it is possible to be. It is cooler earth climate, not warmer, that is associated with more storms. This, as Javier has explained recently several times at this site and that of Judith Curry, is because in a colder climate phase the larger temperature gradient between equator and poles imparts more energy to the ocean and atmospheric circulation. Yet another very obvious and basic scientific mistake of the alarmists.
Has any reader of this blog ever been through an estate fight? Whoa, you have not lived life to the fullest until you partake of it. One thing you may discover is that you’ll likely gain a hankering for a knowledge of Middle Ages torture techniques.
It so happens that I’m aware (trying to be diplomatic here) of an estate fight where a non-named (in the Will) beneficiary who happened to be nothing other than just one of fifteen grandchildren, but who happened to be the first born male grandchild (thus viewing himself possessing something way, way, way beyond typical political claims of white male privilege), and therefore viewing himself as somehow entitled to a greater share of the Estate than the actual five ‘named’ beneficiaries.
How does a rank opportunist get their grubby hands on an estate to which they’re not entitled? I know, use the leverage he believed he had because he was the first to be spit out of the uterus (or whatever organ he was slopping around in) of his grandmother’s eldest daughter, and use that leverage (in cahoots with the Executor – also an eldest male) to borrow a heap of money from that 86 year old grandmother with the promise that he was totally completely good for paying it back.
In. The. Future.
Is this now beginning to sound like climate science? Playing on an old lady’s (i.e. the public’s) trust? Heaps of money? Everything’s in the future?
Of course there’s some details that have to be worked out. Yes, I know: Just like climate science – the devil’s in the details.
One of those pesky little details is that if this (not so)grand-child claims the remaining loan is a ‘gift’ it is taxable, and gosh darn it, the gift giver – the grandmother – didn’t pay the required tax on it because, well, in her mind it was a loan (a little like a lot of research grants are really unwitting gifts – from the taxpayers – but are called out as loans to be repaid by work to be done).
Well, why not call it out as a loan and just not pay it back? Well, aside from the fact that fourteen of those fifteen grandchildren are going to think this is bull – which it is – at least a few of the genuine beneficiaries not involved in the scheme (to follow) are going to think this is double, triple, quadruple bull – which it is. (This quadruple bull will resemble the ire of the public when, or if, they realize what it is the’re being told to forfeit on behalf of the opportunists.) But, those are trifling matters. You see, an unpaid loan is considered taxable income by the IRS.
So, here’s what the privileged (a little like an NGO Director, lobbyist, banker, pencil pusher, politician, or elite – almost all far left liberal ‘white males’) will do. A little after probate opens (or, in the case of a politician, an issue is raised) they hire their bestest friend (they’re all bestest friends for a while) as an employee at their small company (or amenable, taxpayer subsidized, University). This bestest friend has no talents worthwhile to the company (a little like Michael Mann and statistics) but, they know a little something about wood; they’re a carpenter.
And, oh so coincidentally, this bestest friend makes an offer, while he’s in the employ of this indebted (not so)grand-child, for the grandmother’s home. And, if you guessed that it was an impossibly low-ball offer you’d be right. In fact, the undercut in value is just about equal to the (not so)grand-child’s debt. Then remodel and flip the home as part of the small business, use the home sale profit to discharge the debt while superficially paying it back (and escaping tax), and pocket the excess along with the partners – including the Executor.
And that’s where the home appraisal comes in.
I’ve become convinced that a Global Average Temperature is the same thing as a Home Appraisal. The numbers on each are fungible, and are derived at by the appraisers, or the climate scientists, with an end towards pleasing the paymasters. In fact, you could claim that the actual numbers are derived at by the paymasters themselves. In the case of the grandmother’s house the devious parties ‘knew’ the value of that home a full six months before they had it appraised by a Climate Scientist, er … duly licensed appraiser (whose last name rhymed with Tony Soprano). Never mind that the bank had a somewhat different appraisal (than the Soprana doppelgänger) that the devious ones deigned not to show the contesting parties.
Unlike the foregoing where, in contrast to the contesting parties, the executor (politician, investor, and tax collector) had the luxury of the substantial executor checking account (tax money) to pay the appraiser (climate scientist), and the probate attorney (maggot encrusted legal parasite looking out for everyone but the taxpayers), the reader here, at least right now, potentially has the money to pay a different set of appraisers.
Repeat: a GAT is an appraisal – nothing more, nothing less. That’s all it is. And, what’s at stake is your future inheritance. The red and blue teams must be formed. And, if anyone – anyone – objects they’d only object for the same reason the (not so)grand-child and his cronies would object.
no.
GAT is a prediction.
I would put Ted Cruz on the skeptical team, as he is not a scientist but a “master-debater” as proven several times in some his anti-CAGW debates on YouTube… I especially like the one against the Sierra Club President Aaron Mair…
I hadn’t seen this one, but this is also a good illustration of Cruz’s grasping of the issue:
In fact, I might just give Cruz all the facts and actual data including charts, graphs and etc., and let him take over the debate. After all, he debated by himself for 22+ hours straight on the senate floor about the effects Obamacare was going to have. I listened/watched much of that “speech” on CSPAN and learned a lot about Obamacare that no one in the media or the opposition would tell us.
He has an enormous capability of remembering the facts of an issue that he is in favor of…He could have some scientist helpers on the side, in case he got stuck or was presented with some opposing facts he didn’t know about.
Who says it was “accepted” ? By whom? On what basis? With what authority?
No politician ever puts something like this together without making sure he knows the outcome in advance. Pruitt knows exactly what he is doing. We think this is about science. It isn’t. It is a twisted Enviro-Socialist political putsh. Science left the building long, long ago. This is Pruitt’s move to kick the blocks out from under AGW. We should support it.
So far only two mentions of Sea Level (SLR)
Sea level rise is probably the biggest scare that the left has. The manipulations of satellite data, the lack of acceleration and the ridiculousness of claims of multi-meter sea level rise by 2100 needs to be brought to the attention of the public.
And the SLR is advancing at about 5 – 8 inches per century globally. (with no noticeable acceleration).
This must be brought into the conversation in the debates with data to back it up (by accredited scientists).
When the AGW alarmists predict flooded coastal cities due to the melting of ice caps, they overlook the HEAT required to melt ice–about 333 kJ/kg, or 333 MJ per cubic meter of water produced.
Ice floating on top of oceans (such as in the Arctic or the oceans surrounding Antarctica) displaces its weight in water, so that melting it would have no effect on sea level. Sea level would only rise due to melting of LAND ice, such as the ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland, which have a combined surface area of about 15.7 million square kilometers, or 1.57 x 10^13 square meters.
The total area of the world’s oceans is about 360 million square kilometers, or 3.6 x 10^14 square meters. In order to raise sea level by one meter, 3.6 x 10^14 cubic meters of water would have to be produced from melting land ice. Multiplying that by 333 MJ per cubic meter requires about 1.2 x 10^23 Joules of heat.
AGW alarmists tend to measure the net energy of increased absorption of IR by CO2 in Watts per square meter. From now until the year 2100 is about 2.6 x 10^9 seconds, so that the heat absorption rate over the Antarctica and Greenland ice caps needed to raise the sea level by 1 meter would be
1.2 x 10^23 J / [(1.57 x 10^13 m2)(2.6 x 10^9 s)] = 2.94 W/m2.
This may not sound like much, but Antarctica and Greenland receive sunshine only half the year, at very low angles above the horizon. In addition, in order to melt ice, the air or other surface in contact with the ice must be above 0 Celsius. This occurs only about four months per year along the coasts of Antarctica and Greenland, and since most of the surface of those ice caps are over 1 km thick, the temperature over most of the interior area (at high altitude) remains below freezing year round, and no ice can be melted.
If we assume that only 20% of the area of Antarctica and Greenland goes above freezing four months per year, then the required additional heating by absorption of IR radiation would be 2.94 / [(0.20)(1/3)] = 44 W/m2.
Most of the AGW alarmists talk about heat imbalances of 1 to 4 W/m2 averaged over the entire globe, and nobody would seriously consider heat imbalances of anywhere near 44 W/m2 along the coasts of Antarctica and Greenland with their low sun angles, even in summer.
So that the observed sea level rise rates are about 2 mm/year, or 200 mm (7.9 inches) per century, because the additional CO2 over the coasts of Antarctica and Greenland simply can’t absorb enough heat above zero Celsius during the short melting season to melt more ice. It may look impressive to summer tourists to see calving icebergs crashing into the sea from vertical ice cliffs facing the sun, but most of the ice volume is inland, where air temperatures stay below freezing year round, and the ice doesn’t melt.
Oh! You mean all the other hurricanes were because of climate control? 100’s of years ago?
I’d be satisfied with someone just explaining to me what the heck “average temperature” means for a disequilibrium system.
If you dont get it by now you never will.
“Average temperature” is the temperature average of a one-meter thick layer of air, near Earth’s surface all around the perimeter of the globe. This one-meter thick layer of air is at the bottom of, and ENCASED within (as PART of), a much larger layer (10-12 KILO-meter thick) of air/atmosphere.
Never mind all that air in the 10-12 KILO-meter thickness of this BIG layer, … all we’re focused on is the teeny, weeny 1 meter thin layer. We ignore all the rest of the atmosphere, and focus ONLY on the 1-meter thickness to get our global average temperature.
Clear?
Now explain to me why, again, we obsess so much on this one-meter to define the average of the WHOLE globe.
I want them to discuss the relevance of the term Global! There is no Global Warming …. only regional, and the regions change on a fairly short time scale.
I want them to rename it the … “Global one-meter-thick-layer-that-ignores-most-of-the-other-thickness-of-the-atmosphere average temperature”.
Reply to joe_the non climate scientist .
New Zealand has very good hydro electric power generation backed up with geothermal .We have the Huntly power station which I think has nearly all been converted from coal to natural gas and there are a few gas fired stations around and a short cycle gas powered station has been consented but not yet built near Otorohanga in the North Island .There are numerous wind farms on tops of ranges scattered throughout the country , which are owed by different power company’s who all have hydro stations so that they can usually balance the load when the wind stops blowing . I am no aware of any direct subsidies to the builders of wind farms but power charges have been steadily increasing year by year .Yes we have an emissions tax on all transport fuel and the money raised is paid to foresters as carbon credits as their trees grow..I am not aware of any targets for wind farms but the companies use them for advertising their clean green image. Over 90% of New Zealands electricity comes from renewable s unless we have an extensive drought and our storage dams become low..The power grid is government controlled by TransPower that transmits power to all parts of the country and there is a wholesale market operating .Electricity is transmitted from the lower South Island under Cook Straight and through to Auckland . We have very good conditions for wind generation but I have seen the Te Uku wind farm without a blade turning .I hope this is of some interest to you joe and I am willing to answer any other questions
The most qualified for the Red Team ist the atmospheric physicist Professor
Gerhard Kramm from Fairbanks University. I wish someone well connected
would do the invitation to Professor Kramm…He is the most distinguished
in the field of CO2 – atmosphere, has all calculations right on his finger tips.
He has published on the topic. But someone has to do the invitation, please
someone steps forward, this will help all of us.
Email Jim Lakely at The Heartland Institute:
https://www.heartland.org/Center-Climate-Environment/index.html
The red/blue teams will be in essence, debating the possible transfer of available money for climate research from one side to the other. The world will run out of popcorn if this is successful!
I’m hoping that the ‘red team/blue team’ exercise will be more than a single debate or short series of debates. Rather it should be a positive force to shape the direction of grants into questions that need to be answered.
Heartland looking for volunteers NOW in five areas of activity including research & writing.
They’re Pruitt’s main go-to so get involved . . . this is your chance to act and make a difference.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/volunteering/index.html
the opposition team to combat climate change beliefs should not be just climate scientists. The same expertise is available at a far higher level in each area of climate science in other professions. The climate scientists are in comparison multi trade jobbing builders trying to design and build a skyscraper.
Engineers can show that the variation in clean air and particle laden air can account for much of the so called climate change as the Stevenson screen is not good enough for sub degree accuracy.
The surrounding environment is not tightly enough controlled for sub zero measurement as gravel and grass let alone tarmac and brick give different answers. Then there is the way response time of the sensor, be it traditional or electronic, varies both with model and historic time even for purely old fashioned mercury devices which again give fractional degree differences of the same order as global warming.
Then there is the question of what is the normal progression. All we can say here is the one used by climate science is utterly facile and over simplistic and certainly wrong. Trend analysis in marketing is far more advanced than climate science which has put little or no effort into ensuring that the profession’s idea of what would be the natural temperature is correct. Also security specialists looking for hidden data are decades if not centuries ahead of climate science in extracting signal from noise correctly as they understand the effect of averaging on losing information which climate scientists clearly do not.
The areas of computer modelling has all the prestige and money so the other areas are sloppy and inaccurate and the results not worth a bean. Also we must recognise that given the near total theoretical training of scientists more than half the work is done by unsuitably selected people who have no training is the practical skills needed.
The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system, or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction. Game Over!
The science of the ‘greenhouse effect’ has not been seriously challenged. It doesn’t actually have much to do with real greenhouses.
Still waiting for you to produce a paper that shows empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
You remain nothing but an EMPTY sack. !!
Hey Griff the person who knows everything about the climate .Can you prove that the methane emissions from farmed livestock can cause the climate to warm .? .The emissions are absolutely neutral as the methane is recycled in the upper atmosphere into CO2 and H2O and these are exactly what fodder needs to grow to feed farmed animals .Come on Griffy show us what you can conjure up
Even Dr. Roy Spenser, a leading climate skeptic, agrees that the greenhouse effect is real. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
Chris,Griff.
You mean to say that you didn’t know most skeptics long ago accepted the basic CO2 warm forcing paradigm?
David Archibald, SEVEN years ago talked about the reality of CO2 forcing,right here on WUWT:
The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
then FOUR years ago,
The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas becomes ever more marginal with greater concentration
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/
Just a quick sampling to show that CO2 is recognized as a forcing,here on this blog.
To me this is another example of addled thinking you warmists have to bring here,your ignorance and fallacies is a common feature of alarmist/warmist thinking.
Does Dr. Spenser agree with CAGW, Chris?
Any involvement of Heartland (funded by fossil fuel interests) automatically invalidates this exercise in the eyes of the world outside the US and all climate scientists. If Heartland are involved, it is an industry buying a friendly conclusion off government.
Really, Heartland are independent people with truth their only interest? Science based?
I don’t think so.
Using Griff’s absolute purity standard, nobody qualifies. The AGU conferences have been funded by fossil fuel interests. Let’s disqualify everyone who ever presented at one.
It doesn’t matter who gets recommended (by Heartland or anybody else); it matters who is chosen based on their qualifications.
“Using Griff’s absolute purity standard, nobody qualifies.”
Exactly. And this is by design. Any involvement by any organization or individual that accepts or appears to accept funding (present or past) from the fossil fuel industry is to be considered suspect, while the same standard doesn’t apply to other sources of funding.
But it won’t matter whether they’ve been funded by fossil fuel interests or not. They have violated the air-space of the nation of AGW and this will not, must not be allowed to stand. The pursuit against the individual and his/her family will be relentless and vicious.
His/her background will be thoroughly examined and reported upon daily. Every orifice will have a light shone into it in order to find something, anything, that might be used to discredit them in an ad hominem fashion, just has Griff has already done with Heartland.
Griff, it does not matter if Heartland derives its funding from clubbing baby seals. Ever heard of the ad hominem fallacy?
I see that Griff as usual post another fallacy,how dumb,how BORING!
Still too hard for you fallacious thinkers to address the topic instead?
Or it doesn’t. Let the reader do his/her own research and decide for him/herself.
“Disclosure of funding sources is important in some circumstances, but not in this one. No corporate donor gives more than 5 percent of our total annual receipts, and most give far less than that. And we have procedures in place that protect our writers and editors from undue influence by donors. This makes the identities of our donors irrelevant.”
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/reply-to-critics/index.html
Or they are. Let the reader decide after doing his/her own research.
https://www.heartland.org/donate/policies-regarding-donors-and-lobbying/index.html
Mr. Pruitt, make them debate in public. Let the people and you decide who won
Red Team vs. Blue Team
Richard Lindzen vs. James Hansen
Judith Curry vs. Noemi Oreskes
John Christy vs. Michael Mann
Freeman Dyson vs. Bill Nye
Roy Spencer vs. Gavin Schmidt
Roger Pielke Sr. vs. John Cook
+1. Great matchups.
Any objective evaluation is going to conclude that there is climate change and that it is affecting the US.
I just came across this article on how climate change is affecting US National Parks. I challenge all to read it to the end and then say there isn’t an impact
https://undark.org/article/national-parks-climate-change-trump/
“Any objective evaluation is going to conclude that there is climate change and that it is affecting the US.”
Burn down that Man of Straw!
Does any thinking individual deny the climate changes?
Sy, the earth’s climate has not changed in over 100 years. Any proof beyond minor warming and related statistics?
Um…not as far as I’m aware…?
Undark reference: Mindless speculation!