WINNING: Trump officials discussed whether to ‘ignore’ climate data

From The Hill:

Trump officials discussed whether to ‘ignore’ climate data: report

White House officials discussed the possibility of ignoring federal climate data, according to an internal memo that highlights the Trump administration’s struggles with established climate change science.

The Washington Post reports that a memo, drafted in September by Michael Catanzaro, the then-White House special assistant for domestic energy and environmental policy, discussed three options for dealing with federal scientists’ data about the effects of man-made climate change.

The options included highlighting uncertainties in the data, reviewing the scientific studies under the Administrative Procedure Act, or simply ignoring them altogether, the Post reports.

None of the options suggested by Catanzaro involved publicly espousing the dangers of climate change highlighted in the data.

Full story: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/389050-trump-officials-discussed-whether-or-not-to-ignore-climate-data


Having the courage to “do nothing” is probably the best option, because so far, all the claims of “dangers of climate change” have been nothing but hot-air generated by rent-seekers.

Advertisements

173 thoughts on “WINNING: Trump officials discussed whether to ‘ignore’ climate data

  1. They should have picked No. 2 – “reviewing the scientific studies under the Administrative Procedure Act”. And used Steve McIntyre to do the reviewing…
    It really is important to highlight the fraudulent nature of much of this data….

    • I agree completely. That approach would provide a great opportunity to highlight the errors and uncertainties regarding the highest estimates, the benefits of the lower estimates, the high costs associated with Paris compliance and the terrible record of catastrophic predictions in this field.
      The point could also be made that billions have been spent on research without narrowing the estimates by even .1C in 30 years, bringing accusations that much of the scientific effort has been a complete waste of time and money.

    • I also agree. We need politicians to come out and explain that the Emperor has no clothes. Saying nothing will not make the Warmists go away.

      • Extreme Feedback number 2 is to music, what climate research is to Science. Geoff.

    • I thought I read somewhere that McIntyre was Canadian. If I’m right, it might be hard to hire him here; if I’m wrong, I’d be delighted to have his sharp mind focused on these issues.

    • Not me! They were always biased left but now they have shown that without a doubt they are nothing more than a propaganda organ of Big Government and the sewer of DC.

    • Ace of Spades nailed a prime example in a very terse manner concerning their reporting on the scandals recently:
      “Washington Post, May 8: Revealing the Name of the Spy Could Put Lives in Danger
      Washington Post, Today [a week later]: Let’s Talk About This Stefan Halper Fellow In Detail”
      —Ace of Spades

      • Scott Adams, of Dilbert Fame, made an incredibly funny comment on this:
        Four things to understand about SPYGATE:
        1) There was no spy in the Trump campaign.
        2) The spying that did NOT happen was totally justified.
        3) It would be bad for national security to identify the spy who doesn’t exist.
        4) His name is Stefan.

      • They tried to set a trap to try an pin leaking on Nunes and Gowdy and then fell into. You think about, it is scary as hell that dangerous criminal idiots like Brennan and Clapper were in such important positions.

      • Nunes is a self aggrandizing, laughable buffoon. If something helps Trump, he is for it. If it hurts Trump, he’s against it. Rules and regulations are completely secondary to that overriding goal.

      • “Washington Compost” is too gracious. Compost is good stuff, as it nourishes healthy growth — I make my own for the vegetable garden.
        So, I’m not seeing any nourishing growth with the Washington Post. Let’s come up with a better alternative name for that rag. Maybe “Washington Gross” or “Washington Misdiagnosed”.

  2. How much of “federal climate data”, whatever it might be, are adjustments?

  3. I am literally laughing out loud. The Trump Administration continues to amaze me.

  4. You cannot ignore what does not exist.
    The climate scientists have no data. All they have are the proven-wrong projections of computer simulations of climate which are based on mistaken assumptions about the effects of CO2 and which incorporate gross omissions about the effects of H2O.
    CO2 UP. WARMING NOT.
    **************************************
    Very cunning, Washington Post. Try again.

    • Janice Janice Janice
      I admire your attitude,
      and I think we generally agree on things,
      but be careful with certain words,
      because the warmunists will attack them:
      .
      (1)
      you wrote:
      “The climate scientists have no data.”
      But the climate “scientists” do HAVE data.
      They have raw data from weather stations and
      sea “surface” measurement devices.
      What they present is “adjusted data”
      and infilling wild guesses, so we don’t
      get to see / use the real data they
      have collected.
      .
      .
      (2)
      I don’t know why you would say:
      “CO2 UP. WARMING NOT.”
      CO2 is up, and warming is up since 1850.
      That’s why this false CO2 boogeyman works.
      .
      .
      (3)
      you wrote:
      ” … proven-wrong projections of computer simulations …”
      I call them “predictions” or “projections” or “simulations”
      but what’s a ‘projection of a simulation’?
      I offer these “scientific” alternatives:
      (a) “Projected, simulated, prediction”, or
      (b) Piles of steaming farm animal
      digestive waste products?

      • Dear Mr. Greene,
        1) The envirostalinist scientists have no data establishing their assertion that there is a causal link between human CO2 and “climate change.” Not one bit (much less a byte).
        Models versus Data
        http://media.al.com/news_huntsville_impact/photo/john-christy-climate-change-chart-0a201a1637955761.jpg
        2)
        Atmospheric CO2
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/co2_data_mlo1.png
        Temperature
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/clip_image002_thumb1.jpg
        3) A projection of a computer simulation is: the projection resulting from running a computer simulation. I did not think it necessary to explain what seemed to me the obvious meaning of that sentence. I suppose I should clarify, here, (*wry look*) that “running a computer simulation” means, roughly: writing code to express in algorithms the assumptions of the codewriters, then, assigning values to the variables or parameters, and then, using the “Run” command (or the like) to ask the operating system, i.e., the computer’s own software and hardware, to execute the code’s instructions using Boolean logic.
        Thank you for your admiration, Mr. Greene. Thank you for your encouragement to write more carefully. After years of blogging here, I’ve grown a bit sloppy.
        And welcome to WUWT.
        Your ally for truth in science,
        Janice Moore

      • Janice:
        I’m glad my nitpicking did not offend you.
        The warmunists made up a climate fairy tale
        with wild guesses of the future climate,
        but expect the skeptics to dot every i and
        cross every t.
        The link between CO2 and actual warming is assumed.
        The warmunists could point to nighttime warming
        in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere
        as evidence of greenhouse gas warming,
        and maybe they’d be right.
        The problem they have is Antarctica is not
        warming in the same way … and the “measurements”
        of the “natural” warming period in the first half of the 20th century
        look very similar to the warming period in the second half
        of the 20th century … so there is no real temperature evidence
        that warming from 1975 to 2000 was not natural warming.
        Don’t use the temperature chart you posted — it
        stops at the El Nino heat peak, making warming look
        worse than if the chart continued to Spring 2018!
        That’s something the warmunists would do!
        “envirostalinist scientists” = great writing !
        Never forget that climate “models” are complex versions
        of government bureaucrat “scientist” OPINIONS that could
        have been written on the back of cocktail napkins,
        saving the taxpayer’s a lot of money.
        Since the predictions/projections/simulations
        are so far from reality
        they are actually failed prototype models.
        Anyone can design a model
        that makes wrong predictions.

      • I agree completely Janice. Everyone knew what you meant but Richard Greene decided to nitpick and waste everyone’s time

      • Reply to Mr. Nas-ty Alan Tomality
        concerning his May 24, 10:11 am comment
        directed at me.
        We skeptics should not write or say things
        that are easily misinterpreted, and easily refuted.
        .
        .
        “The climate scientists have no data.”
        .
        and
        .
        “CO2 UP. WARMING NOT.”
        .
        are both wrong, and not worthy
        of a climate change skeptic.
        Better to write a correct statement,
        that can’t be misinterpreted,
        than to write a false statement, assuming
        “everyone” knew what was really meant.

    • I agree with Janice.
      The headline in the Hill is very misleading:

      Trump officials discussed whether to ‘ignore’ climate data: report

      Slightly rearranged it should read:
      “Trump officials discussed whether to ‘ignore’ climate REPORT, which contained very little DATA.”

      • George Daddis – May 24, 2018 at 9:39 am

        I agree with Janice.
        The headline in the Hill is very misleading:

        Trump officials discussed whether to ‘ignore’ climate data: report

        Slightly rearranged it should read:
        “Trump officials discussed whether to ‘ignore’ climate REPORT, which contained very little DATA.”

        But, but, but, …… George D, ….. the Trump officials WERE NOT discussing a per se “climate REPORT”, …… they were discussing the “verbiage” that was presented as being actual, factual “climate data”.

  5. not sure I agree. ignoring stuff can allow it to creep up your backside when least expected.
    read the info and dispute it with supporting info.

    • No worry. Trenberth himself has said that there is missing heat in the oceans. When he says it’s missing he is saying the pertinent data is not there at all. The climate data regarding earth’s surface temperature is not just uncertain it’s lacking. Furthermore once you consider the low temperature, extent and heat capacity of the ocean abyss you realize that surface air temperatures are a very minor component of a climate model. Surface air temperatures are misleadingly high if you are considering the heat of the total surface of the earth.

      • The oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. If Trenberth is searching for that little heat that he says he lost in the oceans, he should be careful, the oceans are a very scary place . He might drown.
        Here is a repeat of a post I did recently
        I dont see what the problem is even if CO2 caused a 4 degree warming. The earth in the past was as high as 25C average. Now it is 15C. So an increase to an average of 19 would still not melt the ice sheets. The global average is just that an average. The North and South Poles and Greenland would still be less than 0 and they probably wouldnt even increase by 4C. So we wouldnt have any more melting (except maybe for some glaciers) But even if all 200000 glaciers melted completely the earth oceans would only rise 400 mm That is only 40 % of a metre or less than 16 inches. Like Dr. Willie Soon said; If you are afraid of the sea level rising 16 inches in 68 years then if you are too slow to move to higher ground in that time frame THEN YOU DESERVE TO DROWN We in Canada would love the 4C increase. Fires are caused by dry conditions, not by temperature. Why wouldnt there be even more rainfall under the bogus CO2 theory since the forcing of temperature is really caused by increases in H2O according to every alarmist in the world? So there wouldnt be any appreciable sea level rise and no increasing droughts nor wildfires, It is is already too hot in the arrid parts of the world in the summertime to spend time outdoors anyway. We have air conditioning for that. Most of the worlds poor do not live in desserts. If it becomes too hot in certain non desert places people can always move towards the poles if they cant afford air conditioning. They will have plenty of time to start packing. 2084 is a long way off. I am really stretching my thinking powers to try to come up with 1 negative of a 4C increase. SO WHATS NOT TO LIKE?
        I think 4 C average increase is just what the doctor ordered. It isnt like it is going to happen all at once anyway.

      • What kind of cheap, imitation scientist says something is missing, but I know where it is. Either its location is known or it’s missing. Not both! If there is decent ocean temperature data then show it. There isn’t!

      • There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
        Trenberth is trying to call a fourth category into being, the unknown known. 😐

  6. Trump and Pruitt do not ignore the only important data – economic impact. Paris was dumped as a bad deal. If scientists choose to ignore economic impact of their blue-sky will-o-the-wisp, then they will be ignored by voters.
    Economics used to be a science, should be a physical science; instead economists study game-theory, even worse than scientists studying co2. Of course WallStreet push game-theory on Trump despite instinct.
    Economics, production, machine-tool progress, energy density, infrastructure is certainly not a game.

    • Most game theory assumes a zero sum state, where the results of each game are self-contained and do not affect the results of other games.
      Economics and life in general are anything but zero sum.

      • Most of the old media are playing checkers. Trump is playing chess. Today when he canceled the summit he was telling China to stick it where the sun don’t shine. That fat sick little NORK Kim is a Chinese bargaining chip in the trade talks and Trump didn’t take the bait. Funny how a truck driver understood that but the old Media still hasn’t figured it or avoid that obvious fact for their own purposes. Either way it makes them look even worse. I’m just happy as hell that for the first time in decades we have a POTUS that will fight for American manufacturing jobs. And believe it or not what is going to happen in China will effect my job as a driver in one way or another within a year or so.

      • A POTUS who will fight for American jobs? What a joke, you’ve been played and don’t even know it. Trump’s done nothing for American mfg. Harley Davidson just closed their Kansas City plant and announced the opening of a new mfg plant in Thailand. They’re using some money from the corporate tax break to help fund the move, the rest is going to increase dividends to shareholders. You know, the same Harley Davidson that Trump talked about as an American success story that would be moving more jobs to America as a result of the tax break. Carrier, who Trump highlighted as an example of his job saving, is moving those Indianapolis jobs to Mexico.

      • Chris
        Isn’t Harley Davidson a Japanese company, since like, forever? The great American story went bankrupt and some Japanese investors who had a clue about making motorcycles bought it for the princely sum of $1.00. The first thing they did was to remake the foundry patterns so the engines would stop leaking oil continuously.
        The ‘success’ is entirely Japanese and they have a strong relationship with Thailand as a manufacturing centre, principally because it isn’t China. The main market for motorcycles is Asia, and they are building a global brand.
        In terms of brand recognition, it is quintessentially American but that is good PR management. No tuning forks on a Sportster.
        If the bikes made in Thailand are 30% cheaper retail than ones from Kansas, they are likely to sell well in Indonesia, Thailand and China. Jakarta already has a large club of H-D devotees and ‘bad-ass’ riders. Multiple manufacturers in China make 150cc H-D look-alikes. In Dalian they are bedecked with strings of lights and work as taxis. People would love to ride the real thing.
        American manufacturers, generally speaking, don’t think that far outside the box between the two oceans.

      • Crispin, no, you’re wrong. HD is not owned by Japanese. It’s an American company listed on the NYSE with the trading symbol HOG.

      • PS to Crispin, none of the story you posted is true. HD has never been owned by Japanese investors or a Japanese company, and the $1 stuff is not true as the company has never been sold to anyone.

  7. What climate data?
    Do you mean the very rough guesses
    of the average surface temperature,
    where a majority of the planet’s surface
    has no measurements, so government
    bureaucrat “scientists” can make up any
    numbers they want, knowing their wild guesses
    can never be verified or falsified?
    Those data may seem worth ignoring because
    they have almost no value.
    But ignoring the false boogeyman of
    CO2 / fossil fuels does NOT solve the
    problem of too many people believing
    everything their government tells them,
    (such as the claim that adding CO2 to the air is pollution,
    when in fact, CO2 is plant food, and more plant food
    is good news for greening our planet)!

    And slight nighttime warming in the
    colder latitudes, I’ll assume from CO2,
    (although there is no scientific proof)
    is not dangerous climate change —
    it is good news for the people who live
    in those colder climates.
    Climate data should not be ignored,
    they should be attacked as very rough,
    frequently “adjusted” data & wild guesses,
    compiled by biased government bureaucrats,
    whose jobs depend on people believing
    in a coming climate catastrophe,
    that will never come!
    And most important — attack the claim that
    climate “model” outputs are data ( and point
    out their 30 years of wrong predictions ).
    If there are nothing but wrong predictions,
    they are not models of any climate processes
    on this planet.
    The “models” assume CO2 controls the average temperature,
    and then make decades of wrong predictions,
    so it seems that CO2 does not control the temperature,
    because if it did, we’d have 30 years of right predictions!
    My climate change blog:
    over 17,000 pageviews so far
    and not one negative comment***
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
    *** most likely because
    I don’t allow comments,
    heh heh

    • Richard Greene,
      While I agree with my namesake, I find it somewhat ironic that he should comment of Janice Moore’s slightly loose wording when he cones up with “The link between CO2 and actual warming is assumed.”
      Surely, he meant to say “The link between CO2 and actual global warming is assumed.”

      • Mr. Green:
        When whatever is “warming”
        is not specified in a sentence
        used in a comment at a global warming
        skeptic website, then what else could
        be assumed?
        .
        Warming on Mars. Venus, Pluto?
        .
        I have no ida why my ancestors
        used three E’s in my surname,
        rather then Green, like your surname,
        but the three E spelling backfired
        in the internet age.

      • Richard Greene – May 25, 2018 at 11:57 am

        Mr. Green:
        When whatever is “warming” is not specified in a sentence used in a comment at a global warming skeptic website, then what else could be assumed?
        .
        Warming on Mars. Venus, Pluto?

        Don’t be talking silly, ….. Richard “3E” Greene
        “DUH”, Interglacial Warming might be assumed, ….. likewise with “ocean water warming”, ….. “tropospheric warming”, ….. El Neno/La Nena warming, …. etc.
        And “DUH, DUH”, ……… earth based “global warming”, ….. be it actual, estimated, insinuated, guesstimated, calculated or averaged ….. should ALWAYS be denoted as being either Interglacial or Anthropogenic, ……. because the “junk science” surface temperatures being touted and mimicked by the Political Correct Climate Scientists have always included “highjacked” temperatures that were/are the result of Interglacial Warming that has occurred during the past 22,000+- years.

  8. “…The options included highlighting uncertainties in the data, reviewing the scientific studies under the Administrative Procedure Act, or simply ignoring them altogether, the Post reports.,,,”.
    I’ve argued this before, and I’ll do it again: All the Trump Admin has to do is gather together a panel or team of top notch scientists who are capable of challenging and refuting the climate alarmist establishment. The team should prepare a presentation or document outlining all of the scientific problems with the alarmist narrative and widely publicize it. Include a lot of questions for the alarmists to answer in a debate.
    If the alarmist narrative is on as much shaky scientific ground as I understand it to be, a team of top notch scientists should be able to shoot it down. Where is that Red Team/Blue Team debate that Scott Pruitt talked about? If we wait for the alarmist narrative to die on its own due to its bad science, it could take decades…if it ever does. The way things are going now is just a standoff.

    • Where is that Red Team/Blue Team debate that Scott Pruitt talked about?”
      Pruitt still wants it, but it’s been reported that Chief of Staff Kelly, who apparently doesn’t like Pruitt very much, shot the idea down as “too divisive” before the fall midterms. I think Pruitt is right on this one and Kelly is wrong, and it won’t bother me if Kelly moves on to greener pastures soon.

      • Red Team Blue Team would fail.
        The first team would say runaway global warming is coming.
        The second team would say it is not.
        The first team will say the world has to act now —
        we can’t do nothing because the second team
        could be wrong.
        Result: A stalemate

  9. Trump and Pruitt have taken a strong and well founded position on corrupt federal data but miss the inherent criminality. Here is the US criminal code statute on manipulating or falsifying official federal records.
    18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
    (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
    (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
    Notice the penalty is up to three years’ imprisonment, making it a felony.

    • P.S. Falsifying records is a “strict liability” crime, like statutory rape, doesn’t matter with strict liability what the belief or reason is, you do it you’re guilty. It would be fine if the powers that be thought of fooling with those figures as “climatic jailbait.”

    • Three years imprisonment is not enough, considering the scale of the damage done, but it is a start.
      Perhaps a civil claim for damages would be a useful addition.

      • well it’s up to 3 years per charge. If you charge them individual for each falsified record those years can quickly add up considering how many records have been tampered with.

      • Does the law need to be rewritten to take into account “experimental data adjustment by inferior or principal scientific officiers “?
        In 2015 Tom Karl, NOAA, authored a study of SST from ocean buoy data concluding that the “pause” in the increase in global temperatures between 1998-2012 never happened” though the regression line of the above temperature data has been widely accepted by even the IPCC. Karl apparently adjusted the SST’s to show that the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st C is at least as great as the last half of the 20th C. Published in Science just in time for the 2015 Paris CC meeting. His reasoning for the adjustment “… data collected from ocean buoys are cooler than ship-based data” was described in a press release that accompanied the report.
        Lamar Smith, HR, Chair of House Comm on Science,Space, and Tecnology, requested the documents related to Karl’s study from NOAA; but he was snubbed. John Bates a NOAA employee climate data archivist wrote a post about the matter in 2017 saying that Karl had failed to follow agency protocols and concluded: “In every aspect of preparation and release of data sets, we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation.”
        Julie Kelly. Friend of Science. Jan 22, 2018, National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com

  10. “The Washington Post reports that a memo, drafted in September by Michael Catanzaro, the then-White House special assistant…”
    Sounds like Mr Catanzaro isn’t winning.

    • He’s winning big time…..stepped down because of a conflict of interest…..back to being a lobbyist….and pulling big bucks

  11. The options included highlighting uncertainties in the data, reviewing the scientific studies under the Administrative Procedure Act, or simply ignoring them altogether, the Post reports.

    There’s a fourth option. Trivialize it by putting the climate data into meaningful context.
    Gorebal Warming relative to a thermometer…
    https://i1.wp.com/debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/context2.png
    Sea level rise relative to the Statue of Liberty…
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/j14_03.png
    Manhattan-sized ice cubes relative to Greenland ice sheet…
    https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/petermann.png
    “Anthropocene” volume of Greenland ice sheet relative to Late Quaternary range…
    https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/gris_eemian_2.png

  12. Typical WaPo spin, saying that the Trump administration wants to “ignore scientific” data, in order to portray Trump as anti-science.
    The truth is, many of the AGW scaremongers rely only on the predictions of models, which have over-predicted PAST temperature rises by a factor of 3 or more. The AGW scaremongers are the ones trying to “ignore” or obfuscate the data that would cause reasonable people to doubt their models, so they manipulate or “adjust” (fudge) the data to fit their models. Remember “hide the decline” in 1999? Data manipulation has become more flagrant since then, since temperatures have stubbornly refused to follow the models, and it still snows in the Midwest in April.
    A real scientist adjusts his theory to fit new data. Fudging data to fit a theory is not science.

    • The only REAL scientific data are
      lab experiments to prove that CO2
      is a greenhouse gas — EVERYTHING ELSE
      is assumptions, unproven theories,
      adjustments, and infilling.
      The little REAL science should NOT be ignored.
      There is no way to know how much warming CO2 causes,
      if any, but if you assume ALL warming since 1979
      weather satellite data began was caused by CO2, as a
      worst case guess, then CO2 is harmless.
      It’s everything else beyond the
      REAL science lab experiments
      (all the junk science and wrong wild guess
      predictions of the future average temperature)
      that should be ignored.

      • Even the lab experiments are invalid. What happens in a closed container is in NO way indicative of what will happen in the Earth’s atmosphere. And that assumes the “experiments” were properly controlled for other variables that might affect the result, which instinct tells me they probably were not, specifically the density of the gas in each container being compared.
        It’s like assuming that the gunpowder contained in a firecracker will explode violently if piled on the ground in the open air and ignited, vs. igniting it while it is wrapped tightly in a firecracker’s paper casing. Same substance, the same amount of it, two extremely different results.

  13. Ignore “computer simulated manufactured data” but properly analyze real data. That will show that natural processes are controlling temperature and anthropogenic emissions are an insignificant contributer.

    • We hear that all the time, and yet when the “real” data is analyzed again by skeptic scientists, they come to the same conclusions. There is no possible scenario of real science with real data by skeptic scientists funded by skeptics that would satisfy a small percentage of the US population. We know this because it’s been done.

      • I have been analyzing the available real data for nearly ten years and have come to the conclusion that the temperature at the surface of water or ice is controlled by the air water vapor saturation temperature (dew point), not CO2 back radiation. Clouds produce much more back radiation.

      • No, actually it hasn’t. There are the resident Eco-Fascists that attempt to pass themselves off as “skeptics” so that they can make the exact claim you’re making, but only suckers believe they are honestly approaching the data without the usual pre-conceived conclusions and confirmation bias.
        If skeptical scientists (which sadly SHOULD be a redundant statement, but isn’t in this age of pseudo-science being passed off as ACTUAL science) “came to the same conclusions” as the AGW Eco-Fascists, then they wouldn’t have a different point of view, so your statement is truly laughable.
        And sorry to burst your bubble, but we’re not talking about “a small percentage of the U.S. population.” AGW/”climate change” is at the BOTTOM of EVERY list of “concerns” you can cite, and it wouldn’t even be ON the list if it wasn’t included by the “survey” writers.

      • Sorry to birth your small bubble, but ” then they wouldn’t have a different point of view,” is insane. This is science, not an opinion. They don’t have a different point of view, they came to the same conclusions.
        You seem to not know what organizations I’m taking about. It was the best possible scenario to put this to rest, and still you deny their results. If the Koch brothers projects get the same graphs, then there’s no possible re-do that would satisfy you.

      • I took the 45000000 data point set of the GHCN temperature data for ~1000(varies over time) temperature stations in US daily maximum temperature and averaged it and then averaged it over all 365 days of the year and plotted the averages for the time period 1895 to 2018. I graphed it. There is NO warming over that time period. All the warming that other data sets have shown are global data daily averages. Well I grant you; daily maximums are NOT the same as daily averages. That is the point I am making. Aren’t the alarmists concerned with everyone dying of heat or extreme weather events caused by heat. Arent the daily maximums the real data that should be analyzed because it is the daily maximums that cause the heat that alarmists are scared about? Only the daily maximum temperature can cause the bad things that alarmists are worried about. Therefore that number of data points should be enough to prove there isnt any warming to worry about?

      • For example, the “gentleman” who ran BEST, claimed that he was skeptical prior to doing his study.
        The problem is there are records from speeches he made going back decades in which he took a decidedly alarmist position.

      • Scott,
        “We hear …. We know ….”
        Explains a lot about your thought processes and how it interferes with you cognitive abilities.
        You are missing the part about think and understand.

    • ra·tion·al·ism
      /ˈraSHənlˌizəm/
      noun
      1.
      a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response:

  14. What other sciences or data do you think they are ignoring? This gives non-scientists like Pruitt the opportunity to make decisions made on gut feelings instead of simply cherry-picking what they want to use.

    • I know from long experience that warmists like you, continually IGNORE the failing IPCC Per Decade warming rate prediction/projections. They project at least a .30C Per Decade warming rate, while Satellite data shows only HALF that rate.
      How are you going to “cherry pick” this reality away?

      • “They project at least a .30C Per Decade warming rate, while Satellite data shows only HALF that rate.”
        Well, they were predicting surface temperatures, which satellites don’t measure. But it just isn’t true. Here are the last few IPCC SPMs:
        AR3 SPM (2001):
        “This approach suggests that anthropogenic warming is likely7 to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C per
        decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario,”

        AR4 SPM(2007)
        “For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES
        emission scenarios.”

        AR5 SPM (2013)
        “The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016–2035 relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the range of 0.3°C to 0.7°C (medium confidence).”
        That is a 30 year period, so 0.1 to 0.23 °C/decade

      • So then Nick why do you still believe in CAGW?
        I dont see what the problem is even if CO2 caused a 4 degree warming. The earth in the past was as high as 25C average. Now it is 15C. So an increase to an average of 19 would still not melt the ice sheets. The global average is just that an average. The North and South Poles and Greenland would still be less than 0 and they probably wouldnt even increase by 4C. So we wouldnt have any more melting (except maybe for some glaciers) But even if all 200000 glaciers melted completely the earth oceans would only rise 400 mm That is only 40 % of a metre or less than 16 inches. Like Dr. Willie Soon said; If you are afraid of the sea level rising 16 inches in 68 years then if you are too slow to move to higher ground in that time frame THEN YOU DESERVE TO DROWN We in Canada would love the 4C increase. Fires are caused by dry conditions, not by temperature. Why wouldnt there be even more rainfall under the bogus CO2 theory since the forcing of temperature is really caused by increases in H2O according to every alarmist in the world? So there wouldnt be any appreciable sea level rise and no increasing droughts nor wildfires, It is is already too hot in the arrid parts of the world in the summertime to spend time outdoors anyway. We have air conditioning for that. Most of the worlds poor do not live in desserts. If it becomes too hot in certain non desert places people can always move towards the poles if they cant afford air conditioning. They will have plenty of time to start packing. 2084 is a long way off. I am really stretching my thinking powers to try to come up with 1 negative of a 4C increase. SO WHATS NOT TO LIKE?
        I think 4 C average increase is just what the doctor ordered. It isnt like it is going to happen all at once anyway.

    • When someone is wrong over and over again, yet still won’t go away, ignoring them is the best option.
      Sort of like Scott here.

      • I see. So you’ve been wrong over and over. There isn’t a single science organization that would side with your gut feelings.
        Why is most of this site interested in what a few people say, and not what 100s or science organizations have scientifically concluded?

      • I love how trolls look to politicians to prove that the science is right.
        None of these so called “scientific” organizations polled their membership prior to the politicians who run them taking a position.
        A majority of these so called “scientific” organizations are wholly dependent on government money for their continued existence.
        As always, Scott can’t prove the point he is trying to make.

      • I think Griff finally realized we are right and has moved on to something more productive..

      • Or he realized it’s a waste of his time to engage here, and moved on to more productive activities.

    • The EPA should be ignoring anything that is poorly founded. There isn’t any good “data” or “science” that supports catastrophic human-induced climate change BS, so doing nothing about it from a regulatory standpoint is EXACTLY the right answer.

    • The USA is the only country in the world where this “debate” still rages on. Same deal with evolution vs creationism and the guns don’t kill people nonsense. Strange how it’s always the one side that is wrong about everything.

      • Sometimes the majority is wrong. CO2 is plant food not a heating element. Guns don’t kill people, people do.

      • Wow, what powerful bumper sticker logic. People kill people a lot faster with guns, especially semi automatics.

    • “What other sciences or data do you think they are ignoring? This gives non-scientists like Pruitt the opportunity to make decisions made on gut feelings instead of simply cherry-picking what they want to use.”
      Actually you have a point. The only mystery is, why would you think Gore and all the CAGW politicos did otherwise?
      All the “science” and “data” was just a huge, massive, grant-for-alarmist-only game. USSR used to give money only to communists, 97% of them scientist agreed, and others where “dissidents” worthy of psy asylum. Obama’s USA did just the same with climate alarmists.
      The mystery is, for some reason, you trust alarmists. I guess you trust USSR, then.

      • “The only mystery is, why would you think Gore and all the CAGW politicos did otherwise?”
        Why did you bring up more politicians? I was talking about science, scientists, and science organizations. People on this site seem to want to discuss politics. The first thing you should be doing is understanding the problem, then look to the politicians who listen to the scientists. If you’re listening to Watts (no degree) or Monckton (literature) or Heller/Goddard (engineer) then you’re not paying attention.

      • “Why did you bring up more politicians? I was talking about science, scientists, and science organizations. ”
        well, actually, you should had written
        “I was talking about science funded by politicians with an agenda, scientists funded by politicians with an agenda, and science organizations funded by politicians with an agenda”. And then you wouldn’t had ask the first part of the question, since the answer would had been obvious
        “If you’re listening to Watts (no degree) or Monckton (literature) or Heller/Goddard (engineer) then you’re not paying attention”
        I am also listening to Gore (no degree), Pachaury (railway engineer) or Mann (faker of data).
        And a bunch of others. Mathematicians. Statisticians.
        Then I make My own assessment. The fact, this is easy. alarmist stuff doesn’t even pass the most basic tests.of science. Monckton DO make mistakes (the very same mistake than IPCC,actually: treating a non linear system as if it were linear), but he is still much less in error than IPCC, as he doesn’t need to introduce fancy ad hoc hypothesis and variables.

  15. The Post article includes neither a description of nor link to the alleged government “data” highlighting climate change “dangers.” Climate campaigners routinely confuse “data” with their interpretation of the data. Until shown otherwise, I will assume this is another one of those cases.

  16. It’s not easy to to take most of what masquerades as “science” seriously, especially the endless shrill predictions, based on . . . nothing.
    We’ve abandoned scientific method in this area, as well as a number of other areas, in favor of politically expedient prediction. What one expects when science becomes just another politicized a government agency.

  17. It is completely safe to ignore anything coming from the climate establishment, unfortunately. But if there were federal specs for data and methods, before you get final payment, much of the problem would go away.

  18. Years ago Al Gore said; “the debate is over”. Really? I would say the debate never happened. And it should happen. Lets get respectable scientists on both sides of the issue to present their data and have a debate on television so everyone can see it. If the warmists can present a convincing case then we should pay heed to it. If the skeptics win the debate then we should scrap the whole AGW/ Climate change issue.

      • And this is where the administration and Congress can play a role. While they can’t compel anyone to debate, they can compel people to testify (although based on what Eric Holder got away with, contempt of Congress doesn’t seem to be a very serious crime). The kicker is that the questioning needs to be from the right people and the members of Congress are definitely not the right people to ask or even know the kinds of questions that need to be asked. This is the main flaw I’ve seen in all of the Congressional hearings about climate science. Both sides of the questioning simply regurgitate talking points to feign buy in, but address them only to those on the panel who have already bought into their respective positions.

      • No, those who believe AGW is real are focused on solutions, not sitting around debating skeptics. Skeptics will never, ever change their mind. It’ll always be some version of “climates always changed, always will” or “rent seeking scientists” or “corrupt data”.

      • “No, those who believe AGW is real are focused on solutions”
        indeed. So much so that they already had the solution even beforehand (global government, of the almighty communist kind, with complete control of the economy). They looked for a problem to justify this solution, tried quite a number (peace, poverty, acid rain, nature protection,…), and ultimately found AGW. When CAGW will be disproved, and it will, they will still just change the problem again. No lack of them.
        “Skeptics will never, ever change their mind. It’ll always be some version of “climates always changed, always will” or “rent seeking scientists” or “corrupt data”.” ” {actually, this would be “rent seeking pseudo-scientists”, but, never mind}
        Why would you change mind if you are right?
        Do you think that climates never changed? that it would stop changing if human did nothing? That the grant process makes no selection among scientists, so that is the end only those delivering the required result are still in the field, even if this required corrupting or torturing data until it confess?
        There is no question that human changes the climate, and actually this is often the whole purpose of their action. They cut forest to turn them into fields, drain swap, build cities, make huge water-management project. etc. And if all this change the climate, and it does (much more than CO2, the nothing-burger you make so much fuss about), so be it. We will enjoy the good change, cope with the bad, adapt, and make the best of it. That’s life.

  19. “…an internal memo that highlights the Trump administration’s struggles with established climate change science.” There is no established climate change science that showed any significant or dangerous change in earth’s climate has occurred in the last 150 years or so. Paleo-climate records, ice cores, sediments, etc., show that changes in temperatures of 4+degC have occurred many times in the past through natural variation in the climate over the course of 10’s to a hundred years.

      • YUP! OR, there was no relationship whatsoever, when you look at longer time scales (geocarb reconstructions).

  20. OMG Really, listing options even if not good or even feasible is now a problem? Have too many folks never heard of brain storming and also the need of listing all options.

    • We are talking leftists here. The assumption that they have a brain to storm remains to be proven.

  21. “Climate Change” is only partly a scientific topic. It’s mostly a political issue that drives subsidies, and prospectively will affect wealth transfers, taxes, with some minor research funding implications.
    You DO NOT want a headline that says “Trump Decides to Ignore Climate Data.” You can dismiss data for being unreliable. But you cannot use the word “ignore.”

  22. What if the government only paid scientists if they produced computer models showing cooling or some other predetermined outcome ? Well the scientists are only human , have bills to pay , and hey it’s only a model . No fraud in producing models the client wants to pay for . Tell me this isn’t what the climate charlatans have been up to for 20 years + .
    Right out of creating a phoney Russian dossier to frame a President playbook . Same book different cover .

    • And the Roman Warm Period, and the Minoan Warm Period, and the Holocene Climate OPTIMUM, each one (going further back in time) WARMER than those which followed. Despite no CO2 level changes or human CO2 emissions to “cause” any of them.

  23. What about overdue investigations of misconduct at EPA, NOAA, NASA, and WH science office over the past decade?

    • Those investigations will have to wait until after Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe and Lynch are wearimg orange jumpsuits.

      • Not to mention Steele, Halper, Dearlove, Mifsud. But after Blair got scot-free a Chilcot could likely go the same way. Wonder if Jeremy would take that up : Britain attempting US regime-change? Right now the EU is tying an Italian regime-change (Elamr Brok), endemic in the transatlantic, what?

  24. If the “red-team” “blue-team” ignored the science of physical economy, it would be just a wild broadway production. I think the voters want to hear about jobs production, infrastructure, cars, petroleum, nuclear, and getting back to space. Just all those things that made America great.

  25. We need to take the simple info provide by Green and others above and market the hell out of it once and for all. Hit it hard and long before election 2018 once and for all. “Do the Trump”.
    Talk about wasting our lives away with the stupidity??? Let’s get it over with. Real science, after all, is on our side.What are we afraid of?

  26. I think the administration should challenge alarmist climate scientists to justify their position as it’s dissected and eviscerated by well informed skeptics and then allow the alarmists to challenge the skeptics position. The premise would be to give both sides a forum to make their case so we get at the truth, given that the science is so incredibly controversial. Put these debates on video and make them widely available and the behavior of the alarmists as they are challenged will tell people all they need to know to make an informed decision. Congressional hearings are useless as politicians just don’t know the questions to ask that will put alarmists on the defensive and make them look foolish as they attempt to wiggle out of their web of inconsistencies and contradictions all designed to deceive and provide false witness to the dangers of CO2 emissions.
    I’m absolutely confident that if I were to engage in a one on one debate with any climate scientist on the side of the IPCC and could counter their misunderstandings in real time and prevent them from getting off topic with superfluous counter claims, by the end of the debate, they will leave in tears after having no choice but to have learned how incredibly wrong they’ve been for so long. Their only other option would be to claim that the laws of physics don’t apply to the climate, that the data supporting conformance to the laws of physics is bad and then cowardly run away to prevent being further challenged.

    • “and prevent them from getting off topic with superfluous counter claims”
      good luck with that. At best they’d give the standard talking points of 97% consensus and claim it a victory for their side without ever touching the science.

      • John,
        It’s far easier to do this in a one on one debate than it is in a blog debate where the tactics of making a drive by claim and then running away without justifying it or going far off topic with unrelated claims are the usual responses when an alarmist is presented with a fact or question whose answer disputes what they want to believe.
        My favorite question is one that no alarmist can answer and that breaks them every time. Start with the IPCC’s claim that 1 W/m^2 of forcing will increase the surface temperature by 0.8C. If the temperature does increase by 0.8C, surface emissions will necessarily increase by 4.3 W/m^2 according to the SB LAW. One W/m^2 of these additional emissions is replenished by the forcing. What is the origin of the other 3.3 W/m^2 of power required to replenish the rest of the increased emissions in order to avoid further cooling?
        The most common answer is ‘feedback’ until I point out that the 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback is 3.3 times larger than the 1 W/m^2 of forcing said to produced it. Per Bode, if the magnitude of the output fed back to the input is greater than the magnitude of the forcing input, the system is unconditionally unstable and clearly, this does not describe the Earth.
        The second most common response is that the Earth is not an ideal black body, to which I reply that a non ideal black body is called a gray body whose behavior is precisely quantifiable with an emissivity. Any non ideal characteristics can be rolled in to an equivalent emissivity. In other words, the T^4 relationship is immutable and independent of the emissivity.
        If they also know they’re being recorded and that the recording will become widely available, they should also know that they will not get away with anything so silly and if they try, the counter punch will only further weaken their case.

      • “One W/m^2 of these additional emissions is replenished by the forcing. What is the origin of the other 3.3 W/m^2 of power required to replenish the rest of the increased emissions in order to avoid further cooling?”
        The thing is, forcing is calculated as forcing at TOA. You are doing a surface balance. DWLWIR, which balances surface radiation, does not come from TOA. There is far too much of it for that. It mostly comes from low and warm levels of the atmosphere. And they warm as the surface warms, and that provides the balancing response.

    • “they will leave in tears after having no choice but to have learned how incredibly wrong they’ve been for so long.”
      Over the years I’ve had many discussions with supposed PHD scientists. I’ve yet to get one to budge away from their fixed views. No amount of empirical data or citations from peer reviewed papers and basic logic has any effect on their cognitive dissonance. Many of these supposed “scientists” were academics brainwashing our youth. Others have claimed to be reviewers of climate science. They don’t live in the real world or have the ability to consider information that contradicts their delusions.

      • “I’ve yet to get one to budge”
        Not necessary. You need to trap them in a box bounded by their untestable conclusions and then break open the box leaving them no room to escape. The point is not to get them to change their mind, but to elicit behavior that makes them look foolish and then present that foolishness to the masses who are the ultimate targets that need to be turned.

      • co2isnotevil May 24, 2018 at 1:03 pm
        “I’ve yet to get one to budge”
        “Not necessary. You need to trap them in a box bounded by their untestable conclusions and then break open the box leaving them no room to escape. The point is not to get them to change their mind, but to elicit behavior that makes them look foolish and then present that foolishness to the masses who are the ultimate targets that need to be turned”
        That is exactly what I do.
        “cowardly run away to prevent being further challenged.” Is their normal response after changing the subject and miss-direction tactics don’t work.

  27. Where the hell is this bus going?
    If you jump on a bus that say’s it’s going to Melbourne and you end up in Sydney I’m sure you’d query the driver’s road knowledge. We are getting 200 year floods every two years. The snow fields are up and running six weeks early. We have five mothballed desalination plants. Go figure! Don’t just ignore them, laugh them off the stage.

  28. For 8 years, the Obama regime ignored any and all science that did not support his agenda to cripple US industry, flood the country with illegal aliens, starve the US military, and expand his one-world-government socialist agenda. He used the EPA as a cat’s paw, touting junk science as cause for industry crippling regulation. He used federal grants to solar and wind unreliable energy start-up companies as a money laundering front to create renewable kick-back campaign donations to his 2012 campaign and socialists he favored. He and Hillary used the State Department as a pay-to-play cash machine to fund the Clinton crime foundation and failed 2016 presidential bid. He used the FBI, CIA, and IRS to spy on and criminally attack political opposition groups.
    We shouldn’t ‘ignore’ the progenitors of their junk science or their criminal activities.
    We should indict, charge, convict, and incarcerate them.

  29. I’m in high school chemistry class September 1971. We’re slowly warming and melting mothball crystals and graphing the temperature change over time. A task so incredibly simple I can hardly believe we are actually doing it. I began plotting the simple straight line temperature increase over time on my graph. However after few minutes something began to go wrong, my straight line temperature increase began to flatten out. I thought my burner must be putting out less heat or maybe I had made a mistake in my timing. I began to place a higher temperature on my graph than was actually indicated in an attempt to smooth out the flat spot my graph was developing and maintain a straight line increase. When my teacher walked around the room and checked our results, I like most the class, had altered my data to maintain a straight line temperature increase. Assuming I would have a straight line result caused me to fail correctly graph the temperatures. I felt pretty stupid when I realized what I had done. However I did learn an important lesson about bad science and human nature. I also learned that mothball crystals absorb energy when they transition from a solid to a liquid. I get very uneasy when scientists become so very sure of themselves.

  30. I don’t know why, but I was looking for “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” which is in the “first rap song” by Dylan…

    Also “The pump don’t work ’cause the the vandals took the handles!”
    …Was just looking for an excuse so I could post this…!
    “You don’t need a scientist to know about the climate” – JPP

  31. The government’s science is at best incomplete and sometimes even wrong (EPA). Delve deeper into the engineering/science with an understanding of thermalization and use of Quantum Mechanics (Hitran does the calculations) and discover why CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
    Atmospheric water vapor has been increasing 1.5% per decade, 8% since 1960, but few recognize the significance of the increase (twice that from any feedback) on climate. How much of recent flooding (with incidences reported world wide) is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the ‘thumb on the scale’ of added water vapor?

  32. From the post:

    The options included highlighting uncertainties in the data, reviewing the scientific studies under the Administrative Procedure Act, or simply ignoring them altogether, the Post reports.

    It will take time to drain the swamp enough for those that would carry out the first two options to be effective. (IE Highlight the uncertainties in the CO2 endangerment thing then go for the throat and kill it … with real, honest science rather that political-based science.)
    In the meantime, ignore it when it comes to policy.
    When have they ever been right?
    How often have dthey been right?
    (Those last two questions are referring to “in the real world”, not a (re-set) computer projection of what will happen. (“re-set” after time showed the older models false.))

  33. The good thing is the raw data is readily available somewhere.
    And if you search for it for years upon years, you eventually give up.
    All the data that can prove or disprove global warming has disappeared. The data that doesn’t prove or disprove it, like El Niño stats or OLR is everywhere.
    The agencies that don’t provide the raw data readily, should just be shut-down and defunded. Period.

    • “And if you search for it for years upon years, you eventually give up.”
      No, it’s very easy to find. I see endlessly people posting about adjusted data, like GHCN or USHCN. The unadjusted data sits in the same directory with an identical file structure, but they seem unwilling to see it.

      • “Every day it is changed to new numbers.”
        Absolutely untrue (and of course, no substantiation). GHCN V1 was issued on DVD last century. Some stations have been added, and maybe a few dropped. But the unadjusted version numbers haven’t changed, except in a few cases where notified by the supplier. Sometimes the flagged status changes, and V3 sorted out some issues of rival records for some sites. The wayback machine has copies going back to 2013. See if you can find data that has been changed.

  34. There is no such thing as ‘climate data.’
    Climate is the result of analysis of weather data. It is the statistics of weather. There is only weather data.

  35. It would be nice if there were punishments meted out for vandalizing public weather and climate data but…crickets.

  36. “…options included highlighting uncertainties in the data, reviewing the scientific studies under the Administrative Procedure Act, or simply ignoring them altogether…”
    Watts: “do nothing” is probably the best option
    Seriously? None of these options is doing nothing. Playing politics with science born of willfull ignorance is outrageous and this is one its dark veins. Shame.

Comments are closed.