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.
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.
“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.”
“nothing but hot-air by rent-seekers”
Good summary….+100
Agreed.
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 .
He’ll get lots of grief from scientists who regularly ignore the MWP.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
+500
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.
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
That’s poet Allen Ginsberg on the far left side who walks across at the end…
He was at the first Earth Day, 1970, in Philadelphia, as I was there too…
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?
From the post:
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.))
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.
Your raw data Nick is not the original. Every day it is changed to new numbers.
“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.
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.
I think we should pretend it’s not happening and hope it goes away.
It would be nice if there were punishments meted out for vandalizing public weather and climate data but…crickets.
“…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.
What to do with catastrophic climate reports? Paper recycling is good for the environment
http://geekologie.com/assets_c/2012/03/wiping-with-twitter-1-thumb-640×442-17037.jpg