Green Heads Exploding: Scott Pruitt Suggests Global Warming Could be Beneficial

Scott Pruitt

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. By Eric Vance, Photographer, United States Environmental Protection Agencyhttps://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/scottpruitt16x20.jpg, Public Domain, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

President Trump’s EPA Director Scott Pruitt has upset greens by suggesting that since humans have historically flourished during warm periods, global warming might be beneficial.

Pruitt suggests warming can help humans

Scott Waldman and Niina Heikkinen, E&E News reporters
Published: Wednesday, February 7, 2018

U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt questioned yesterday if rising global temperatures are harmful to humans, a claim that adds new insight to his alternative views on climate change.

In an interview with KSNV television in Nevada, Pruitt suggested that global warming could be seen as a good thing for people. He said civilizations tend to flourish when it’s warm.

“I think there’s assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing,” Pruitt said.

Recently, Pruitt has questioned whether scientists know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, or even in 2018. Scientists have disputed that premise, saying that any swift change to global temperatures can have disruptive impacts on plants, animals and humans.

Pruitt’s claims yesterday adds new texture to what’s known publicly about his skepticism about mainstream climate science. In the past, Pruitt steered away from commenting on what a warming world could mean for humankind. Instead, he often questioned whether humans are having a substantial impact on the climate, while acknowledging that temperatures are climbing. He has also described the science as being politicized and touted the fossil fuel industry’s progress in limiting carbon emissions through innovation.

Pruitt’s comments yesterday moved beyond those views.

“Is it an existential threat, is it something that is unsustainable, or what kind of effect or harm is this going to have?” he said. “We know that humans have most flourished during times of, what, warming trends?

Read more (paywalled): https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/07/stories/1060073119

Nothing upsets greens like pointing out the obvious. Humans evolved in the tropics. Outside the extreme tropics where we evolved, we have to wear clothes to stay warm, otherwise we die of exposure. Green suggestions that a few degrees warming would be a crisis are absurd.

Advertisements

231 thoughts on “Green Heads Exploding: Scott Pruitt Suggests Global Warming Could be Beneficial

      • Whatever the average temperature is, doesn’t matter —
        it is bad and getting worse, so lots of money must
        be spent to study the coming catastrophe and
        increase government regulations.

        How do government bureaucrats with
        science degrees know that?

        I asked a few: The scientific explanation
        is apparently too complicated for regular people,
        but they summarized it for me:
        “Because we say so!”

    • warmer than today for sure. The Malthusians hate that. Add to that the additional CO2 fertilization effects. All they can do is try to convince the ignorant masses to accept their neo-marxism solutions that dictate cutting off inexpensive energy for everyone except the ruling class and elites.

      • If the new Marxism is all about getting “free” money to endlessly look into imaginary problems then that is what they are doing. However, all I see is old fashioned spivs and crooks.

      • when money is free it is worthless.

        To wit: Venezuelan Bolivars.

        Socialism run amok. The Venezuelan ruling elites eat well, while the Venezuelan people eat rats, bugs, and their pet dogs.

    • When it’s really really cold I find piling a heap of coal on the stove gets things just right….

      When it’s really really hot I get similar satisfaction by setting the air conditioner at 16 degrees C.

    • I would say at least the Holocene Optimum, but maybe 1 or 2 degrees above that.

      And what is the Goldilocks level of CO2 for biodiversity?

      Heads would really explode, if he were to say that humans and biodiversity would benefit from more CO2.

      • Optimum is considerably warmer than today – say ~1- 2C warmer – with much higher atmospheric CO2 – say ~1000-1500 ppm.

        Excess Winter Mortality is high, even on warm climates like Brazil and Thailand.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/17/proof-that-the-recent-slowdown-is-statistically-significant-correcting-for-autocorrelation/comment-page-1/#comment-2720698

        [excerpt]

        Joe d’Aleo and I co-authored the following paper on Excess Winter Mortality. We were about to publish it when the landmark Lancet study appeared, so we held back and incorporated that excellent paper into ours.

        There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths in the USA per year, equivalent to about two-9-11’s per week for 17 weeks every year.

        Canada experiences 5000 to 10,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year, whereas Great Britain, with only about twice Canada’s population, typically experiences 35,000 to 50,000.The two countries have similar health care systems and similar ethnic populations, but energy is much less expensive in Canada and our homes are better adapted to Winter.

        COLD WEATHER KILLS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS HOT WEATHER, September 4, 2015
        by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
        https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf

      • With no proof, the recommended level for commercial greenhouses is 1,000ppm. BTW the effect of doubling CO2 at anylevel produces roughly the same temperature change, due to he band saturation effect, so going from 400-800ppm only raises AGW by the same, 1.5W/m^2 or so in the natural GHEfrom water vapour of 340W/m^2, as did 200-400ppm.

        Not a problem at all, in fact that’s progressive negative feedback. Hardly a tipping point. Nothing to see here but easy money subsdies making CO2/KWhh expesively worse worse by law in fact.

      • “brianrlcatt February 8, 2018 at 1:43 pm
        With no proof, the recommended level for commercial greenhouses is 1,000ppm. BTW the effect of doubling CO2 at anylevel produces roughly the same…”

        A recommended CO2 enrichment starting point for greenhouse use is 1,000ppm.

        The actual CO2 levels used by commercial greenhouse operations are typically treated as industrial secrets. i.e. the company reached their CO2 concentration levels for any given crop through trial and error; and they’re not sharing that number.
        Especially since they’ve also adjusted their fertilizer(s), water and schedules to match. None of that gets released in detail.

        1,000 CO2ppm starting level will grow better crops than 400ppm.
        Many of the larger greenhouse operators admit to using higher levels; but, will not state a number.

      • Alan Macrae: I can vouch for what you say. I’m a Canadian who lived in England for over a year. That was back in 1962, one of the coldest winters on record there. We newly froze to death. The house we lived in had zero insulation. Ice formed on the inside of the windows. One of our kids nearly caught fire trying to back into the fireplace to keep warm. People who complain about global warming are full of it. We have proper clothing, heating and insulation in Canada. Just compare our life expectancies with any other country. Thank God for fossil fuels!

      • I have little understanding to people who call Britain’s location temperate. Canada is the place where you can, in winter, walk barefoot because floors are warm. Well, at least where well-built…

        Hurrah for insulation and central heating. If we hadn’t them, I’d head to Thailand.

    • It seems to me that in my part of the world(UK)
      ‘swift changesin temperature'(often of several degrees) occur on an almost daily basis.,but life goes on.!Wow !

    • Perfect climate was on June 6, 1750 at 3pm EST,
      according to Ernestine McGillicutty,
      who was not a scientist, but could
      whip up a Shepherd’s Pie like no
      one else in the neighborhood.

      The climate has been getting worse since then,
      scientists say, although they fail to give
      proper credit to Mrs. McGillicutty’s
      astute observation.

  1. Well, of course, the trougherati who are sucking up the billions in Klimate Kash will have a conniption fit. They’ll pull out all the stops, using their full repertoire of ad hominems, insults, fallacies, and fictional disasters that will ensue if the world warms less than the difference between San Diego and Los Angeles.

  2. “Scientists have disputed that premise, saying that any swift change to global temperatures can have disruptive impacts on plants, animals and humans.”

    Temperature swings like … early autumn frost?
    What sort of swift change are they talking about? Fractions of a degree per decade isn’t what I’d call swift.

    • … disruptive impacts …

      Something beneficial to me may be very harmful to someone else. Technology is a good example. Technology has thrown many people out of work (or much much worse) in the last hundred years. Taken as a whole, the effect has been overwhelmingly beneficial. We are almost all way better off with twentieth century technology than we would be without.

      Because of twentieth century technology I am still alive and have a wonderful life. How do I square that with the people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of twentieth century technology?

      Turning off the switch on technological progress would have been a big mistake a hundred years ago.

      Even if we could do it, turning off the switch on global warming would probably be a big mistake. No matter what we do, some people will suffer. In a warming world, probably fewer people will suffer.

      Thomas Malthus and Karl Marx were wrong and so are the CAGW catastrophists.

    • Note also the naked appeal to authority. The article did not, for example, say that experiments have shown “that that any swift change to global temperatures can have disruptive impacts on plants, animals and humans.” Who cares what scientists say. It’s what scientists can demonstrate that matters.

    • The “global mean temperature” is nothing more than the mid point between two VERY different/rapidly changing temperature extremes that occur every single day on planet Earth.

    • The problem is choice. Today’s Neo-marxist totalitarians (aka US Progressives) have a fix for that.

  3. He’s a brave man…he’ll be pilloried by the Gore’s and many other ‘breathless’ and crazed Global Warming fascists.

    • He’s an ideologue. While it’s healthy to question, it’s absurd, and when you are in a position of power, to replace scientific evidence with your own biases. Mr. Pruitt is doing great harm to the nation.

      • Gordon,
        What exactly is absurd about that question? Warm periods in the past were referred to a Optimums. The Roman Optimum 1000 bc and the Medieval Optimum 1000 ad. Greenland was called that because it was once green!
        If (and when) we enter the next Ice age, most of Canada, the northern 3rd of the US, Northern Europe and much of Russia will be habitable. Talk about climate exiles!

        So how again is it “absurd” to posit the question if warmer might be better?

      • AGW catastrophism is many things. Scientific is not one of them.
        Pruitt is right to point out that catastrophists are ignorant of history.
        He is brave and effective in the face of the reactionary climate obsessed.
        Thank you, Secretary Pruitt for standing up for truth and integrity.

      • What scientific EVIDENCE is Mr Pruit replacing?

        You do realize that in order to be logical and reasonable, you must agree that it is JUST as dangerous when so called “climate experts” pretend that their own biases qualify as “scientific evidence”?

      • An ideologue is someone who still doesn’t agree with a leftist after the leftist has informed him what an idiot he is.

      • Oh look at this. A drive by comment from a Gordon Gregory. It appears that it needs translation, however, so I will help you.

        Blah, blah, blah, I will make some comment about ok to question, blah, blah, blah, and then make a completely opposing statement about how one shouldn’t question science, blah, blah, blah.

        Since when did science become religion? For the record, I know religion. I have a nice degree in Theology to go with my Engineering degree. I like to keep them separate. Science is a horrible religion and scientists are horrible ministers.

  4. If you want to make a Greenies head explode or have some fun with them ask them two basic questions,
    1. What should the ideal temperature be for the earth?
    2. What should the ideal level of CO2 be for the earth?

    I use these two questions and 85% of the Greenies tend to either answer lower to which I reply “By how Much lower?” and then they look confused or they tend to “lock up” and go into a rather confused state that resembles some of the robot meltdowns on the old SciFi shows. “That does not compute.” My findings are that most Greenies have no idea what the answer is.

    • I had Twitter exchange with Gavin Schmidt about the Goldilocks Temperture in which he finally admitted he did not know.

      • Dont forget he is a mathematician only He got his start in climatology using general circulation models AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgh (That is a fancy name for a computer climate model) For a mathematician to be running (He is the Director) of the NASA Goddard Instituter for Space Studies using climate models as his gospel, No wonder I have lost faith in Science.

      • Another scam that fortunately does not cost us money like the AGW and ozone scams is the Dark Energy and the Dark Matter scam. I cant prove a pink elephant doesnt exist. The astrophysicists that came up with the Dark Energy and Dark Matter hypothesis should have just admitted that they dont understand how galaxies behave in their movements and leave it at that. The same thing with AGW and ozone. It is up to the warmists to prove that AGW is true. Admit we dont understand how they work and until we do we should do nothing. Instead we have pink elephants invading all our sciences (Dark energy,dark matter,AGW,ozone holes. First they told me there was a Santa Claus. It took me until 5 years of age to figure that one out. Then they told me that there was a God (Even Einstein succumbed to that pink elephant). It took me a bit longer to figure that one out. I was about 12 when I stopped believing in God. Then they told me mankind caused ozone holes I just recently learned enough to now see that one was false. Then they said that AGW exists. That took me about 10 years to figure out the falsity. What other scams will come along. Well it so happens that they come along all the time. Remember the DDT scare. Even acid rain never really caused any long lasting damage. Why dont greenies concentrate on the real problems we have like treating the worlds oceans as a plastic dump and allowing any new chemical on the market without testing for toxicity. Why arent there demonstrations in the streets about pollution? No instead they decide to call CO2 (the basic chemical without which all life would die) a pollutant? THEY ACTUALLY CALL IT A POLLUTANT. The mind boggles.

      • @Alan Tomalty
        Dark Energy and the Dark Matter are just hypothesis, treated like they must scientifically.
        And they don’t pop out of fancy imagination. Galaxies seem to not respect Kepler’s Laws, if you take into account only the emitting light bodies. So the choice is simple: either Kepler, Newton and Einstein have it all wrong about gravity, and we need a new theory of gravity; or there exist something we cannot see but with enough a mass to conciliate observation with gravity law. Both hypothesis are explored, none are matter of gospel.
        “just [admit] that they dont understand how galaxies behave in their movements and leave it at that. ” is NOT a scientific option

    • Most of them probably don’t even know what the current percentage of atmospheric CO2 is and whether that amount is higher or lower than the amount of argon in the atmosphere.

      They’ve been conditioned by the MSM to respond whatever is least likely to result in some crazed lunatic shrieking in their face.

    • @ Boris
      Earth doesn’t have a temperature. For an object to have a temperature, it must be in thermal equilibrium and Earth is most definitely not in thermal equilibrium. If you say average temperature you still have a problem. Do you mean the arithmetic mean, median or RMS? How many stations distributed in what manner? Do you mean the average temperature during the Southern hemisphere winter, summer, autumn or spring? At what level of sunspot activity?

      Your question regarding CO2 level is similarly ill-defined. Do you mean the level that will maximise biomass, please the maximum number of people living in the West, or improve the lives of those living on a dollar a day or less? Or perhaps you mean the level of CO2 needed to preserve the maximum number of current species…

      I suspect you have no idea of the answers are to most of the questions I need answers to in order to answer yours.

      • The alarmists are the ones claiming that they can measure the earth’s temperature, and that a 2 deg C rise will be a disaster. Us climate heretics are the ones questioning the practicality of that measurement. So what should the temperature be, derived the way they define it?

        Same deal for CO2, if they think that an increase is harmful they must have a way of measuring harm.

      • Well Pompus. Let’s just say that in the past history of our wonderful planet the “Mean” temperature was warmer than it is now. It was so warm that there was no ice and snow anywhere on the planet. There was an abundance of plant life and there were swamps in the artic area we know today. So how much CO2 was there during this time. Scientist have stated that it was in the area of 4400 PPM CO2 not the 410 PPM we are worrying about now. These same scientists were speculating that the “Mean” temperature was close to 40 C in this area. How do we know this you ask there is a dig 35 miles from the Alert Station in the Canadian Artic where scientist study the fossils of 28 foot tall ferns and 28 foot crocodile like fossils from our past. So if you are trying to be very specific about what temperature I am looking for then you have missed the point of the argument by blowing smoke. The answer to the question remains. What is the right temperature that the Greens are pushing for because if they do not have an agreement on that then what do they really want.

      • @Boris
        Greens think they are progressive. Actually they think and behave as creationist reactionaries.
        They don’t push for a specific temperature, and are horrified at the idea that humans would control a specific temperature.
        So they just don’t want the human to change temperature, whatever it is.
        They just want all humans inexistent, as far as Nature is concerned, and that include using nothing that Nature wouldn’t replace (renewable) and discarding nothing that nature wouldn’t process (biodegradable) . Constipated anorexic they are.

      • “if you are trying to be very specific about what temperature I am looking for then you have missed the point of the argument by blowing smoke.”

        Booris, an argument is “a statement or fact advanced for the purpose of influencing the mind; a reason urged in support of a proposition”. Three unanswerable questions do not constitute an argument.

        In fact far from attempting to persuade, you state “If you want to make a Greenies head explode or have some fun with them…” so the purpose of asking the questions appears to be to humiliate those you question rather than assist them to see their errors. William Connolley and Gavin Schmidt must be very proud of you.

      • Pompous:
        “Earth doesn’t have a temperature.
        For an object to have a temperature,
        it must be in thermal equilibrium
        and Earth is most definitely not
        in thermal equilibrium.”

        Correct, and it’s even impossible to estimate
        an “average” for a moment in time, because
        more than half the surface grids have no
        thermometers … so the smarmy government
        bureaucrats with science degrees get to
        make up the numbers!

    • I have used a similar approach by asking greenies what the current CO2 level is and find they have no idea. I then ask if they have no idea how can they be so sure of it’s affect on temperature.

      • A better question is “What percent of the atmosphere is CO2”. I was astounded when asking that question to find many people think it is about 25%.

    • These 2 questions (ideal CO2 or ideal temp) are better supplemented with the question “Why does either one matter at all?” Justify assuming that there IS an ideal temp/CO2 level… and why? Will mankind exist as the world WAS? or as it will be?

  5. I’ve lived and worked in some of the coldest and hottest places on earth. I’ll take the hottest places any day.

  6. Historically all forums of life have exponentially increased during warming periods and cold periods have killed more forms of life. All forms of life depends upon carbon and the major source is Carbon Dioxide in the environment. Therefore, the doubling of Carbon Dioxide is beneficial to all life and warming is also beneficial in supporting more life. The warming of our environment will create a more tropical environment as it has in the last 2 Interglacial Periods. This would take hundreds of year’s to happen and not the scare tactics that the alarmist have been spewing.

      • Yeah like this one an obvious lie since it was a LOT warmer around 9,000 to 4,000 years ago:

        “THE FACTS: While it is true that early human civilizations flourished in warm climates such as the Middle East and South Asia, the Earth has not been as warm as it is now for about 11,000 years, according to several studies. That was toward the end of the Stone Age, before humans had invented math, science or written language.”

      • Actually, I find it infuriating. Endless numbers of clueless will cite this type of nonsense as “proof” of their “beliefs.”

      • Sunsettommy,

        Who checks the Fact Check (wish I knew Latin, that would be a cool question)?

        According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know), the Neolithic period ended approximately between 4500 and 2000 BC. For perspective, the Great Pyramid of Giza was constructed around 2500 BC. Seems to be some discrepancy between “the end of the Stone Age” at 11,000 years and the actual end, and I may be mistaken but I seem to recall that the Egyptians had a written language (unless hieroglyphics aren’t considered “writing”).

      • Technically, the Stone Age continued until 1492 in North America, Central America, and South America.
        And much longer than that across the central Pacific, Australia, New Zealand and Tasmania.

    • The self-proclaimed fact-checkers are all Bachelor of Arts major journalists with a political agenda. Useless.

      • Yes! All of the so-called ‘facts’ in the article are actually opinions from people who are paid precisely because they have those opinions. If they had the same opinion of Mr. Pruitt, they would be doing something else to make a living; something likely more useful.

        For Example: “The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says if fossil fuel emissions continue on the current trajectory, temperatures by the end of the century will be around 6.5 degrees warmer than now (3.7 degrees Celsius).” is not a fact. It is an opinion. Forecasts of any kind are never a ‘fact’. This particular opinion appears to be incorrect, as temperatures are not following that prediction at present. And that is a fact.

    • Thanks for the laugh H.

      Where I live the average annual temperature is around 80F. When will I begin to die from this dangerously warm and pleasant weather?

      • This fun fact stood out most for me:

        “the Earth has not been as warm as it is now for about 11,000 years, according to several studies”

        Appears to be Mann’s climate history, again. That’s one joke. But then they ‘substantiate’ it with “according to several studies.” Wow. Real solid details there. Even better, I’m quite sure that in the wonderful word of climate change you can find “several studies” that say just about anything.

        I would like to believe that few people will take this ‘fact check’ seriously but several studies show they will.

      • ~8,000 years ago was the Holocene Thermal Optimum by most proxy reconstructions of temps. 11,000 the NH a least still trying to recover from the Younger-Dryas cold and sea levels were rising > +1 meter/century.

      • Eric Worrall

        You’re trying to tell there are actually hot, habitable places on our planet?

        Go on, pull the other one. 🤣

    • Just substitute cold for hot in this statement “Hot weather promotes the spread of infectious diseases, reduces work capacity, increases rates of injuries and violent crimes, impairs sleep, reduces agricultural production, worsens air quality, and prolongs the allergy season.”
      Flu definitely happens in the cold season, cold also reduces work capacity,
      there are many more auto and other accidents during cold events, it is hard to sleep in the heat if your a/c quits but a furnace failure at 40 below can be deadly. Has he never seen the effect of frost on crops, Air quality can suffer during cold spells too, I will concede the allergies but what about winter colds.
      The rest of the fact checks are just as ridiculous.

  7. The Modern Warming Period, following the end of the Little Ice Age (1280~1850), has been a boon for all life on earth.

    We’ve enjoyed 0.85C (HADCRUT4 data) of beneficial warming recovery since 1850 leading to: longer growing seasons, less frost loss, increased arable land in Northern latitudes and higher elevations, earlier springs, later winters, few deaths due to exposure, less energy for heating during winters months, etc.

    Increased CO2 levels from manmade CO2 emissions have also beneficially: increased crop yields, made plants more drought resistant, increased global greening, increased phytoplankton populations, ameliorated desertification, etc.

    Warming Periods have occurred every 1,000 years, and the current Modern Warming Period occurred right on schedule, and CO2 had nothing to do with it. Past Warming Periods: Minoan, Roman and Medieval, were all epic periods of rapid population growth, bountiful harvests and technical innovation, followed by famine, wars, depopulation and chaos during the global cooling periods which followed beneficial Warming Periods.

    Unfortunately, we’ll likely have to suffer 50~70 years of global cooling starting from 2020 when a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) event occurs, followed by the PDO/AMO/NAO all being in their 30-year cool cycles from around 2022, which will add to GSM cooling.

    In 5 years, this stupid CAGW ho@x will be laughed and people will yearn for a warmer earth.

    Good for Pruitt for bringing attention to the fact that a warmer earth is to be celebrated, not demonized.

    • Well, for my own selfish reasons I hope Dr. Svalgaard is right and you’re not. I grew up near Chicago. I moved to warmer climes. I don’t want Chicago moving to me.

    • All it would take is another super volcano to make the up coming cooling to create another Glacial Period. It is really disturbing how scientists have downplayed the Yellowstone cauldron. How they predict that it could be over a hundred years before it blows. When just one earthquake in the right place could trigger a collapse and explosion. Most of North America would be gone in a few days. Call it a hunch, but I don’t put it past the Government from keeping such an event quiet.

      • Johchi7-san: We’re “due” (my university statistics professor would through an eraser at my head for say that) for a major VEI 6+ volcanic eruption since the last one was Pinatubo in 1991, and we usually get 3 or so a century. The recent global seismic activity also suggest something big is in the works.

        Large VEI 6+ eruptions only cool the planet for about 2~3 years, and once the volcanic particulates rain or fall out from gravity, there aren’t any long lasting global cooling effects (which is further evidence of climate being very insensitive).

        VEI 8+ volcanoes which you’re referring to only happen every 50,000+ years or so, so the chance of one these bad boys going off during our lifetime is very remote.

      • SAMURAI

        I keep pointing out that in human history what we know as Science is still in its infancy. Everyone tends to jump to conclusions with very little actual understanding what is going on. Your professors and even paper holding so called experts in fields are more often just making educated guesses to explain whatever they think. Such it is with those studying volcanic activities. No one can predict how or when a volcanic cauldron will collapse and how all the rock falling into it would burst like dropping cold rock into a molten mass in a crucible. The high pressure these cauldrons are under and the magma constantly putting strains on the surface rock eating away at it and a big enough chunk would create enough energy to cause an eruption. Toba was our last super volcanic cauldron to cause some 8 year’s of blocking out the Sunlight and a volcanic winter. That happened in a solar minimum that prolonged our last Glacial Maximum. That indicates that the possibility is near when it happened some 700,000 years ago and they do not go by human time frames. All I suggested was it could happen. And the affect would be massive.

      • “When just one earthquake in the right place could trigger a collapse and explosion. Most of North America would be gone in a few days. Call it a hunch, but I don’t put it past the Government from keeping such an event quiet.”

        You would appear to have a lot more confidence in the abilities of the US government than me.

      • “Most of North America would be gone in a few days.”
        Is that a bad thing ?
        It could be nature doing a reboot (or god working in mysterious ways).

        [??? .mod]

    • SAMURAI San

      From a position of I’ll educated deduction, I also concluded the ho@x would be over in 5 years or so, about 6 months ago.

      But the green nutters are now saying that an extended cooling of the planet is just more evidence of global warming.

      It’ll be all over the media soon. “Global cooling, proof the earth is warming!”

      Huh!??????

  8. Greenland Norse colonies and South-West USA Anasazi culture on high mesa-tops are just two archaeologically documented human cultures that flourished during the MWP that collapsed as the MWP came to a close in the NH.

    And well then we have vineyards in Northern England during the RWP and Roman Legions occupying Germanic outposts in northern Europe. All that collapsed as the RWP ended and Rome collapsed.

  9. Pruitt is correct. Here’s one argument:

    Global Warming is usually attributed to additional CO2.

    Increased CO2 is beneficial to humanity:

    Increased atmospheric CO2 over the past 50 years, according to some studies, has caused world-wide foodstuff production to increase by 15-25% (which isn’t surprising since trees, depending on variety, are now growing from 30-70% faster for the same reason).

    The math is simple: Currently, foodstuff production accounts for a seventh of the world-wide GDP of ~$70 Trillion, which would be $10 Trillion. Taking the lower estimate for increased foodstuff production (15%) of that would be $1.5 Trillion, which divided by a worldwide population of 7.5 billion (an admittedly high estimate) results in $200 per year for every man, woman and child on the Earth!

    (The annual benefit is around $333 per person if the higher increase (25%) is used.)

    That’s the annual contribution industrial countries (those that have substantially enriched atmospheric CO2 over the past 50 years) make indirectly to developing nations. Another way of looking at it: Since at least 2/3 of the world’s population is found in developing nations, the “annual payment” to them is $1 Trillion!!

    I think that’s more than enough. Indeed, all that additional food has averted massive famine and starvation.

    They should be grateful rather than greedy and critical.

  10. Indeed Pruitt lives rent free in the gang Green heads.
    As a Canadian I have always been baffled by our political opposition to warmer winters ..
    Every projected “result ” of climate change is a net good for our country,yet we swoon at Carbon dioxide emissions from the fuels we must burn to survive our current winters.
    Also the fuel we must burn to cross these huge empty spaces.

    I conclude that the bureaus and their political enablers here are not interested in Canada having a future,as long as they get to live large at productive citizens expense.
    The UN IPCC Worst case climate change is the Canadian Dream Climate.
    A few more growing days would enable farming north of 60…

    A logical person could conclude that persons fighting against such benefits for our nation just might be committing treason.

    • Oh make No mistake… the TDS is writ YUGE in the Greens’ heads right now.

      They are all going crazy-nuts and getting crazier by the day. Trump and his cabinet officers are pleasantly exceeding all my expectations for driving the Left off the cliff of sanity.

    • Many Canadians forget that the Rhino Party had as one of their planks the annexation of Tahiti, with a two week holiday there per man, woman and child. The reason they wanted Tahiti to join Canada was of course the warmth it offered, year round. Lots of people voted “Rhino” simply because they had more common sense and better policy proposals than the other parties. The 3rd Earl of Harrow (Lord Such) had nothing on Jacques Ferron, “Éminence de la Grande Corne du parti Rhinocéros”.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party_of_Canada_%281963%E2%80%9393%29

      “The party claimed to be the spiritual descendants of Cacareco, a Brazilian rhinoceros who was elected member of São Paulo’s city council in 1958, and listed Cornelius the First, a rhinoceros from the Granby Zoo, east of Montreal, as its leader. It declared that the rhinoceros was an appropriate symbol for a political party since politicians, by nature, are: “thick-skinned, slow-moving, dim-witted, can move fast as hell when in danger, and have large, hairy horns growing out of the middle of their faces“.”

      • “It declared that the rhinoceros was an appropriate symbol for a political party since politicians, by nature, are: “thick-skinned, slow-moving, dim-witted, can move fast as hell when in danger, and have large, hairy horns growing out of the middle of their faces“.”

        Good thing I was between bites when I read that – LMFAO.

    • I am a Canadian too and wrote this for my 75 birthday.
      For seventy-five winters I have grown old
      But seldom have seen a New Year so cold
      Supposed to be warmer I’ve heard them say
      Was not very obvious, this New Year’s Day

      To fight climate change we have to pay
      Taxes on heat to keep winter at bay
      It’s becoming a sin to drive to the store
      Cause driving our car will make it warm more

      Excuse me for saying I think it’s a crock
      Our leaders only tell lies when they talk
      I think it is funny a Canuck can be told
      We have to pay more to make it stay cold

    • Even if CO2 was going to kill everyone, how on earth do our Canadian politicians think it is moral to tax natural gas (new carbon taxes came into effect this winter, one of the coldest in memory). It isn’t a luxury item. We would quite literally die without it. You can’t heat homes for a million Calgarians with the wood found around here. We don’t have trees (our area is sometimes called the North American Steppe). We could switch to coal I guess (lots of that around), but I don’t think they would be happy with that.

    • John, you are absolutely right. I drive through Canada several times per year from the lower 48s to my home in Alaska, a gorgeous trip a trip every point. Each morning before getting in my vehicle, during the Canadian leg of my trip, as I have breakfast while watching tv I invariably see Trudeau or a regional premier extolling the ever-increasing need to combat global warming, and include carbon taxes. Yet while driving through the endless empty spaces of Canada I constantly wonder why the one country that would undoubtedly and unquestionably benefit from global warming (not that such a thing exists) would be trying to fight it so assiduously. I have made many friends while traveling through that beautiful country, and am heartened how most of them, especially those who live away from the major cities, in no way share in this insane assumption. Yet the political leadership continues in this clearly masochistic behavior, for reasons that do not make any sense to me

  11. Forgive me for my ignorance, but didn’t the IPCC say that all warming to 2 degrees C was a net benefit to humanity? Have we passed the 2 degrees C from when they started measuring? I think not. Therefore Mr. Pruitt is merely parroting the Green Party experts. How dare him actually listen to their own experts!

  12. Claiming that a warmer world would be a catastrophic disaster has always been the Achilles heal. That’s a very hard sell and a tribute to modern propaganda that so many people have bought into it.

  13. Pruitt has chosen the perfect stance. Yeah we warmed about a degree C over more than a century and every thing we know for sure is, as a species we started off in warm Africa and our civilizations and technical prowess grew spectacularly only during warm periods and we were miserable, backward, starving and sick during the cold periods.

    What we know so far is that natural variability has been of a magnitude that any effect we may have had as a cause of warming would seem to be the lesser part. We fell from the MWP when wine grapes grew in Scotland into 400 years of the LIA which we just emerged from in mid 19th Century. Temperatures rose in the 1930s and the record highs of that period still stand. From the peak in the late 30s temperatures declined for 40 years and scientists predicted human caused Icy cooling for the foreseeable future.

    Then it turned warmer for under two decades from 1980 – the period that caused all this fuss. Then the Dreaded Pause starting just before the new millennium.

    The planet has been greening for over 30 yrs, harvests have more than doubled and the IPCC forecasts have turned out to be 200% too high. A good bet would be a bountiful Garden of Eden Earth with peak population another 20% more. Let’s hope an equally plausible future isn’t a cool one.

    • Gary Pearse

      There’s the rub. “A good bet would be a bountiful Garden of Eden Earth with peak population another 20% more. Let’s hope an equally plausible future isn’t a cool one.”

      The green socialists don’t want more people on the planet, they are hell bent on eradication, so they can keep everything for themselves.

  14. Yes! The truth is that increased carbon dioxide and some additional warmth are almost entirely positive. Sylvan Wittwer was saying this decades ago, now Craig Idso on co2science.com is the clearest voice for this reality. I’ve never posted here before, as I’m left-leaning in most other ways, but plants growing better, increased food production, fewer and less cold winters, are all net positives. The arctic, too, will flourish more under milder conditions. We could get to a point where we need to keep carbon dioxide levels high or risk a reduction in plant productivity and ecosystem damage, as the biosphere adapts to this increased abundance.

    • Gordon H

      Nothing wrong with being left leaning, everyone recognises the need for some sort of centralised government, but only very small ones.

      Nor does the climate respect political positions, exemplified by your excellent post.

    • We have a number of declared lefties here who can think for themselves and sift through the offerings from both sides – that’s the only qualifications you need to be a true sceptic. There are lots on the right who simply choose a contrarian stance without thought. Partisan non-thinkers muddy both sides of the issue.

      Regarding your politics I tell my friends and family on the left the party they support isn’t the same party it used to be. l hope the Trump win brings out some new blood in the left which truly has lost its way.

    • Gordon H.
      “The truth is that increased carbon dioxide and some additional warmth are almost entirely positive.”

      Can you provide any examples of harm
      caused by more CO2 in the air,
      and slightly warmer nights?

      I don’t know of any REAL harm to people,
      other than opportunity costs — all the money wasted
      studying “climate change”, with no return on the
      investment, that could have been used for something
      beneficial.

  15. Jesus – you put a neanderthal in charge of the EPA and this is what you get. It is like those people who still teach creationist theory whereas the Darwinian theory is staring them in the face.

    With Pruitt in charge at the EPA, the USA is going backwards in terms of its economy exploiting and taking advantage of renewable energies. Even though it is the second biggest investor in renewables (China being no. 1) it is comments like these that shows how this man – lets call him a numbskull and that’s being fair – should be replaced with someone who at least has a basic understanding of climate science. The sooner the better.

    This shows exactly how far and fast European countries are moving towards their 2020 renewable energy targets – take note Scott:

    https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/02/08/how-sweden-and-poland-are-transitioning-from-coal-to-renewable-energies/

    • Ivankinsman , can’t address the actual topic itself because he knows that Pruitt is correct, therefore create a bogus attack on him instead.

      You are pathetic, Ivan.

      • The sceptic fallacy that ‘the world is getting greener’ is completely laughable. Believe it and you must believe in creationist theory. Still living in the Stone Age Sunsettommy?

      • @ivankinsman
        All this name calling must be a hint at your rage.
        What the difference between you and a creationist believer, Ivan?

        In science, you are not suppose to “believe”. You are supposed to measure. Is ‘the world is getting greener’? So says photosynthesis index from NASA. So says the fact that people in Sahel no longer suffer less from drought. Is it wrong? maybe so. In science you can discuss. You even must. But you surely don’t dismiss the idea the way you carelessly do.

        so I ask again: What you think is the difference between you and a creationist believer, Ivan?
        Both of you trust holy scriptures by experts, and distrust opposing experts’ sinful scriptures, and believe THEY have the truth and the other is wrong, and discard each and every evidence that hint at the opposite.

      • ivan, NASA disagrees with you and has the data to prove it.
        The fact that CO2 is good for plants has been well known for a long time, it’s why greenhouses typically increase CO2 levels to over 1000ppm.

        Is there anything you know that is actually correct?

      • Once again, Ivan the terrible debater can’t reply to Pruitt’s statement with a rational counter. Decides to make a worthless sneering comment that has no redeeming quality to it.

        I see that others know what I know that it IS indeed a greening world largely due to increased CO2 ppm level in the atmosphere and a slowly warming world too.

        Why can’t you be rational?

        Still waiting for your reply to Mr. Pruitt,

        waiting…..

        Waiting.

      • “In science, you are not suppose to “believe”. You are supposed to measure.”

        Savages and fools believe; wise men investigate.”
        —Sir William Gull

    • Meanwhile, back where Neanderthals were first discovered:

      “Adjusted Upwards…German CO2 Equivalent Emissions Rise (Again) In 2016…No Reduction Since 2009!

      By P Gosselin on 27. January 2018

      Germany’s CO2 equivalent emissions revised upward for 2016. The country has barely seen any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions so far this decade but has seen its power prices skyrocket and power grid become far more unstable.”

      http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/27/adjusted-upwards-german-co2-equivalent-emissions-rise-again-in-2016-no-reduction-since-2009/#sthash.g499jOc8.dpbs

      Little pricey too:

      http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/20/new-study-german-agreed-2050-co2-reductions-could-cost-astronomical-2-8-trillion-by-2050/#sthash.qdVvjyOw.dpbs

      • Germany energy prices may be high but it is making them much more energy efficient compared to US households that may have cheaper prices but use a lot more energy in comparison.

        It was the same with water in Saudi Arabia. When I was there the water was almost free and as a result the wastage was incredible for a desert country. Now price hikes have been introduced and I am sure the Saudis will now start to think about water saving measures.

        https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power

      • @ivan
        You don’t even see that you are promoting dictatorship and poverty. Poor people tend to be more efficient, for sure; they repair even shoes and shirts, instead of discarding them and buying new one. Is that your ideal? Just stick with it, then, and leave other people alone.
        And you contradict yourself, without even noticing: your water in Saudi Arabia example is all about the bad consequences of subsidies: overproduction, overconsumption, and waste.

      • ivankinsman

        “I am sure the Saudis will now start to think about water saving measures.”

        In other words, you are guessing, you don’t know, you don’t have data, and you speculate as if you do. Hmm… Do you do this on any other topic?

        Just wondering.

      • According to the socialist, the fact that energy prices are so high that people are forced to do without, is a good thing.

      • Ivan
        German energy expenditure per family home is smaller NOT because of efficiency.
        But due to the simple fact that the average German home or flat, including all those recently assimilated East Germans, is about 2-3 times smaller than the US equivalent.

    • @ivan
      Name calling.
      Lets stick to the facts:
      1)Neanderthal had a bigger brain than we do, and obviously at least as civilized as his Sapiens contemporaries. Only ignorant people use it as name-calling
      2)Darwinian FACTS are staring you in the face, you pretend to even teach the theory, but when it comes to admit the consequences (that species had been, are, and will be changing because of –among other things– climate change, that always happened, happens, and will happen), you reel.
      3)you teach using a figure where Earth is literally flat with no day or night and no season (Earth energy budget).
      4)And you don’t want the human to mess with the current Earth, lest he be expelled as Adam was from Eden.
      So WHO is the creationist flat-Earth bigot here?

    • Ivan: ‘ It is like those people who still teach CAGW theory whereas the historical facts are staring them in the face’. There – fixed.

    • ivankinsman

      “exploiting and taking advantage of renewable energies. ”

      I.e. taxing the general population, to hand over subsidies to the very wealthy, to create vast wastelands of renewable energy sources, that consume vast amounts of natural resources like coal and oil to produce, while the renewables themselves are wastefully inefficient.

    • ivankinsman,

      You can’t compare Sweden with Poland. Sweden has mainly hydro power and nuclear, hardly any fossil fuel use for power. Poland uses over 90% (brown)coal for power.

      For the rest, I have the impression that you have not the slightest idea of what happens in Europe with the renewable targets. Besides countries like Norway and Sweden with lots of hydro dams, only France (70%) and to a lesser extent Belgium (50%) have mostly CO2-free nuclear power. Both countries face aging plants and when closed, wind and sun can’t cope with the loss and need gas backup which increases the CO2 output, as is the case for Germany, even while they have 100% installed capacity in renewables. Unfortunately, installed capacity is not the same as 24/24, 7/7 real production…

      I don’t think that any European country will reach the European Union targets, except by closing all factories and moving them to China and India, where coal still is the dominant fuel for power…

      • What a load of rubbish. I know that Sweden and Poland are different – I live in Poland! France leads the way in cutting-edge nucleur technology. Most European countries are on course to meet their targets – it may take a longer timeframe but it will be achievable.

        Who is talking about 100% renewables? This is a complete impossibility. It is obvious they cannot constitute this, but they can certainly contribute a very large proportion to the energy mix in many countries.

      • “except by closing all factories and moving them to China and India, ”
        Which they did: Mittal got wagons of money (under Emissions Trading Scheme) to close his foundries in Europe, and build some new one anywhere else in the world (In India, just for instance).

      • ivankinsman

        I was in Warsaw at the CCAC/ICCI conference last May. There I was assured that if anyone tried to take beloved coal away from the Polish public there would be riots in the street. Poland exports 170,000 coal-fired boilers each year. One of the universities has a $3000 low pressure boiler that meets the new Euro 5 emissions standard with PLC lambda and fuel control and electrostatic precipitator.

        Interestingly, that same emissions performance is being met in Kyrgyzstan with $160 stoves made on the street using crossdraft gasifier technology. The future of clean coal combustion is going to remain long and glorious, especially for the rural and poor people of Asia.

        Next stop, Kraków, I think.

      • Ivankinsman, I was not talking about 100% renewables, but about 100% installed capacitity in Germany. That is already a problem, as one moment they have 100% power from renewables for which they have no consumption (thus dump that on their neighbors, including Poland…) and the next moment they have 10% from renewables and must power up all the coal and browncoal plants they have…

        The main problem in Europe is that they want to show how good they are for the environment, while neither China and India and recent the US have to follow the same route, where the US has its own low gas prices (1/3 of Europe) thanks to fracking while the price of power – for households – is highest in windchampion Denmark, folowed by Germany… If they should impose the same price on German industry, that would be the end of the story for the German “Wirtschaftswunder”…

      • Ivan
        Who is talking about 100% renewables?
        Practically all the self appointed green-left “opinion leaders” are calling loudly and aggressively for 100% renewables. Contradict them and you will be labelled a “denyer”.

    • Ivan: Si tacuisses … . Inviting people to one’s web-site is not always a good idea.
      I recommend to you to stop reading the Guardian – at least for a while.

      What is the optimal number of earth-dwellers?

    • I’m shocked ivankinsman – since renewables are now cheaper than coal, how is it possible they aren’t sweeping the field even without government support?

      • They are Eric – go to any country around the world and you’ll see them in some form or other, and the uptake is on the increase. I put you in the ‘Nokia’ category as compared to the ‘smartphone’ category i.e. Nokia ignored the smartphone and look where Nokia is now.

      • No doubt he will claim that since fossil fuels haven’t been banned, this constitutes a subsidy for fossil fuels.

    • Germany abandoned it 2020 goals.
      The US economy is the strongest growth economy in the west right now.
      Confusing (deceiving) by you about Pruitt only shows your inability to think or discuss.
      Thanks for playing, Ivan.

    • Love the way you socialists just assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with your precious selves, must be stupid and or evil.
      If China wants to waste it’s money investing in sure lose propositions, so much the better for us.

    • “Jesus – you put a neanderthal in charge of the EPA…”

      You mean like McCarthy? Yeah another four years of that ilk being in charge of the EPA and we would have seen virgin sacrifices to “save” us from “climate change.” Which would have been every bit as effective as wasting our resources on “renewables.”

      “With Pruitt in charge at the EPA, the USA is moving forward in terms of its economy exploiting and taking advantage of sustainable, dependable energy sources.”

      There, fixed it for you.

      “Even though the U.S. has been saddled with the second biggest money flush in renewables (China being no. 1), thanks to the previous administration’s pushing of the Eco-Fascist agenda, it is comments like these that shows how this man – lets call him a genius and that’s being fair – should never be replaced with another numbskull who surrenders to “climate science” propaganda.”

      There, fixed it for you.

      “This shows exactly how far and fast European countries are moving towards their 2020 renewable energy targets – take note Scott:

      https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/02/08/how-sweden-and-poland-are-transitioning-from-coal-to-renewable-energies/

      Glad to hear it; I’m sure Scott is too. This will make them less competitive, and the U.S. can enjoy the spoils of increased economic prosperity. When they have completed their “renewable” transition and are freezing their rear ends to death in the dark, maybe they’ll figure out what a stupid idea it was to begin with.

      • Your in the Nokia category rather than the smartphone category in your attitude to renewables. Nokia chose to write off the smartphone and look where Nokia is now – Oh, there is more Nokia.

    • “Even though it is the second biggest investor in renewables (China being no. 1)”
      They’re also one of the biggest investors in coal-fired power stations. And they don’t pay carbon tax! Of course they’ll make money selling unnecessary, unreliable, equipment that produces expensive energy as long as enough idiots can be found that are willing to pay..

    • And boom, just like that Ivankinsman arrives.

      Hey Ivankinsman, how is your cult doing? As someone who is religious with a degree in Theology as well as Engineering, I can assure you that you are not practicing science but neither are you practicing any religion.

      What you practice is a cult.

      Unquestioned devotion to the belief, larger than life figureheads, calls for sacrifice and giving to the leaders, manipulation of emotions towards non-believers, forced to cut off family who don’t believe, rigid control of life and lifestyles – man AGW hits on every major point.

      The only question left for guys like you Ivankinsman is if you are a leader “in the know” or one of the brainwashed followers.

      I will say it again in capital letters – ANY BELIEF SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR QUESTIONING IS A CULT.

      • Message from the cult leader!

        Very happy for people to question my belief system if they can provide solid, factual, independently verified evidence (not other WUWT commentators) to support their point of view.

        I believe part of this issue is that US sceptics very often focus just on their own backyard instead of looking at what is going on in their community i.e. the ROW.

        Whilst your cult leader spouts off about saving the US coal industry and creating jobs, other countries that are very coal-dependent have already started to move in the other direction. Here are just a couple of examples of what is happening in India that supports my argument:

        https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/02/09/tamil-nadu-the-indian-state-to-become-a-global-leader-in-clean-energy/

        https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/02/09/how-indias-smart-villages-are-centralising-solar-power-%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4-%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87-%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9F-%E0%A4%97/

      • http://r.search.aol.com/_ylt=AwrSbmyRlH1aaWEAwU5pCWVH;_ylu=X3oDMTByYnR1Zmd1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg–/RV=2/RE=1518208273/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.latimes.com%2fworld%2fasia%2fla-fg-india-polluted-cities-20160512-snap-story.html/RK=0/RS=iU8a3CNwyANgB.1E97Z9iwi0oDc-

        Even the most polluted city in the US of A doesn’t even rank in the most 1,000…. “The U.S. city with the most serious air pollution – Visalia, Calif. – had an average reading of 18, too low to even qualify as one of the 1,000 dirtiest cities.” Let’s talk about “real pollution” and not about atmospheric fertilizer that all life on earth depends upon. Your zealotry in your religion of demonizing carbon dioxide has past grown old and needs to die. Increasing Carbon Dioxide and a warming planet is the most beneficial combination of supporting more life, than you’re trying to go back to the pre industrial age CO2 level ideologies of saving the planet would ever achieve. What is it that scares you so much about a greener and healthier Earth, that you’d want to reverse it?

      • This had me laughing out loud!

        Let’s take a scenario of a city like Beijing. This is well-known for the high CO2/ppm in its atmosphere.

        Now according to your idiotic argument Beijing should be being like a jungle and its citizens frolicking around outside with their kids. But in fact it is the very opposite scenario. Yeah – let’s pump more CO2 into the atmosphere – Christ it’s a dumb argument

        (I am growing tired of your abusive style of commenting, you need to improve your writing to help make your debate with others work) MOD

      • @Ivankinsman
        you are told that you are religion-less cultist, a very bad cult demanding control over everybody life, that the only question remaining is whether “you are a leader “in the know” or one of the brainwashed followers”, and your answer to this pretty insulting ad hominem is to
        * claim you a priori discard any evidence provided by WUWT commentators (well, what are you doing here, then?).
        * proudly claim being part of the vangard that KNOWS and non-believers backward retards you associate another scarecrow of yours
        * post some propaganda not even related to the dispute (expect maybe that it does show the cult behavior, and it is nasty), (oh, this answer the question “what are you doing here”)

        Seriously, does this looks like someone very happy to question his belief system?

      • Every brainwashed cultist sees himself as a leader regarding the non believer.
        Very few turn into real leader in their cult, and those are not haunting non-believers dens.
        Just saying.

      • I see that Ivan, suddenly ignore my well supported rebuttal to his proudly snottily sneering statement about the Earth greening up.

        I wrote,

        “Ivan, for your education.

        NASA says this in 2016,

        Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

        “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

        An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.”
        https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

        Now that I just made a fool out of your sneering ignorance, will you finally show maturity by dropping your infantile snottiness and get into a real debate about what Mr. Pruitt stated?”

        You yet to be on topic about what EPA Administrator stated about warming is good. You call him names and be well off topic about Coal. I kept asking you about what he says, you keep avoiding it,

        “ivankinsman February 9, 2018 at 1:50 am

        Message from the cult leader!

        Very happy for people to question my belief system if they can provide solid, factual, independently verified evidence (not other WUWT commentators) to support their point of view.

        I believe part of this issue is that US sceptics very often focus just on their own backyard instead of looking at what is going on in their community i.e. the ROW. ”

        This is what YOU a hypocrite looks like………

        You don’t argue honestly, while you ignore effective counterpoints, you are continually off topic with abusive comments, which is why you get some heat in return.

        You sir are a troll.

  16. “Is it an existential threat, is it something that is unsustainable, or what kind of effect or harm is this going to have?” he said. “We know that humans have most flourished during times of, what, warming trends?”

    Our illustrious EPA leader obviously has no conception of the environment he is supposed to protect. Not a clue. “…of what, warming trends? (What was it I was supposed to say again?)”

    Ignorance is such a comfortable protection from responsibility. It’s much easier to sit back and say that scientists are making things up, since it saves the effort of learning what they really say, It’s instead filtered through the media or blogs, which translate the world, warp and censure it and give you what you want to hear because that’s what sells, and what they want to sell. Do you not know that stories from the media are cut and pasted in a way that sends a message and leaves the other side of the argument behind? Do you notice when a media article is edited to show how biased or dumb it is, when that’s not the case if it is read as a whole? I had hoped for more integrity here.

    There is propaganda everywhere. The liberals and greens have it, and the conservatives and contrarians have it, too. True skepticism is not focused only on opposing beliefs, but on all beliefs. Contrarian is a better term.

    https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108
    This article discusses just some of the effects of increased CO2 on plant growth. There are potential benefits and potential drawbacks. For instance, although growth is increased, there is less nitrogen in the tissue, and that means less protein. This is not just a consideration for humans, but for the whole food chain – some caterpillars, for instance, develop more slowly on CO2-enhanced plants (seemingly minor changes can interact with other parts of the ecosystem in surprising ways). Photosynthetic rate increases, yes, and that means the pores in the leaves are open less. That may be a benefit in some conditions, but it could also have effects on the water table and regional climate, as less water is moved through the plants and into the air. It’s a complex system, evolved over millennia, with resilience and flexibility, but that doesn’t mean that it’s immune to destabilization and drastic change.

    Not mentioned are issues like how the relative growth rate will affect the vegetation (including crops). For instance, if weeds are able to take better advantage of the increased CO2 than crops, more resources will have to go into weed control. There are many effects to consider, and many more we can’t foresee.

    (My Master’s is in Ecology and Evolution, and it influences how I see the world.)

    • P.S. I’m not preaching that catastrophe will happen, I believe that the risks of great future cost is too high to ignore, especially when we are already experiencing some of the costs.

      • I believe that the risks of great future cost is too high to ignore”

        You belief are worth diddly-squat! Man does not control the climate.

        IMO doubling the current level of CO2, and finding some way for global average temperatures to rise by about 2°C would ensure a better future for all — you included.

      • Kristi

        I hope the world and how it is, influences your perceptions more than your training and education. I appreciate how your interest is deep enough to find pluses and minuses.

        Plants are nearly starving at ice age CO2 concentrations. That surely concerns you. In 4 billion years, the concentration had never been so low due to a loss of CO2 to calcified material and fossil fuels like coal and peat.

        I find it interesting that just as the world as about to run out of CO2, Mankind discovers the ability to increase it again while developing an ever-progressing civilisation. In a thousand years or so we may run out of coal. By then the atmosphere will have regained its life sustaining capacity and productivity will be enhanced for perhaps a few million years, depending on what the ocean give up.

        The fact that ‘weeds’ will also grow better means nothing. Of course they will. But a weed is just a plant in the wrong place. Basic Permaculture controls weeds and unwanted species quite effectively. Just because the growth rate increases does not mean all will be bad. How could lowering the growth rate of plants be universally better? That makes no sense.

        If we taught people to live in harmony with the environment instead of raging against the winds of change in the vain hope of recreating an “Eden” that never existed and was not lost, we would all do far better. There are far more benefits to increased warmth and higher CO2 than negatives. That doesn’t mean we should be wasteful or eschew vigilance.

        If people want to worry about something, let them worry about the extremes of wealth and poverty.

      • Crispin, you have hit the nail on the head. It seems that not every ecologist knows about the function of weeds, or how to get nitrogen into the ground naturally.

      • Thanks to all who post your hatred and anger over Sec. Pruitt stating the obvious evidence based truth.
        It is very clear few of you have no more reasoning ability than a reactionary religious fundamentalist.
        I appreciate your making that so abundantly clear.

      • There are no risks.
        When CO2 levels were above 5000ppm in the past, life flourished and the earth was barely any warmer than it is today.

        As NASA’s clorophyl surveys prove, plants are very happy with more CO2 in the air.

        Even the IPCC has given up trying to claim that the earth is going to warm more than a couple more degrees.

      • @Crispin in Waterloo, well said.

        @Kristi, worrying about the “risks of great future cost” is an ASSUMPTION that the “climate science” you “believe” in is valid; it’s disagreement with the Earth’s climate history, and with observations, says it isn’t – so your concern is unfounded.

        Meanwhile, the costs of attempting to mitigate the future you worry about are astronomical, and would cause far more damage than doing nothing – and this is a KNOWN FACT (if you bother to take off the blinders and investigate it), not some computer-generated fantasy.

        Squandering TRILLIONS to effect some meaningless reduction in temperature 100 years from now is a fool’s errand, when those resources could be used to solve ACTUAL, EXISTING problems.

      • Kristi, most people don’t survive on the plant itself. They survive using the fruits and grains produced by the plant. Tell us what research shows about the proteins in the fruits and grains when CO2 concentrations are higher. Do you ever wonder why greenhouses (and not just for flowers) use high levels of CO2?

      • Crispin: “I hope the world and how it is, influences your perceptions more than your training and education.”

        What an insult! What a ridiculous, foolish comment! You have no idea what you are talking about. Absolutely no clue.

        ……………………………………………………………………

        ALL: That’s what bothers me more than the climate fight – the idea that so many don’t have a bit of respect for what mainstream scientists know, learn, or do. People here have been told how to see science and scientists, and that’s what you do. You dismiss whatever science doesn’t suit you, then believe it Truth when the same data are used in some simplistic way to support a belief – exactly how science is not supposed to be done. You bring up good, interesting points, saying “if only scientists didn’t ignore this…” but when I go to explore, I find it’s already been addressed by the mainstream. The assumption is always that scientists are too stupid to think of what is brought up elsewhere. While it’s true that there’s value in seeing things in new ways, the assumption
        that they are new is not appropriate. Nor is it reasonable to assume that just because an idea is new, it is worth pursuing.

        It’s bizarre how often people accuse the Other of being victims of propaganda and don’t see propaganda to which they expose themselves, or how they spread it. It’s all over!
        …………………………………………………………………………

        Plants are nearly starving at ice age CO2 concentrations. That surely concerns you. WHY SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED LONG AGO? “STARVING PLANTS”? THAT’S SILLY. SMALLER AND DIFFERENT, PROBABLY, WITH FINE, SMALL LEAVES DOING WELL (IF H2O IS ADEQUATE, ETC.) In 4 billion years, the concentration had never been so low due to a loss of CO2 to calcified material and fossil fuels like coal and peat.

        I find it interesting that just as the world as about to run out of CO2 HUH? RUN OUT OF CO2???,…

        The fact that ‘weeds’ will also grow better means nothing. MAYBE NOT TO SOMEONE WHO DOESN’T KNOW ABOUT INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT, BUT THAT’S MY AREA OF EXPERTISE. $ BILLIONS SPENT ANNUALLY IN U.S. ON INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL, AND RISING; VERY BIG PROBLEM.

        How could lowering the growth rate of plants be universally better? That makes no sense. NO ONE IS ADVOCATING THAT.
        ……………………………….
        feliksch: ” It seems that not every ecologist knows about the function of weeds, or how to get nitrogen into the ground naturally.”

        You’re right, not everyone knows those things. What’s your point? Oh, I see, it’s innuendo, a slimy slap at me. I know all that and much much more, feliksch.

        Does anybody besides me see all the dumb assumptions on this page?

        I suppose you think me an alarmist? I don’t care, I don’t have kid, so do what you want, see how it pans out. In 2100 they will say, “Maybe if our country could have come together 100 years ago we would not have had to witness such upheaval and suffering. How could they sit back and do nothing?” I care about taking responsibility. Because I’m not going to feel the effects, and I don’t take the risk for myself, that is all the more reason not to shirk my responsibility. I do what I can, in my small way. Alarmism, pseudo-compassion, emotional, socialist…take your pick of derogatory terms to prop up your animosity.

        People often say, “Well, X years ago the Earth was going through the same thing” as if that means, if it happened before now, it can’t be catastrophic. I don’t discount positive effects, but what is positive in one way may be not so good in another (and vice versa). Humans as a species will do fine even if at terrible cost.

        Ach, too many comments to respond to

    • An excellent response to the sceptic ‘greenist’ theory – thank you for posting this comment as there are a lot of commentators on this site who just spout this theory without really understanding what they are talking about.

      • Ivan,

        Still waiting for your reasoned counter to Mr. Pruitt who so far has a made a better case than you.

        Carry on with your evasive replies that shows you have NOTHING to say about it.

      • Ivan, for your education.

        NASA says this in 2016,

        Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

        “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

        An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.”

        https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

        Now that I just made a fool out of your sneering ignorance, will you finally show maturity by dropping your infantile snottiness and get into a real debate about what Mr. Pruitt stated?

    • “For instance, although growth is increased, there is less nitrogen in the tissue, and that means less protein.”
      Not true.
      For a given plant, there may be less nitrogen as a %, but the absolute quantities of nitrogen actually increase.
      For the whole biosphere less CO2 and water stress means the next limiting factor comes to play. This will be nitrogen most of the time, and this will benefit nitrogen fixing plants, and more nitrogen will be fixed as a whole.

      But I agree, there will be benefits ant drawbacks,and some being will do better and other worse, and adaptation will go on. Nihil nove sub sole.

    • K S
      I had a look at the paper the you linked to and l have grown many grain and forage crops for close on sixty years .
      This is a very general study and a lot off the conclusions that the researchers came to are questionable in my opinion.
      For instance most farmers apply fertiliser to meet the needs of the crop that they are growing and would apply a bit more nitrogen and other nutrients if CO2 levels were pushing the plants to fast ..
      Growing food crops is a specialist science based undertaking with soil and tissue tests and also very specialized weed control .
      I would point out that glass houses have had CO2 enrichment added for many years and the growers manage just fine .
      Any one arguing against the benefits of rising food production with the increase in the CO2 level in the atmosphere does not know anything about farming and food production .
      It is happening it is real and nothing will stop it and if the predicted cooler global period arrives the elevated CO2 will go a long way to feed the world.

      • GWAN:

        I am not talking about food production. I’m talking about plant growth in general. I’m talking about the big picture, the ecosystems on which we depend more than we realize. Low N could mean that a caterpillar species grows more slowly, and it’s a main food on the migratory route for a bird, so the bird doesn’t get as far north, where its feeding and nesting grounds are. Since they are major dispersers of tree seeds up north, the forests no longer colonize cut areas so quickly – and there’s your economic impact. This is all HYPOTHETICAL but plausible (such things happen) in order to demonstrate that small changes can have big, unforeseeable effects. This is how I think.

        Normally nature can adapt, but it’s never changed this quickly. Evolution is sometimes quick, sometimes slow, depending on many factors.

        Climate is about more than CO2 – and so is farming. It’s not always very easy to increase inputs to support the potential outputs. Raising water use efficiency doesn’t necessarily lower water use for a field, and there are areas where aquifers are falling/failing.

        There are some researchers who suggest there’s a cap on the increase in CO2 a plant can take up. It makes sense from a developmental standpoint: a plant only has so much plasticity. The evidence from observation seems to support it, too.

        Organisms are highly interconnected, in ways that aren’t obvious. They have adapted together. While many are resilient, even they have their limits. We are potentially entering a time when many of those interconnections are severed. This barely ever gets discussed, but there is great uncertainty in how this will all be played out at the level of organisms, but underlying that is the certainty that such large and rapid changes are not good. Some will thrive, but they may not be the ones we want to thrive. For example, a forest may have a mix of slow-growing, high-quality lumber and a quick-growing cheap trash wood. They’ve both been constrained by drought, but now the quick grower takes off, better able to respond quickly to the increase in CO2. It’s more wood, but not desirable wood. The quick-grower then spreads lots of seeds, and it goes on.

    • Sorry, the fallacy in your position depends on historical ignorance,,,,in fact denial of history is what you rely on.

    • Your “ecology” is one of the corrupted wings of the very corrupted biological science (think Ehrlich). You are clearly a younger person who hasn’t had the experience to see what happened to the once sterling discipline that had its “Einstein” in Darwin. You wouldn’t be allowed a teaching position if you didn’t accept CAGW or job positions in NGO.

      I do give you kudos for detecting the corruption and collusion with political “masters” in the MSM, though. Apply suspension of belief in your own field and don’t be “accepting” without evidence satisfactory to your own logical thinking – deference to authority and hand waving doesn’t meet a minimum standard. If you don’t do this, you are just part of another branch of the MSM.

      I studied paleo-ecology as a student of geology and of course geologists provided most of what you know about the ancient history of the biosphere. The whole plant kingdom spent most of its over half a billion years thriving under several thousand ppm CO2. This is THE experiment that should put your mind at ease. Plants were actually struggling under 250ppm. Even the plants are trying to tell you something important about your field when they can change the number of stomata on their leaves as required. Tell me why did the develop this trait.

      • Your “ecology” is one of the corrupted wings of the very corrupted biological science (think Ehrlich). You are clearly a younger person who hasn’t had the experience to see what happened to the once sterling discipline that had its “Einstein” in Darwin.

        “You” know “nothing” about “ecology.” Ehrlich! That’s a riot that people think of him when they think of ecology. Him and Rachel Carson. (Actually it’s not at all a riot – those two are NAMED in FF proposals as examples of ridiculous science to be used in their propaganda — why else would anyone think of them after all these years?)

        “Clearly a younger person”? Younger than what? 99? 65? 3?

        What has happened to ecology? Hmmm? Please tell.

        “The whole plant kingdom spent most of its over half a billion years thriving under several thousand ppm CO2. This is THE experiment that should put your mind at ease. Plants were actually struggling under 250ppm. Even the plants are trying to tell you something important about your field when they can change the number of stomata on their leaves as required. Tell me why did the develop this trait.”

        You don’t understand evolution or plant growth or plasticity. You want to insult me, I’ve no reason to educate you. You will never see these things as I do.

        You are not going to get a good argument from the paleoclimate showing that AGW will be fine.. This suite of conditions now is new, unique, and the change is rapid – and that is very important. .We are soon entering about a decade of cooler temps. It’s when the sun and the carbon forcing are in synchrony that we will have the test of our preparation and adaptation.

    • Kristi
      What do the Medieval warm period, the Roman warm period, the Minoan warm period and the Summerian warm periods, have in common? Why indeed do they have the names that they have?
      Clue:
      (a) they were warm
      (b) they coincided with peaks of civilizational development and human prosperity and wellbeing.

      • ptolemy2: (a) & (b)

        & (c) were, inconveniently, warmer despite a lower CO2 concentration than it is now thus helping to debunk the foundational basis for CAGW.

  17. The idiots were really “triggered” by this. This was the rant from @Badastronomer Phil Plait:

    “The willful ignorance, the obstinate denial, the sheer absurdity of arguments like this show just how deeply dangerous the Trump administration is. Pruitt is the worst of them, yet runs one of the most important agencies.”

    • Freeman Dyson predicted this increase in agricultural productivity long ago, and it is an important reson for why he believes increasing CO2 is beneficial to the poor, especially in Asia.

  18. Of course Pruitt was only saying what scientists like Arrhenius and Callendar said. Here is Callendar in 1938:

    “In conclusion it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905). In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.”

  19. Pruitt doesn’t want to or couldn’t be bothered to end the endangerment finding on CO2. It seems he is an idiot.

    • Couldn’t agree more. He is too busy being wined and dined by the lobbyist community to focus on protecting the environment. He will do anything to smooth the path of industry – Big Oil, Big Ag etc. so that he can show his boss that he is performing the role of lap dog in the Trump Administration.

      • You could just had written the same without “Big Oil, Big Ag etc.” and “lap dog”, and it would had been fine and pretty truthful. You just cannot help yourself, can you?
        Also, why didn’t you rant the same when previous administration was “too busy being wined and dined by the lobbyist community to focus on protecting the environment” and “doing anything to smooth the path of industry – Big Wind, Big EV etc. ” ?
        What is so noble and holy in a wind pump-jack, that an oil pump-jack miss?

      • Hateful irrational unsubstantiable prejudiced made up [pruned]. You can’t prove a single thing you have asserted in your comment.

      • Still no cogent response to Mr. Pruitt…..

        Waiting and waiting is all I expect from you.

        Your sneering irrelevant attack on him doesn’t work here. It is an old “big oil” complaint that never looked smart.

      • As always, the socialist assumes that only evil people would ever disagree with them.
        The idea that someone could come to a different conclusion through an impartial review of the evidence is incapable of penetrating their collective minds.

      • What an ignorant, counter factual perspective you offer.
        But that goes hand in hand with being climate obsessed.

      • MarkW February 8, 2018 at 8:10 am
        “Our new trolls are bad enough that I almost miss Griff.”

        I tried to get people here to go easier on him. I called him far better than the rest of his ilk.

    • Thanks to all who post your hatred and anger over Sec. Pruitt stating the obvious evidence based truth.
      It is very clear few of you have no more reasoning ability than a reactionary religious fundamentalist.
      I appreciate your making that so abundantly clear.

    • “Pruitt doesn’t want to or couldn’t be bothered to end the endangerment finding on CO2.”

      His statement now could very well be a prelude to launching a review and lead to reversing the “finding”.

  20. I have 30 plus degree temperature changes over the space of a single year in my garden. It all looks pretty healthly?

    • In Karasjok, Norway the lowest recorded temperature is -51,4C. I served some of my military service just a few miles away and we experienced +34C in summer. That’s more than 85C difference at the same place, yet life has adapted. How a 1-2C recovery from LIA should make any difference is beyond me, but someone with a ‘Master’s is in Ecology and Evolution’ (Kristi Silber….?) can probably explain this (with help from his/her Kinsman…..).

      • Early this morning I was sitting comfortably at the puter reading this article. The house temp is set at 22C. Then I went outside to get the paper and feed the birds and deer. It was -40C, and I had to be out about 15 minutes. That is a 62C temp swing in 15 minutes. Nearly froze my butt off. Cope with reality Ivan and Kristi. I was beginning to think you worked on the 7th floor of the FBI building in D.C., where, apparently, they have trouble accepting reality.

      • Nowegian Sceptic. Karasjok! I keep a notebook of curious observations (not a regular and disciplined one). In one note I ask: why do so many places in a band completely around the world in the north have place names that end in the letter “k”, often “vik” or “ik”: inuvik, Aklavik, Igloolik, kujuak, Nuuk, Reykjavik, Larvik (I’ve been there), Murmansk, Novosibirsk, omsk, Vladivostok to name only a few. I realize it is linguistic, but it seems to involve several ethnicities.

  21. To say a head exploding live, just read ivankinsman above.
    Scott Pruitt concentrate TDS+CAGW fire, and he stands the heat. I love that.

  22. Oh how I laughed at this there must be green heads exploding all over the place
    “OH Dear How Sad Never Mind”
    See this is what you get when people know history.

    James Bull

  23. You mean that I will get to see totty running around naked. Why couldn’t it have happened 40 years ago.

  24. Even the BBC admits, accidentally, that cooling is the real problem. In a news item today:

    Climate change
    Then as now, climate change was a key factor. “We know that led to famine,” says Eric Cline professor of archaeology at George Washington University, Washington DC

    Indeed, pollen analysis, marine and oxygen isotope data show the period experienced 300-year-long droughts. The Mediterranean cooled significantly at this time, reducing rainfall levels over land.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42864071

    Of course, they try to disguise the fact that cooling was the problem, by calling it ‘Climate Change’. It IS the BBC, after all.

  25. My neighbourhood is built on a drumlin dated to only 10k BP.

    For the sake of my children and humanity I hope and pray for continued global warming, the end of the present Holocene interglacial is too horrifying to contemplate.

  26. I’ve read articles stating that in North Africa, where we now have the Sahara Desert, we had savannah several thousand years ago. Contrary to intuition, the desert happened NOT through global warming, but due to a slight COOLING!
    A slight warming in North Africa’s temperature could induce a monsoon effect from the Mediterranean,, bringing back savannah and lakes to North Africa.

    • It is very easy to understand why warming leads to smaller deserts and cooling to larger ones (on average, since it is very difficult to predict what will happen at one particular spot). Cooler means larger glaciers, so more water is locked up outside evaporation-rain cycle. Less rain, so larger deserts. The opposite happens when the earth warms and the glaciers shrink. Since temperatures at the equator do not vary much compared to those at the poles, warmer climates are — on average — better for everyone.

      • @D. Cohen.
        Not so easy, as your explanation by water being locked in glaciers is wrong. The water not locked in glaciers in warmer time just flowed to the sea, where it is just as locked.
        Sahara is a desert because the place of downward airflow from Hadley cell is in North Africa. This air is dry and get hotter in its downward motion, and then move southward in Sahara (nice illustration at wikipedia “Hadley cell”)
        Should the Hadley cell be larger, this downward flow would be above Mediterranean sea instead, This air would evaporate a great deal water, and turn it into rain over North Africa mountains, and then river into the Sahara, which wouldn’t be a desert anymore (again).
        It can be argued that warmer Earth has wider Hadley cell, but this is a very different explanation from yours.

      • Sea water evaporates from the sea surface, so it is still part of the evaporation-rain cycle. If you want an intermediate step in the reasoning, consider that as the sea level rises due to glaciers melting, the area of the sea surface increases, so more evaporation occurs leading to more rain. As for the Hadley cells, they determine **where** on earth — that is, the approxiamte latitudes — at which we can expect to find a desert. Exactly where the “edges” of the desert are — say, for example, their northern and southern boundaries — that can change (on average) as the climate warms or cools. If the boundaries move outward, the desert grows in size, and if they move inward it shrinks.

      • @D. Cohen
        Obviously Sahara IS currently a desert, despite the sea extension being close to a maximum, so your sea-level explanation doesn’t work, either.
        I agree with your point that a smaller Hadley cell means, a priori, a smaller desert, but it also matters if the downward airflow is above sea (where is will charge itself of moisture again) or land.

  27. Great! Now start a regular jab a week schedule in the mirror image of the Obama pattern of PR lies from each agency on a rotating basis.

  28. As a journalist, there is one phrase I cannot stand, “Scientists say…”
    as in the above story, “Scientists have disputed that premise …”
    That phrase means that there are at least two people claiming to be scientists who say that thing.
    But of course, there are also can be found at least two scientists who say the opposite thing. But the writer does not include that. Thus her personal opinion is inserted into the report.

  29. It’s warmer at night, but not during the day. Colder parts of the earth are warming, while the tropics are not warming. I believe we are witnessing “Global Tempering” or “Global Mellowing”. Everyone, chill… it’s time to celebrate!

  30. The scam relies heavily on everyone believing that warming is bad “everywhere” … that is, wherever there are few to no people to refute it.

  31. The E&E News report quoted is exceptional in that the words quoted here actually appear to be a sensible balanced report, not dripping with green alarmist cant and dogma. Congratulations to the authors and the editor. It shows just how low most of the media has sunk when I feel the need to congratulate such people for just doing their job properly.

    Scott Pruitt continues to go up in my estimation.

    • I still think he needs to do a number of outdoor press conferences on the Canadian border in ND or MN like maybe starting this week. Move the WH press room there also.

  32. We humans do migrate to the warmer climate. Just look where we have chosen to live. Where do we find most of the population? Arctic? Antarctica? If a colder climate were preferable, we’d be there.

    • 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of our southern boarder (the only major centers outside that distance is Edmonton and Calgary, approximately 2million people). It is because it is warmer, and crops survive better there.

  33. In the rigidly close-minded world of absolutists, there is no grey, and moral relativity only applies to their own deviance.

  34. I did engage a few people in comments on one story about this. The story didn’t even try to present info to defend the “consensus” position against the claim, they just found 10 ways to says, look how dumb he is to even suggest it. So called journalism.

    What was really exceptional and stood out in the reposnse to my comments and others, was they didn’t argue that the overall outcome would be bad on average (the actual consensus opinion as it is). They instead viciously and religiously attacked any notion (no matter how small) that “anything” could ever possibly get better since global warming was “discovered”, even the tiniest bit was unacceptable. Every measure of every single topic had to be getting worse, and no amount of data would disuade them. When asked for proof of their position, they would present “predictions” of future problems as contrary evidence to real world data that showed improvement. It was surreal. 99% absolute seething uncontrolled rage and hate..and 1% cut and paste of things they mostly misunderstood at best.

Comments are closed.