Climate skeptics are gaining ground.
Zack Colman, E&E News reporter
There’s always been a vocal subset of conservatives who cast doubt on climate science, but what were once fringe views among broader Republicans — like warming’s a hoax — are enjoying a growing acceptance in the GOP, worrying academics, scientists and sociologists.
“They have taken over the [U.S.] EPA,” Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard University who has studied climate denier groups extensively, said in an email. “A very sad state of affairs.”
The groups sowing climate doubt are more emboldened than ever before, sociologists and historians said. Their effectiveness in the era of President Trump is a reflection of a deepening polarization in U.S. politics and a normalization of climate skepticism on the right, they said.
Democrats and Republicans have never been further apart on climate change, according to public opinion polling released last week by Gallup.
The results illuminate the anti-science sentiment within the GOP. The poll found that 82 percent of Democrats believe global warming has already begun compared with 34 percent of Republicans (Climatewire, March 28).
That rift has contributed to major differences between the Republican administrations of Trump and former President George W. Bush, said Riley Dunlap, an environmental sociologist at Oklahoma State University. Bush’s government internalized climate skeptics, but the groups scoring victories were largely silent when policies went their way. Now, however, those same organizations like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute boldly proclaim success — and then push even further.
“It’s like they sense victory. They are proclaiming victories, and they keep pushing,” Dunlap said. “This extreme radicalization of the Republican Party means they don’t have to hide it. They don’t have to dress it up like Bush 43 did. They can be in-your-face deniers.”
That’s materialized in recent weeks. EPA said it would no longer use science without publicly available data to craft regulations, honoring a long-sought industry goal (Climatewire, March 19). The agency also instructed employees to use skeptic talking points when describing its climate change research, according to a leaked memo obtained by HuffPost.
Organizations like the Heartland Institute had fought for the “secret science” initiative when it was introduced by House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas). It never got through Congress. Opponents argued it would prohibit use of hallmark public health studies that rely on confidential patient data (Climatewire, March 26).
But EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has invited those ideas into the building. He set Smith’s bill in motion within the agency. And climate skeptics were there to celebrate some of those victories, like when Pruitt banned scientists from serving on EPA’s independent advisory panel if they received agency funding. The move hollowed out years of expertise, critics say, and Pruitt installed a number of industry researchers in their place (Greenwire, Nov. 3, 2017).
That emboldened the far right.
“We’d love to have that debate with Obama and the left on the science because we’re going to win,” Heartland Institute President Tim Huelskamp said in a recent interview.
Less climate, more Russia
In some sense, using Democrats as a foil contributed to the rise of climate skeptics. They fought against President Obama’s climate policies for eight years. But it began even before then. “Traditionally, we get social movements because they’re not in power,” Dunlap said.
He explained that skeptics ramped up activity under President Clinton while the Kyoto Protocol was in play. That trajectory continued under Bush when former Vice President Al Gore’s Academy Award-winning climate documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” elevated climate change in the cultural zeitgeist. Obama doubled down on that with actual policy initiatives — a failed push for cap-and-trade legislation, regulations to curb power plant emissions and playing a key role in the Paris climate accord.
Read the full story here
I don’t know about you, but I feel empowered, especially when Naomi Oreskes starts whining about it.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The results illuminate the anti-science sentiment …
Au contraire my dear fellow. It illuminates the return of common sense.
We’re having a constant stream of Pro-Trump rallies in Canada and I’m getting rather sick of them. The problem is that these rallies are thinly disguised as anti-pipeline rallies. The fools involved don’t have a clue that they’re actually supporting Trump and his MAGA policies.
The lack of pipelines forces Canada to sell it’s crude oil to the US at half price, after which we buy it back refined at the world prices. This gives Trump a huge and unfair trade advantage over Canada and robs Canadians of revenue needed for hospitals, schools and roads.
Whenever you see a pipeline protester, think “OMG! There goes a Trump Supporter!” or think “Look at all those MAGA signs!”
To quote Mr. T: “Pity da foos”
You’ve got to be kidding.
Do I understand this correctly when I say that a pro-pipeline protest would therefore be anti-Trump and thus both for and against fossil fuels? Or is it that you have the electrodes of the battery mixed up?
Speaking as a Canadian from oil country, this is complete nonsense. Not sure what you’re smoking there, man.
Guys,
Shoshin is being ironic. Shoshin is saying that pipeline protesters in Canada are inadvertently supporting US fossil fuel production and profits at Canadian expense.
“The fools involved don’t have a clue that they’re actually supporting Trump and his MAGA policies.”
If they’re holding “Pro-Trump” rallies, why wouldn’t they have a clue that they’re supporting Trump? None of that makes any sense unless you meant to write “Anti-Trump rallies.”
Canaduh. Known around the world as dullards with an identity crisis.
Only one of you got it! Sad… bigly sad…..
What, exactly, is stopping you from building your own refinery?
Environmental something or other?
Actually yes, Canadian environmental radicals (funded by dark funds from US radicals like Tom Steyer) have hijacked and wrecked our system. Building a refinery anywhere in Canada now is almost impossible. Even building an LNG export facility is virtually impossible. We’ve spent the last eight years arguing about building LNG export plants while the US was building LNG export plants. No point building them in Canada now; the US beat us to the market.
Forget pipelines to the west coast, we can’t even build pipelines to the east coast. Quebec opposes them as it’s also been corrupted by the dark enviro cash. But Quebec’s opposition doesn’t stop them from demanding billions in cash (called Federal Equalization Payments) from Alberta anyway. They don’t care where $$$ come from as long as Quebeckers can get social programs like $10/day daycare, something that is unaffordable in Alberta by the way, but mysteriously is available in Quebec. Go figure.
And meanwhile, our vacuous but well coiffed Prime Minister plays Mr. Dressup (the Canadian version of Mr. Rogers but with a bigger more exotic wardrobe in the Tickle Trunk).
Shoshin,
Fair points, thank you for the reasoned response. Especially given I was being sarcastic without having any real knowledge of the issues I commented on.
Thanks again (mean that).
Jones
Shoshin – I agree with the basic concepts behind your thoughts and frustrations. I am also a Trump supporter. But as I see it Canada SHOULD look out for itself. Trump of course supports the pipeline through the US for obvious reasons – it is a shorter and therefore cheaper way to get oil supplies to US refineries. The costs of building the pipeline being less mean a lower amortization cost. Canada SHOULD build another pipeline to Prince Rupert to enable it to sell its product to the highest bidder and therefore get the best value for itself. The fact that the strong environmental lobby in Canada has prevented that is not in any way connected to Trump (in my opinion). Perhaps with the Keystone pipeline in place the Alberta sands oil deposits are not large enough to support the amortization of both shipping options is a question I have not seen asked or answered. But I do not think Trump would say or do anything to hinder such a pipeline (except perhaps offer a higher priced oil contract for the Keystone shipped oil?).
And yet, Trump wants the pipeline.
Don’t blame Trump for the folly of the Greens.
Building new refineries and LNG terminals is all but impossible in the US as well.
I got it!
Hey Shoshin, you Albertans need to ditch Canada and join the U.S. I have known a number of Canadians and by far my favorites are Albertans and New Brunswickers. Albertans would probably not be conservative in the U.S. but you would be practical middle of the road types who would make a good addition to America. And your natural resources would be appreciated here.
Well sed, Ed!
Yup. Climate scepticism is all about the REAL science.
Duh! And how am I labeled an “extremist” … for believing in REAL science? Demonstrable, provable, predictable (with at least > 50% accuracy), repeatable SCIENCE!
Kenji – You have to understand it’s not about what you can prove. It’s about which numbers you can fudge to feel good about what you can’t prove so you can get rich and blame it on the oil companies. Sheesh, haven’t you learned anything about C02 by now.
It is about time common sense is coming back. The far-left climate zealots have one goal: power over society at any cost. They are the Morlocks of the world and must be rejected.
“They are the Morlocks of the world and must be rejected.”
The Morlocks lived underground in the darkness and did all the work that kept the future world operating, while the Eloi lazed around in the sunshine doing nothing, knowing nothing, and attacking the very Morlocks who kept them alive.
And you think the eco-fascists are *Morlocks*?
Just today, this article was published re: U.N. pushback to David Keith’s alarmist driven agenda…finally.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/solar-geoengineering-too-uncertain-to-go-ahead-yet/
David Keith is a Canadian. This is what happens to people who grew up being brainwashed by the man- made global warming propaganda and then funded by Bill Gates to ‘save the planet’.
I agree!
What a bunch of hypocrites and liars!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
When I read Oreskes using “anti-science” I know she means “anti-religion”. Then everything else she writes makes sense.
“worrying taxpayer-funded academics, scientists and sociologists”
Funny how that works.
From the article:
“There’s always been a vocal subset of conservatives who cast doubt on climate science, but what were once fringe views among broader Republicans — like warming’s a hoax — are enjoying a growing acceptance in the GOP, worrying academics, scientists and sociologists.”
This statement falsely assumes that the global warming crisis is real – and it is NOT.
Actually, the hypothesis that humanmade global warming is dangerous to humanity and the environment is already disproved.
We have quality temperature data back to 1979 (more if we get the OLD Surface Temperature data “pre-adjustments”) and good CO2 data back to 1958.
When we run a full-Earth-scale test we calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) equal to no more than ~1C/(2xCO2). That is all. The actual TCS and ECS may be much less, near-zero.
This TCS (~1C/(doubling) is proved by Christy and McNider (1994 and 2017) and many other analyses. There is NO credible evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause dangerous global warming, wilder weather, etc. Those claims are false alarmist myths that have no basis in reality.
There is no credible global warming crisis – it exists only in the fevered minds of scoundrels and imbeciles.
Allan
“There is no credible global warming crisis – it exists only in the fevered minds of scoundrels and imbeciles”
Man, am I glad I’m on your team!
😁
The Piltdown Mann con is a bigger fraud than the earlier one. Time to laugh it away like the pervy old emperor without any clothes…
At least the quote acknowledges that “academics, scientists and sociologists” are distinct categories.
In practice there may be some overlap. But scientists can be patent clerks instead of academics.
And sociologists can be completely divorced from scientific thought.
Hello M Courtney – is Richard S OK?
Best, Allan
“There is no credible global warming crisis – it exists only in the fevered minds of scoundrels and imbeciles.”
This is why RICO lawsuits must happen.
I always appreciate your assessments, Allan.
ALLAN MACRAE, Yes-ish.
The cancer is in remission meaning it’s not getting worse but isn’t getting better either. He’s constantly woozy from the pain killers.
Cancer is now in the bones, lungs and prostate (which is a pain in the arse).
They aren’t doing radiotherapy as it isn’t thought worthwhile but the chemo seems to be holding things steady for now.
Thank you M
Richard S Courtney is one of the most intelligent and principled men that I have ever known.
Please give him my best regards,
Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
Calgary
Post script:
You and Richard may find this story of interest.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/01/almost-half-of-the-contiguous-usa-still-covered-in-snow/comment-page-1/#comment-2708670
I wish your father a positive outcome. This sort of thing is hard on everyone, speaking from experience.
So, now the sociologists and historians are jumping on the CAGW gravy train?
If you look closely at the last century or more, sociology has been behind all of the crazy ideas of the political inclined left. Could it be that Carl Marx is considered on of the founding fathers of sociology.
https://www.scribd.com/document/98605183/The-Founding-Fathers-of-Sociology
I think Marx derived his political theories from his understanding of economic history and extrapolated the trends he saw in the middle of the industrial revolution. His “special sauce” was the personal outrage he felt at being unable to be wealthy himself and being unwilling to work.
He was the forerunner of what we see so much of today. Individuals who pretend to speak for the working class that they secretly despise. Lots of union leaders like this, liberal intellectuals too.
Taking on a leadership position on the left is relatively easy because unlike business or law or engineering or the “hard sciences” , there is no real performance criteria. You only need to profess outrage and point fingers.
There’s never a shortage of followers who see the prospect of getting something given to them.
The independently wealthy Engels often picked up the tab for Marx’s rent, to keep Marx and his family from being thrown out of their flat. Engels himself was one of the original “limousine liberals”.
…..And don’t forget about the severely addled “liberal economists” who keep trying to jump on board the wagon (which must be powered by “alternative energy.”)
They’ve been on the CAGW train for a very long time.
Can we stick to the alarmists’ nomenclature please ! They initially called it global warming (anthropogenic global warming, man-made global warming etc). As time moved on even they noticed, but did not formally announce, that the globe wasn’t warming much (nor significantly). So to keep the people in the pews, they changed it to – climate change. That moniker (climate change) is like that statement in the Declaration of Independence…
However our Founding Fathers, with all their wisdom, assumed that the ‘self-evident’ part really did not need to be formally attributed for climate change as even they knew the climate is always changing. Let’s keep using the words global warming like in their initial scare tactic – to show those in the pews how silly this notion of global warming really is.
I’ve always felt that actually the real situation is more like
Or as I was drilled at skool:
“Life is rough, tough, and desperately unjust
Get used to it”.
We have the right to pursue happiness. There is no guarantee that we would catch it.
Mods, two posts in the bit bucket.
@ricksanchez.
If you’re going to do that, then call it what it really was originally called:
The Greenhouse Theory.
Theory is a scary word. It suggests the science isn’t settled. Let’s try Global Cooling. When they used that one the science was settled. Was that three crisis’s ago? How time flies when everyone on the planet is dying horrible deaths from mother nature, huh? Hope I don’t burst into flame going to work tomorrow. Cheers.
Something about life being tough out there in the Academy Award winning cultural zeitgeist. Cry me a river.
The atmosphere will win, exhibiting its operation relentlessly against the accumulation of too much heat. It will be very interesting, years from now, if I am still around, to hear the academic diagnosis of the failed climate scare.
I find it ironic that the writer of ‘Shock Doctrine’ is now the purveyor of it.
Rather hilarious that some can claim others are “anti-science” when their own science can’t predict anything.
I’m definitely against any science that has no ability of predict, no theories that have withstood data.
+1
arthur4563
As an uneducated man, I understood science to be about observation. From that, a theory of predicted outcomes of the next step is made, then the results proven or disprove by observational experiments.
It seems to me that the CAGW elite have overstepped the scientific mark by announcing their predictions as a matter of fact, unproven by observational confirmation.
Therefore it doesn’t seem to me to be science at all, more like clairvoyance. Not sure I’m convinced by clairvoyants.
But like I said, I’m no scientist.
There was a professor from Southampton University on British TV this morning who said that climate change would lead to the return of a native butterfly. He then said that climate change was causing the decline of other British native butterflies.
This is an example of what passes for science in our Universities
Close enough, HotScot:
“The essence of science is the ability to predict.”
Best, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/20/from-the-the-stupid-it-burns-department-science-denial-not-limited-to-political-right/comment-page-1/#comment-2615837
The essence of science is the ability to predict, and the IPCC and its minions have a perfectly negative predictive track record – NONE of their scary predictions have materialized. That means that the IPCC has NEGATIVE scientific credibility, and nobody should believe anything the IPCC or its minions say.
I have two engineering degrees in earth sciences and have studied this subject since 1985, and I have found NO evidence of dangerous humanmade global warming, and ample evidence that it does NOT exist.
The debate on global warming alarmism concerns one parameter – the climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 (“ECS”). Global warming alarmists falsely suggest that ECS is high, yet their estimates of ECS have been declining for the past decade and are still far too high to be credible. There is ample evidence that ECS is low, probably <=1C/(2*CO2) and possibly much less than 1C.
Here is just one of many lines of evidence that ECS is low:
The ~35-year global cooling period that commenced in ~1940, even as fossil fuel consumption sharply increased, adequately falsifies the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant driver of global warming. The CAGW hypo is further falsified by the current ~20-year “Pause” in global temperatures, as atmospheric CO2 continued to increase.
That is why the global warming alarmists have more recently been falsifying the temperature data records to minimize the ~35-year cooling period and increase their alleged warming during the Pause.
There was a ~22 year period of global warming starting about 1975, but much of that warming period was a natural recovery from two major volcanos, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991. Real global warming probably did occur after the Great Pacific Climate Shift, circa 1977.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/15/report-ocean-cycles-not-humans-may-be-behind-most-observed-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2613373
Conclusion:
Since 1940 there has been ~22 years of positive correlation of temperature with CO2, and ~55 years of negative or ~zero correlation. The global warming hypo is contradicted by a full-Earth-scale test since 1940. CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming.
Regards, Allan
Allan,
and my garden plants are flourishing like they didn’t 30 years ago when I moved into this house. Something’s making them grow, and it certainly ain’t me.
And English weather today is no different to what it was 30 years ago either, just as unpredictable.
I’m afraid that’s the best scientific observation I can muster.
Ciao Allan.
🙂
So the green blob no longer controls the EPA to the degree they once did? Imminent disaster!
The green blob needs to be flushed down the bowl.
And so we get the mouthpieces making mountains out of mole hills as they try to get Pruitt.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/epa-insiders-bemoan-low-point-in-agencys-history-people-are-so-done/ar-AAvzQiJ?ocid=spartanntp
So true that you know your over the target when the flak is heaviest.
I’ve noticed recently that they seem to have changed tactics slightly. Instead of attacking targets, or their views, head on, they seem to be emphasizing differences within the administration or Republican party. Some of these difference are clearly just trivial or entirely imaginary, but seem designed to try and drive wedges between their opponents, or imagined opponents.
It would seem that the scheme to sell “the science is settled” by silencing scientists isn’t working anymore.
Gunga Din
It’s called backlash. Inevitable really, as will the one be from our youth when they discover how they were lied to as schoolkids.
We all did it.
Warmunists are sounding a bit gloomy and depressed these days. Poor dears. Perhaps they should seek counseling. Things are only going to be getting worse for them from now on.
False. The entire corporate world is on board, except for coal companies. This includes insurance companies, large institutional investors, banks – in other words, companies whose views have a major impact. The US federal government is now led by skeptics, along with Russia. Wow, what great company.
“The entire corporate world is on board, except for coal companies.”
The “corporate world” is “on board” with very fad if by “on board” you mean spouting garbage PR on social responsibility or other BS.
Not sure what impact it has, except to make people dumber.
Not sure what the impact is? OK, I’ll spell it out for you. More and more companies are moving to 100% renewable energy. Good luck in selling your coal fired power to those guys, or even natural gas fired. Insurance companies are starting to refuse to insure properties in areas deemed at high risk from rising waters. Institutional investors and banks are moving away from fossil fuel investments, which will make it harder for those companies to find financing. Even the oil companies are starting to move. It’s game over. Can Trump do some damage by, for example, weakening the fuel efficiency commitments that Obama mandated? Sure. But corporate America (and the global corporates) have made their decision, that’s not going to change. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ceraweek-shell-shell/shell-ceo-urges-switch-to-clean-energy-as-plans-hefty-renewable-spending-idUSKBN16G2DT
Personally, I think countering some of the excesses of the Obama era’s climate policies is a good thing.
But I don’t think going to the opposite extreme is good for Republicans or for the Trump administration. And this is what I keep hearing.
To Scott Pruitt’s credit, his public position on the realities of climate of climate change seems about right (sort of a conservative lukewarmism). But the messaging from Trumpites are a reflection of his avowed denialism, and this is not helpful. Public policy should be more than an in-your-face rejection of the positions of the previous administration.
Republicans will gain more than they lose by easing up on rank climate denialism. Reacting to the Naomi Oreskes and Michael Mann’s of the world is exactly what these provocateurs want – to drag the climate dialog into the gutter with them.
What Trump actually believes about climate change is a tough nut to crack. Once you get past a few bread and butter issues, Trump has few strong convictions and will fall in line with hard-right values. In my view he can expand his base by taking a moderate approach on climate. But will he do it? Probably not.
Sounds like appeasement. Didn’t work out too well for Chamberlain.
Oh I see. Anything other than pure denialism is “appeasement”. You make a good Trump accolyte.
There is a Scot Pruitt hatchet piece in HuffPost this morning.
https://goo.gl/Fk7nUq
I no longer read Huff
You have to know your enemy and what they’re up to.
…so he huffed, and he puffed, and he…
…..blew those temperature numbers up, but he still couldn’t prove how a gas affecting %0.025 of climactic warming was going to burn us all up…..
yah that’s it supplicate to the liberals. Sarc
This is why we lose. Just ignore them and push through. Better yet, ridicule them publicly. That’s what I would like to see more of from the current administration
There is no “climate denialism” scraft1. There’s climate assertionism.
Disbelief in what is not in evidence is not denialism. Assertion of what is not in evidence is stupidityism, unless it’s liarism.
Climate assertionism, in my experience, is a combination of liarism and stupidityism, all buttressed by incompetenceism.
“This extreme radicalization of the Republican Party”…….give me a f’in break
It is pretty radicalized. Not specifically about the climate things, but Trump and his followers are a cult of personality. Anything he does, they agree with, even if it is 180 degree turn from what he said an hour before that they also agreed with.
It is not healthy, and it is not going to turn out good for the nation.
Trump’s positions would basically follow the DNC platform of 1992. What was that you were saying about radicalization?
Uh…no.
Trump is not “politically correct”. Trump doesn’t put the UN and the “Globalization” above the US. He doesn’t put the self-proclaimed Elites above the ordinary US citizen. Etc.
The Republicans haven’t run a candidate since Reagan that didn’t believe that a Republican-controlled Government can run your life better than a Democrat-controlled Government. (“The Swamp”)
Trump isn’t perfect but the “deplorables” voted for him because they want him to succeed in what he said he’d do. He’s trying.
(And we’re getting tired of the RINOs hindering him.)
PS If that means the Republican party has been “radicalized”, it’s about time!
The Democratic party was taken over by radicals decades ago. (I doubt JFK would recognize it today.)
Maybe I should have been more clear. I do not see Trump as a threat. I see the cult of personality, the weak minds of his followers, and see some serious extremism there. They want a fight, they do not care what fight, just any fight will do. So, it is not just Trump. It is the fact that so many people are so very stupid and angry that is the problem, particularly when you add the numbers now in the Republican party with the number of stupid and angry idiots that have been running the Democratic party for decades. Trump, like Obama before him, is a symptom of the disease, not the cause of the problems.
We used to be able to count on the Republican party to be the adults in the room who were working for the betterment of the nation. I no longer see that as true about the party, and it is a shame.
Anyways, when you start acting like reasonable people you can be considered reasonable people. I agree with the Pruit EPA on this and many other things. I agree with Trump about 50% of the time. When he changes his mind on what he wants, I change my agreement with him on that subject. Unlike the extremist losers who simply back Trump no matter what his policies are.
Unlike the extremist losers who simply back Democrats no matter what their policies are….
astonerii, you do realize “cult of personality” was what put and kept Obama in power, right? You do remember how often he flip-flopped his positions as well?
“Trump and his followers” are far from the whole of “the Republican Party.” He has lots of resistance from within the Republican Party…and has ever since he started his campaign.
“I do not see Trump as a threat. I see the cult of personality, the weak minds of his followers, and see some serious extremism there. They want a fight, they do not care what fight, just any fight will do. So, it is not just Trump.”
I think that is a complete misrepresentation of Trump’s followers. There are no extremists included in Trump’s followers, or at least there are no extremists who are accepted by Trump’s followers. That is a Leftwing talking point meant to demonize Trump and his supporters. You say you are not a Democrat. If so, you should stop parrotig their propaganda.
Take me for example. I’m a conservative. The less govenment the better. I am happy with just about everything Trump has done so far policy-wise. About the only thing I don’t agree with is his proposal to completely pull out of Syria, and will voice my objections if he really does this, but with Trump, you don’t know if that’s his position or just his bargaining position. Trump wants those in the area of concern to bear more of the burden, so he presents them with a worst-case scenario to wake them up to reality.
You claim Trump changes his positions all the time and since his followers still follow him, this makes them mindless robots. Please provide examples of Trump changing his position. I don’t see that he has done so, but am open to some evidence. I don’t recall Trump changing any of his core principles, and I think I would notice.
“Not specifically about the climate things, but Trump and his followers are a cult of personality.”
Preposterous. Many of his supporters basically don’t like him at all.
“Anything he does, they agree with”
I have not seen that anywhere.
“even if it is 180 degree turn from what he said an hour before that they also agreed with”
Not sure what you are talking about.
“a cult of personality.”…do they give you people flash cards?
It is a pretty simple test to see if something is a cult. Look at their response to when facts change. Trump changes his positions on things all the time, and what you need to look for when that happens is for the changes in support for those positions. If he changes position and all of those who supported his old position suddenly have decided to support his new position, or simply declare they believe he really has not changed position at all, that is an activity of a cult or personality. This has been a constant since he first stepped into the primary race.
Just look at the Global Warming fanatics. No amount of facts contrary to their belief that CO2 will destroy the world can convince them to the contrary. The heat is hiding! Well, the past temperatures were measured wrong and every last one of them was measured too high! There is no urban heat island effect! And other rationalizations.
I see the same detestable rationalization happening with those who support Trump on anything and everything. When I start seeing people actually stand up and complain about him when he changes his position on things, I will see things differently.
Anyways, enjoy the trade war. I know I am looking forward to seeing the end results of it. I may not enjoy the results, but the educational aspects of it is going to be epic.
Who gives a flying…….when the conservative side starts rioting, attacking, and burning cities…..you might have a point
astonerii
With the best will in the world, isn’t it a politicians job to change his mind to ever changing circumstances.
I mean, were politicians to change their mind relative to climate change, in the face of sceptical science, not to mention the abject failure of CAGW scientific predictions over the last 40 years, we wouldn’t be in the ridiculous climate mess were in right now.
As a Brit, what I see is a man of the times, as Churchill was, a warrior (genuinely having served as an officer in military campaigns) leading a country in a decisive and controversial manner from the precipice of destruction.
Trump seems to be the businessman America needs in the most business driven era of the world’s history.
The UK needed a warrior to lead them through WW2, America needs a business warrior to lead the US through a business war.
Something I have maintained for many years.
And whilst Trumps policies might fail, his ambition is commendable.
Case in point for the extremist Trump supporter in the Republican party. I very clearly attack Global Warming Alarmists in my post. I very clearly state that the Democratic party has been extremist for decades. And in response ignorantly attacks me as if I am a Democrat.
Trump cannot be criticized. Much like Obama could not be, remember when late night comedy declared that there was nothing to find funny in attacking Obama? Much like Clinton could not be.
Take the middle ground and you get shot at by both sides. It’s why diplomats tend to wait until the war is over.
Anyway, I consider cults of opposition to be far more worrying. People who identify by what they are against, instead of what they are for. Who are sitting on the branch they want to saw off. Who seek only the defeat the Enemy and never stop to think about what happens afterward should they succeed — about how much they *need* the other side to be the Bad Guys so they can be the Good Guys. Self-righteous indignation riding roughshod over self-reflection.
astonerii, when Trump signed the budget bill, he was criticized by almost every conservative in the country who cares about the deficit. I agree that some supporters defend him irrationally at times. But I think that is because they are trying to make up for the fact that Trump is criticized irrationally by almost everyone in the media. Obama was never criticized like that by the MSM.
Keep in mind that Trump is not your typical politician. He is a negotiator. And part of his strategy is to bluff in order to get the opposition to come to the negotiating table. Both Mexico and Canada refused to renegotiate NAFTA until Trump threatened tariffs. Now they’re willing to discuss changes. China has also expressed its willingness to talk. So let’s see what the end result is before making judgements. I could be wrong but I don’t think Trump really wants tariffs. He wants to renegotiate some bad deals, and the threat of tariffs is his leverage.
A good poker player knows how to bluff. But a bluff will not work unless you can sell it. People are too used to Republicans like McConnell and Ryan who don’t know the first thing about bluffing. When McConnell said he would not use the power of the purse that Congress has, and would not shutdown the government no matter what, he was showing his hand to the opposition. You can’t win doing that. All Obama had to do was threaten to shutdown the government and McConnell surrendered every time. That’s how he killed the bill to end Planned Parenthood funding. He simply said he would shutdown the government to prevent the bill from going into effect, and McConnell immediately withdrew it. Maybe you like wimpy politicians who show their hand to the opposition and then wonder why they can never win. But I’ll take a Trump, with all his faults, over such wimpy cowards any day.
In the US, The Bill of Rights has been losing to the “two steps forward, one step back” attacks for way too long.
A “mom &pop” bakery, whose owners were Christians, has to pay a $100,000+ fine because the “bride” in a lesbian wedding got her feelings hurt when they suggested other bakeries to make the wedding cake. Yet, a worker refusing to serve a cop at a drive through or to decorate a cake for a cop’s retirement in a large chain-store is applauded?
Being appalled by such things is not wrong.
No self-reflection is required to realize that there’s something wrong here.
” And in response ignorantly attacks me “…..know it all snowflake warning
It’s not a personality cult, it’s tribalism and American politics are awash in it and has always been. That’s why the national debt is always no problem to the ones who are in power, but a catastrophe to those out of power. A politician will flip flop several times over a long career on such issues.
Trump muddies the water because he’s not an ideologue and he’s always adjusting his positions. Makes him a harder target.
Trump exists to stir the pot and he’ll stir the whole pot. It’s also his negotiation style. He’ll always take the extreme position at the outset of an endeavor until everyone is running around like their hair is on fire. The trade war business is a perfect example. He’ll push that line as far as he can initially but will eventually compromise. Does it every time. Everyone falls for it every time.
“Everyone falls for it every time.”……yes, and it’s hysterical to watch
The greenhouse theory (or at least one prominent version of it) depends upon N2 and O2 being heated up by IR action on CO2 and H2O. When has this actual mechanism been demonstrated?
If we take two boxes three meters square each and put N2 in one and air with 4000 ppm CO2 in the other and heat them both equally from below, according to theory the overall temperature in the CO2 box should be higher than the N2 box. But how can this be, when no extra heat has been added to the CO2 box?
The adds are the same. The minuses are not. The difference is the temperature.
Explain please.
Easy to explain once you understand the science.
The CO2 doesn’t add heat. It slows the rate at which heat leaves the system. As a result the box has to get hotter in order to radiate away the heat being added.
@ur momisugly MarkW April 7, 2018 at 7:45 am
How exactly does heat get radiated away in an enclosed box? We can assume the boxes are insulated.
If I’m not mistaken, N2 doesn’t radiate heat, therefore its rate of cooling is significantly less than CO2’s.
Your answer is confusing to me with regard to the question asked, no doubt because I don’t understand the science, so I’m asking for this to be explained clearly and distinctly.
The question regards the specific mechanism for how CO2 heats N2 and O2 in the box. I expect that someone has actually proved that the alleged mechanism exists? No? Because the greenhouse theory– at least one of the many confused explanations for it– depends upon this.
MarkW April 7, 2018 at 7:45 am
“… the box has to get hotter in order to radiate away the heat being added.”
How is the heat added?
I find that the explanations for how GHGs warm an atmosphere are confused, and they are also ungrounded in experiment.
“How exactly does heat get radiated away in an enclosed box?”
How exactly does heat get radiated away from my house in Minnesota in winter?
It hasn’t been explained to me to my satisfaction so I doubt that it happens and the lefties just have me buying natural gas that does nothing but cost me money. Insulation has never heated my house so that’s another scam on the American taxpaying public as well.
“The question regards the specific mechanism for how CO2 heats N2 and O2 in the box.”
It doesn’t heat it then. It slows the loss of joules from the N2 and the O2, or the atmosphere if you will. You gave us constant inputs. Slowing the outputs raises the temperature until a new higher equilibrium is reached. This path you are on has been traveled by many.
Don, if the heat doesn’t radiated away and heat is continually pumped in, then the temperature in the box will rise until the box melts.
CO2 is the insulation in your example.
MarkW April 7, 2018 at 12:16 pm
“Don, if the heat doesn’t radiated away and heat is continually pumped in, then the temperature in the box will rise until the box melts.
CO2 is the insulation in your example.”
Wow.
I find it hard to believe that a constant heating at, say 15C, would cause the CO2 box to melt. Would love to see the experiment.
It really is simple Don, if the heat you are putting into the box can’t escape, the box will heat up.
Please try to learn at least a little basic science.
Good thought, but let me try and refine this as a thought experiment.
Let’s start with two identical glass containers, one filled with 79% N2/21% O2 and one filled with 100% CO2. The containers are placed in a temperature controlled chamber until they are at constant room temperature. We then add exactly the same amount of heat ( X-Joules) to each container and monitor the temperature of the gas in each. Because the specific heat of each and densities are not the same, the temperatures of the two containers will not be the same but both will be warmer than their surroundings. Now both containers will start to cool as soon as the heating stops. This process will require heat to be transferred from the gases to the container inside surface, conduction of heat through the container walls and then transfer of heat from the outside surface to the surrounding environment.
Now heat transfer from the N2/O2 to the container can only be by conduction – i.e. gas molecules slamming into the container walls thereby losing kenetic energy and heating the container. In the CO2 container, however, heat will be transferred by both conduction and radiation. Now since radiant heat transfer is proportional to the difference of the fourth powers of the emitting and receiving material temperatures per Stefan-Boltzmann, the transfer of heat out of the CO2 container should be more efficient than from the N2/O2 container. So we should see the CO2 container cool to room temp faster.
However, even if someone did the experiment and confirmed what I’ve suggested, it would not invalidate the GHG warming theory. That is because the theory is not that GHGs produce heating, only that they slow cooling by absorbing LWR headed from the surface to space and then re-radiating it in all directions including some back toward the surface. The delay in cooling that results is what causes the temperature to be slightly warmer. But I think the effect of an increase in CO2 of a mere 100-200 ppm must be far smaller than the many other factors that have a substantial effect on air, land and ocean temperatures.
Rob B: Blocking the LWR simply means the the energy is absorbed heating the container which then is cooled by convection, conduction and radiation from its outer surface. Both containers must eventually equilibrate with their surroundings. But they will not do so at the same rate.
Rick C PE April 7, 2018 at 10:27 am
Thanks for the explanation. I think this is good except that I was thinking of insulated boxes, and I was specifically wondering how CO2 would heat up N2 and O2. You are assuming a 100% CO2 container, which is fine. But a key mechanism of warming is supposed to be that GHGs transfer energy to N2 and O2– at least that’s one alleged mechanism among a few, and is the specific mechanism mentioned in the Happer-Koonin-Lindzen submission to the Court in a case that has attracted some attention. The mechanism you cite, that GHGs slow cooling, might be contradicted by what you say earlier, namely that CO2 allows the container to cool faster. And in fact if we had just an N2 and O2 atmosphere, it seems that there is no way that this atmosphere could cool except through collisions with slower-moving molecules, presumably from higher up or from the cooling ground, and so this atmosphere might overall be warmer than one with GHGs.
How can GHGs slow cooling? It seems any radiative effect is paltry compared to convective movements, and GHGs are largely “transparent” to convection. If GHG gases are radiating downward, what are they warming? Not N2 and O2, since these don’t absorb IR. The surface? Heat goes from a warmer body to a cooler. So we are sort of left with the basic idea that GHGs are warming N2 and O2 through molecular vibrations, and I wonder what proof there is for this. Any atmospheric warmth caused by radiation would also seem to be immediately countered by a powerful rising and cooling effect: convection is a stumbling block to the theory of radiative heating.
I mention all this because to me there’s a lot of floundering when we start to look at actual mechanisms that are said to justify GHG warming. I don’t know the answers, but I favor the answer that atmospheric pressure accounts for nearly all of the greenhouse effect because this is a simple and elegant solution that also seems to make sense intuitively.
As for the intuitive part, it seems that if we had an asphalt pavement in the hot sun in an atmosphere of N2 and O2, we’d feel the heat coming off the pavement: no question at all where the heat is from. And just as in Death Valley, we’d probably find an enhanced lapse rate near the surface under the noonday sun. This heat is convected upward, so that 10 meters off the ground it’s still pretty warm: why would it not be? We have molecules of N2 and O2 conducting off the hot ground, and the dense atmosphere near the surface means the temperature– the average kinetic translational energy per unit volume– is pretty warm. The atmosphere would cool more-or-less according to the lapse rate, which has terms for gravitational acceleration (which in practice translates to atmospheric density) and for heat capacity but not for radiative effects. How is this any different from what happens in the world with GHGs in the atmosphere? So what do GHGs really add, except an adjustment for an environmental lapse rate due to the heat capacity of water vapor? Water vapor would cause the atmosphere to warm up more slowly and cool more slowly (due to heat capacity) but I wonder if its radiative effects are overblown?
Rob Bradley April 7, 2018 at 10:40 am
According to the Nahle experiment, blocked IR does not warm a container. The basic idea of blocked IR should certainly be tested more thoroughly.
Don132: I you have a mix of CO2, N2 and O2 molecules and the CO2 is warmer than the others, they will be continuously slamming into each other which will result in the higher temperature (energy content) molecules slowing (losing energy) and the cooler molecules gaining energy. Very quickly the temperature of the mixture will become uniform.
Whether to boxes are insulated or not only affects the rate of cooling. It would not change the physics of heat transfer.
This is an area of science were the physics is well defined and there are very good thoroughly validated computer models. Before I retired I had access to some of them and did a lot of heat transfer analysis work related to HVAC systems and building energy requirements. By the way, we never considered modeling the effects of CO2 concentrations since they were clearly negligible.
When CO2 absorbs a photon, it can then transfer that energy to other molecules by colliding with them.
Rob B “Rick C PE, you are correct, that both containers must eventually equilibrate with their surroundings. But if the IR is blocked by the glass in the CO2 container, both containers will cool at exactly the same rate.”
No, blocking the IR means the energy is transferred to the glass (well about 84% of it, some is reflected) and this has to increase the temperature of the glass. This has to increase the delta-T between the container and its surroundings which means greater rate of heat loss.
You can see this effect in any building supply store by comparing the energy performance of windows with low emissivity glass (Low-E) to those with ordinary glass. The Low-E is a thin metal coating that lowers the surface emissivity from about 0.84 to around 0.15. This lower emissivity means a higher reflectance in the IR band. Thus the windows with low-E coatings reduce absorbtion of IR keeping the glass temperature cooler and thereby reducing heat loss from the building. The improvement in energy efficiency is on the order of 15%. All well documented in precise physical testing.
Rick C PE April 7, 2018 at 12:17 pm
“Don132: I you have a mix of CO2, N2 and O2 molecules and the CO2 is warmer than the others, they will be continuously slamming into each other which will result in the higher temperature (energy content) molecules slowing (losing energy) and the cooler molecules gaining energy. Very quickly the temperature of the mixture will become uniform.”
OK. I’ll buy that. But let’s say that CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. How does it manage to significantly heat the other 99.96% of the atmosphere?
MarkW April 7, 2018 at 12:18 pm
“When CO2 absorbs a photon, it can then transfer that energy to other molecules by colliding with them.”
Has an experiment ever been done to prove that this theory of energy transfer actually exists? It seems it would be simple enough to do. I understand that in theory it can and does happen, but in actuality, does it really happen quite the way the theory describes? Does the vibrational and rotational energy of CO2 get transferred to N2 and O2, without any missteps or hiccups? And if CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, how can that small amount do any significant heating of the atmosphere, even if the transfer were direct and one-to-one?
Rick C PE April 7, 2018 at 12:40 pm
“You can see this effect in any building supply store by comparing the energy performance of windows with low emissivity glass (Low-E) to those with ordinary glass. The Low-E is a thin metal coating that lowers the surface emissivity from about 0.84 to around 0.15. This lower emissivity means a higher reflectance in the IR band. ”
True. Would the window still work if it were a gas instead of a window? Or would the reflectance mean very little in light of convection?
I suppose to sum up my issue with the greenhouse theory, it is this: we say that GHGs trap heat to make the earth warm, but there’s a much simpler explanation for how heat gets trapped: the atmosphere is much denser at the surface, and a denser atmosphere in contact with a sun-warmed surface concentrates that warmth at the surface. It’s basic physics that temperature is the average kinetic energy of a volume of gas, and as that gas warms and rises its volume expands and hence its average kinetic energy must go down, even if the kinetic energy of the molecules themselves remains the same. This is the essence of the lapse rate. If N2 and O2 conduct heat from the surface and don’t radiate IR, then overall they hang onto their translational energy even though the gas volume within which they reside thins and cools. Why would it matter if the earth radiated from the surface or from higher up? This won’t stop conduction.
Not only does adding CO2 not warm the atmosphere to any extent, but it seems to me that GHGs also do not, and cannot, warm the atmosphere to any extent, because the atmospheric pressure gradient is the main player in containing surface warmth and determines the lapse rate, in conjunction with the heat capacity of gases.
But this is all very weird because it stands radiative physics on its head and people don’t like that. So once again I say, if you really believe that N2 and O2 are warmed by CO2, instead of assuming this, why not do an experiment to prove it? Why doesn’t someone do an experiment to prove this heat-trapping capacity of GHGs, instead of resting on modeling or theory?
Don, I hope you see this, it seems I’m always about a day behind on these threads.
You are almost there with your understanding of the Greenhouse effect. Your instincts are correct that the non-condensing GHGs in our atmospheric concentrations have a minute effect. It is only the condensing GHGs, i.e. H2O, that has any meaningful warming effect. Further down this thread there is a reference to a paper which accurately describes the physics and the maths of “The Greenhouse Effect at the Molecular Level”. It is here:
https://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/physicsfacpub/1/
WBWilson April 8, 2018 at 9:20 am
Thank you for the link to the paper. My first reaction to it is that my eyes glaze over: another take on the math and radiative effects.
I think it would be simple to prove that water vapor warms an atmosphere beyond the heating provided by conduction/convection. Why not take a two three-cubic meter well-insulated boxes with walls of near-zero absorption of IR, control for pressure, etc., one with 3% water vapor and one with zero water vapor, and then heat them to say 288K? The box with water vapor should end up warmer, according to theory, because IR is bouncing off the water vapor, or else because the water vapor is exciting other molecules and increasing their internal energy.
OK, maybe I don’t have it quite right; maybe the experiment needs to be tweaked in order to demonstrate the assertion that water vapor retains/enhances atmospheric heat due not to its heat capacity, but due to its radiative properties. So let’s design an experiment and measure this. It bothers me that we’re not testing our ideas through physical experiments; the math might work out but still we need to confirm that we’ve got it right and there’s only one way to do that.
Don, yes.
This is the quality of intellect that supports the global warming narrative. They seriously claim that moves to ensure all science supporting public policy is based on transparency and free of conflict of interest are negative events. They call people science deniers who have done nothing but point at the science and demonstrate that it doesn’t show what the catastrophists are pretending it shows. They rant and rave about the coming catastrophe (warming) but when it doesn’t happen they either change the date or change the catastrophe (climate change) and they conveniently forget the fact that either event is a natural phenomenon and the burden of proof is on them to show that humans are playing any substantive role.
When objective data don’t support the theory they change the data – true scientists would revisit the theory. These people come from the same mold that created eugenics, race segregation, national socialism, lysenkoism, and the Great Leap Forward that caused the unnecessary deaths of tens of millions of Chinese.
The only deniers are the people who look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that a trace element in the atmosphere that used to be over 20 times higher in the past will somehow today cause a runaway global warming and tipping points to be crossed.
They have to deliberately deny that the Earth’s climate is not very sensitive and is in fact very corrective in nature.
YES – this. If any honest scientific inquiry was being done by the Climate Fascists, they would have determined they were wrong a long time ago. I’m tired of the “den!er” label being used on people who don’t believe in the AGW religion, as if the Climate Fascists are standing on some kind of factual “high ground,” when NO empirical, observational evidence supports their catastrophist nonsense and in fact all they did was start with their pre-conceived conclusions and work their way backwards to provide some pseudo-science “basis” for them.
It’s a simple matter to clean patient data so that the individual involved can’t be identified.
There is no reason why this requirement would block medical research.
As always, it’s an invented excuse.
BINGO! ANY reason to (ahem) DENY access to the “man behind the curtain,” thereby destroying the illusion he has created!
The roaches are scurrying. Remember, the greatest eco-crime perpetrated by Pruitt is requiring fully transparent science, and we can’t have the holy deliberations questioned. Be a good little serf and do as you’re told.
I’m sure Mosher already sent his congratulations.
By pushing the catastrophe button, the warmist/alarmist camp put themselves in an untenable position. It has been over thirty years now, without much of anything happening outside of the imaginations of the doomsayers. Each passing year makes their predictions less plausible.
Continually moving the goalposts only drains the patience of observers and makes amusing fools of those predicting the end of life as we know it.
It doesn’t help that the main proponents of catastrophe are not seen to be making any personal commitment to reducing their own carbon footprints.
Falsely attributing events such as Harvey or Irma to climate change only elicits groans of exasperation from anyone with a lick of common sense.
Of course, common sense like virginity may not be as prelavent as it once was.
The theory of CO2 is over 100 years old……….
Has anyone ever captured one of these mysterious photons that CO2 absorbs and then re-radiates, what is the difference between the discreet packages of heat that nitrogen when cooling discharges and a photon.
I think he’s talking about the period since “global warming” alarmism and Eco-Fascism really began to make headlines.
Why is there such a thing as an environmental sociologist at OKSU or anywhere else?
When Oreskes is worried it means we are winning.
I think you’re right. The eco-Left tone is much less confident. I would say that the AGW push is their centre piece gambit for greater political power and its advance has been halted.
Soon to be in retreat, hopefully, as economics and possibly weather trends show what nonsense it is.
Yes. Nothing more than a global government, make work project to justify their existence to control and tax and regulate. Hey if I had a PhD in something, I would be all in as well. Sure beats teaching 2nd year calculus to undergrads for my entire career.
Free cash and prizes. Travel the world, attend conferences in exotic locations, get published by connecting everything to climate change.
Oreskes is always wrong. Please fight harder.
Do watch this video clip of an Australian giving a talk to our House of Commons about global warming ! He is entertaining and spot on the truth ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCWcoS7iHtA
While not a scientist, I have contributed pro bono to some University programs funded by NIMH grants and therefore have taken the basic course on private info in such studies.
I am thus confused by the oft repeated claim that the transparency asked by Pruitt (in what Huff Post thinks is some sort of bombshell leaked memo) that personal information will be compromised.
If I study, say 6 cities, and then report that x percent of those studied in Chicago demonstrate…….how am I violating the requirement that PERSONAL information remain private? Isn’t this type of study performed every day (e.g. EPA reports linking “pollution” to asthma or heart disease ?)
“It’s like they sense victory.”
Indeed. A potential victory for fact-based science!
Veritas vos liberabit! (The truth shall set you free!)
Up here in British Columbia we have a carbon tax and no science has been offered to justify it except what (scientists say). What scientists say is the only proof required and oh to save the world and look good on the world stage.
Also our Prime Minister, Trudeau 2.0 aka pretty socks, wants to put a price on “carbon pollution”, his words yesterday. After all he is an ex drama teacher, really. Also he offers no science.
When they say Carbon pollution, do they mean soot? That can be easily controlled with scrubbers and baghouses.
Or do they mean CO2 which isn’t really Carbon pollution at all, No more than water vapour is Hydrogen pollution.
He wears brown shoes with a blue suit. You can’t trust him.