President Trump unconvinced by National Climate Assessment report

Trump Goes Head-To-Head With Reporters On Global Warming

by Michael Bastasch

President Donald Trump pushed back on reporters who confronted him with a government report on global warming, saying he knew of “scientists that very much dispute it.”

“Well, I think we’ve contributed, we certainly contribute, I mean, there’s certain pollutants that go up and there’s certain things that happen,” Trump said in an interview with Axios reporters that aired on HBO Sunday night.

Axios reporters thought bringing a copy of the most recent National Climate Assessment (NCA) would make it harder for Trump to question its findings. It didn’t work.

Axios’s Jonathan Swan said scientists “say the overwhelming cause for the last 50 years” is human activity, to which Trump responded,

“I don’t necessarily agree.”

The latest NCA, released in 2017, says “there is no convincing alternative explanation” for recent global warming other than human emissions of greenhouse gases. The report was put together by federal agencies and outside climate scientists.

Trump’s critics feared he would try to censor the NCA or even prevent it from being released, but the president stumped his detractors by releasing the report on time last year.

Trump seemed to take a “lukewarmer” stance on global warming during the interview. “Lukewarmers” agree that humans contribute to warming, but that contribution is probably much less than the NCA and many other scientists say it is.

“Is there climate change? Yeah. Will it go back like this, I mean will it change back? Probably,” Trump said. “Man and women, we do have an impact, but I don’t believe the impact is merely what some say and other scientists that dispute those findings very strongly.”

Trump also stressed that the climate science community is not monolithic when it comes to global warming. Indeed, while most scientists likely back the findings of the NCA and United Nations assessments, some scientists do dispute them.

Trump said he wanted all points of view to be included in government climate reports.

“I want everybody to report whatever they want, but ultimately I’m the one that makes that final decision. I can also give you reports where people very much dispute that,” Trump said. “You know, you do have scientists that very much dispute it. I want to make sure that we have the cleanest air.”

Full story at The Daily Caller

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Curious George
November 5, 2018 8:58 am

Astronomy is not settled.
Biology is not settled.
Chemistry is not settled.
Geology is not settled.
Medicine is not settled.
Physics is not settled.
Climatology is not settled.
Climatology is not science.

Curious George
Reply to  Curious George
November 5, 2018 9:05 am

Grrrh … climatilogy IS settled.

Reply to  Curious George
November 5, 2018 12:36 pm

The latest NCA, released in 2017, says “there is no convincing alternative explanation” for recent global warming other than human emissions of greenhouse gases.

That is NOT settled science, it’s a statement of ignorance. Basically “what else could it be” is not a scientific proof of anything.

Reply to  Greg
November 5, 2018 3:31 pm

“The alleged Apollo missions occurred in area 51 and were filmed by Stanley Kubrick as there is no other plausible explanation that we understand. –Moon landing deniers”

“If any infectious disease disappeared, it must be thanks to mass vaccination. There is no other medical practice I learned about from Hollywood/Big Pharma. –modern hygiene deniers”

D Cage
Reply to  Greg
November 6, 2018 8:03 am

The is a very convincing alternative that does actually meet the criteria of being scientific if not enough legally and that is the climate establishment is dominated by fraudsters.
Even at the lowest level a cause and effect requires an extremely good correlation of cause and effect. Having said that even a perfect correlation match does not actually prove cause and effect.
I know I do not have the almost limitless resources provided to the climate fraternity but surely given that they have a duty to show the public the fossil fuel sources centred at each of the hot spots and times shown in AMSRE_SSTAn_M. I am also mystified how retained heat caused by CO2 could possible cause such rapid temperature rise. I would also love to know why this does not have an up to date equivalent set of data.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Greg
November 6, 2018 8:36 am

“Basically “what else could it be” is not a scientific proof of anything.”

Agreed. And they are basing this claim of “what else could it be” on the bogus, bastarized Hockey Stick temperature charts which make it appear that the temperatures are currently at an unprecedented high point, never before reached in the past, so this is how they can make this claim.

The ignore the fact that the 1930’s was warmer than any subsequent year, including 2016, in the U.S. surface temperature record, and they ignore it because it puts the lie to our being in unprecedented temperature territory.

The fact is we are cooler now than in the 1930’s, and there is no “excess” warmth to point to as proof of CO2-generated climate change. So their claim of “what else could it be” is as bogus as their Hockey Stick charts.

Yes, I said the US surface temperature chart. As far as I’m concerned, the US surface temperature chart represents the real global temperature profile. The reason the US surface temperature chart wasn’t turned into a Hockey Stick, as were so many others around the world, is there are too many individual temperature records laying around in the US for the Manipulators to get away with drastically changing it.So they leave the US surface temperature chart alone, and then claim that the US temperature trend is completely different from the global temperature trend.

There are unmodified temperature charts from all over the globe that show the same kind of temperature trend as the US surface temperature chart, i.e., the 1930’s show to be as warm or warmer than subsequent years.

No unmodified charts from anywhere in the world resemble the temperature trend displayed (hotter and hotter) by the bogus, Hockey Stick charts.

The Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart (on the left below) and a bogus, bastardized Hocky Stick global surface temperature chart (on the right).

comment image

All the unmodified charts from around the world look like the Hansen 1999 chart on the left. None of them look like the bogus Hockey Stick chart on the right.

If the Hansen 1999 (combined with UAH) is the real temperature profile of the globe, then the claim of “what else could it be” goes away because we can see that there was already sufficient energy in the climate system to cause the temperatures to reach the highs of the 1930’s, and the highs of 1998 and 2016 were cooler than the 1930’s, so no extra warmth added by CO2 is required to reach that temperature level. We reached that level in the 1930’s without the benefit of CO2 and there is no reason to assume that anything is different today since we definitely are not in unprecedented territory when it comes to temperatures, according to the *real* global temperature profile.

The Hockey Stick Lie is the only thing the Alarmists have to back up their claims, and it is obvious (at least to me) that it is a lie, a deliberate lie created to promote the idea that CO2 is overheating the Earth’s atmosphere. They have gotten a lot of mileage out of this lie.

There is no unprecedented warmth.

James K Freeman
Reply to  Greg
November 6, 2018 1:31 pm

That actually is how gods came to be. Primitive cultures had no explanation for thunder, so they reasoned that a supernatural god causing it. Made sense to them at the time. But yea, it was reasoning based on ignorance.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Curious George
November 5, 2018 1:33 pm

Astrology is IS settled.
Climatology IS settled.
Astrology and Climatology are NOT science.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
November 5, 2018 3:37 pm

That is not a fair comparison; astrology has a much better track record of predicting the future.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Chris
November 5, 2018 9:08 pm

LOL!!!!!!! True, True!!!!

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Chris
November 6, 2018 3:18 am

😊 😊 😊

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
November 6, 2018 12:19 pm

Alchemy is still an open mystery.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Curious George
November 5, 2018 11:09 am

It is worse than that. Many of those fields have been contaminated with fake reports based on fake data which is then used to produce other reports (which of course because they relied on a fake report in the 1st place) which result in the subsequent report being fake itself. Of the above fields I would say that
the following faculties have many fake report results acting as a cancer within the field.
3) Geology is just starting to get corrupted
4) Medicine
5) Physics
6) Climatology

Of these faculties, climatology is so bad that it simply should be shut down and any remaining research that doesnt involve CO2 be included with meteorology or atmospheric science. Of course all CO2 research in atmospheric science should have a complete overhaul.

November 5, 2018 9:00 am

Since the UN/IPCC was formed….China has tripled their CO2 emissions….now China is twice our emissions
…even if we cut back to zero….it wouldn’t make onedamnbit of difference

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Latitude
November 5, 2018 11:41 am

The alarmists think that it is ok to allow China to keep putting CO2 into the air until their total emissions from 1776 to the present equals the total from the US since that time. That will take another 20 years until both countries historical total emissions will be the same. The alarmists say we don’t have 20 years until CAGW. Therefore the alarmists have given up on the planet because they are afraid of China. China is the elephant in the room. If the alarmists really believed in CAGW they would be calling for a boycott of all Chinese goods. THIS WHOLE CO2 SCAM IS ONE BIG FARCE.

November 5, 2018 9:23 am

Hope he wins the election. How is that looking?

Reply to  henryp
November 5, 2018 12:38 pm

He’s not standing , you should try to understand what the election is about.

Bruce Cobb
November 5, 2018 9:26 am

Many, if not most people are “lukewarmers” about space aliens. That is, they think it’s likely that they exist, but probably not to the extent that the tinfoil hat-wearing, survivalist-mode Believers do. They also don’t believe that space aliens will necessarily become a big problem in the future, but that it wouldn’t hurt to take certain precautionary measures now. Because you never know. Also, it has never been proven that they don’t exist.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 5, 2018 8:18 pm

How would you go about proving that something (ie space aliens) doesn’t exist? You can never prove a negative.

Bob Weber
November 5, 2018 9:41 am

I wouldn’t call Trump a lukewarmer, the shoe doesn’t fit.

He’s said so many times they (his administration) doubt we are causing it, which is the basic skeptical position. It appears someone, probably a lukewarmer, wants Trump to be identified as a lukewarmer.

I think his comments indicate he’s being as respectful as he can be to a lot of different people holding a vast range of opinions. While he’s said he knows the climate has changed, it’s clear his comments of the climate going up and down refer to his belief in ongoing natural variation ruling the climate.

The fact is human CO2 emissions are tiny vs ocean out-gassing, and CO2 lags temperature:

comment image

Increasing CO2 results from rising ocean temperature, not vice versa, therefore no amount of fussing over our carbon-budgets will matter except to those who wish to use this ruse to take and hold power.

Americans should be grateful for Trump’s energy policy during our cold solar minimum winter.

comment image

Non Nomen
Reply to  Bob Weber
November 5, 2018 9:52 am

The Democrats would rather put up with a long ice age just to get rid of Trump..

Tom Halla
Reply to  Bob Weber
November 5, 2018 10:02 am

Anything but a Sky Dragon Slayer could be called a lukewarmer. Stating one does not know, and that the area of study is nowhere near settled, and placing major effort into acting as if the mechanisms of climate were well known is unwise, is the usual definition of a skeptic.

Reply to  Bob Weber
November 5, 2018 10:53 am

Trump’s position is repeatedly clear : no $10+ trillion for a claimed temp. change, and no jobs sacrificed on that CO2 block. And he loves coal. He wants clean air, we all do. When he gears manufacturing jobs up from today’s 11 million to 1971’s 19 million, just to recover from the damage, energy demand will rocket up. And that’s just the beginning. Manufacturing with new processes will demand high density energy, and the best way to show the green grid up is to do that.
That’s not lukewarm.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  bonbon
November 5, 2018 12:11 pm

1971 ??

Reply to  Juan Slayton
November 5, 2018 1:00 pm


Tom Abbott
Reply to  bonbon
November 6, 2018 9:52 am

About 1,000 manufacturing jobs are being created every day at this time in the US. About 32,000 manufacturing jobs were created last quarter.

Those are jobs Obama said were never coming back to the U.S. But Trump waved his magic wand and they are returning.

Reply to  Bob Weber
November 5, 2018 1:10 pm

Increasing CO2 results from rising ocean temperature

This is true but it is not the dominant cause of the present increase in atmospheric CO2.

Ocean surface temperature has cooled in the last two years. There has been no reduction in the rate of rise of CO2.

Over the decade 2007 to 2016 the precipitable water content over the oceans has declined. That indicates ocean cooling for at least the last decade. The rate of increase in CO2 has not declined in that period.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bob Weber
November 5, 2018 1:48 pm

Increasing CO2 results from rising ocean temperature,

Right you are, Bob Weber, ….. the science attesting to that fact is undeniable by those learned in the subject matter.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
November 5, 2018 8:22 pm

Ya Not the other way around.

Phil Rae
November 5, 2018 9:52 am

Glad to hear that your President continues to hold the line. He’s the only leader who gives me hope that we might yet overturn the greatest rip-off of public funds and consumers’ hard-earned cash in the history of mankind. To think of everything that could have been achieved to combat urgent real-world problems with all that squandered money is enough to make you weep. Good luck tomorrow, folks! We need somebody to help stop this madness!

Reply to  Phil Rae
November 5, 2018 12:20 pm

thanks ….

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Phil Rae
November 5, 2018 3:02 pm

I can see why gun control is big with the Totes. Its hard to call the “shots” in a global gov plan if you havent disarmed everybody but your own military. Note, militaries in socialist/ despotic states employ their militaries almost entirely against their own people.

November 5, 2018 10:00 am

I found the Axios reporter to be very aggressively pushy, obviously trying to nail Trump to the wall, and he failed to to so.

November 5, 2018 10:34 am

I would love to hear Trump very calmly say, “Carbon dioxide is a very minor gas in the air, but it is an essential gas for all life on Earth.

“Without carbon dioxide, no plants. Without plants, no animals. No life at all.

“So you cannot say “Carbon dioxide pollutes the air”. We need it to live. Next question.”

Reply to  GeologyJim
November 5, 2018 10:36 am

Absolutely. I have been pushing that meme too.


Reply to  GeologyJim
November 5, 2018 11:20 am

Without manufacturing jobs, no economy. The biosphere needs CO2, our noosphere needs manufacturing jobs, of increasing energy density, very like the biosphere increasing its energy density from cells to mammals. And we make the biosphere more active with carbon based energy input, such as diesel machinery, fertilizer.

Reply to  bonbon
November 5, 2018 12:19 pm

There is nothing magical about manufacturing jobs.
Anything that can be sold to foreigners, can be used to pay for the stuff we want to import from them.

Reply to  MarkW
November 5, 2018 3:48 pm

in lieu of manufactured goods , the foreigners are accepting…paper(money)/ iou s/pixels

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  MarkW
November 5, 2018 8:25 pm

Except that hewers of wood and drawers of water don’t fare too well in an advanced tech world.

Reply to  MarkW
November 6, 2018 2:38 am

The only magic around here besides CO2, is von Hayek’s “spontaneous, unknowable” economics, based on magician Mandeville, as von Hayek himself wrote.
Serious economics is about manufacture, not British “free trade”. von Hayek of the London School of Economics would have you believe economy springs forth magically, spontaneously, unknowably from the complex friction of trade – pure alchemy.
This is the reason Trump is using tariffs, the reason Alexander Hamilton did so before. This is the American System, that Trump alludes to. Now we know more and the kinds of energy intense manufacturing proceses better. Millions of manufacturing jobs lost since 1970’s must be created.

Reply to  bonbon
November 6, 2018 9:56 am

You say nothing about efficiency. If America is producing exactly what they produced in 1970, by units, i.e. number of cars of modern design, not exact replicas of the ‘70 GTO, I would expect it to take fewer people. If the only thing required is to give them jobs, take away their shovels and give them spoons.

Gerard O’Dowd
Reply to  GeologyJim
November 5, 2018 7:54 pm

A biologist or chemist should design a placard or poster for the President and his staff for similar situations in the future illustrating the photosynthesis reaction in giant letters:
CO2 + H2O +☀️+ 🌿= CH2O+O2.

Reply to  Gerard O’Dowd
November 6, 2018 3:15 am

Unfortunately these “biologists” miss the point – it’s the economy stupid.
Sure we understand the biosphere, photons an’ all, but how many understand economics after being brainwashed with game theory? Agricultural and manufacturing economics is not a game.

November 5, 2018 10:35 am

Quote: “there is no other convincing explanation”…

Ehh?? How about:

AMO and PDO oceanic cycles.
Cloud albedo changes (cloud albedo is decreasing).
Arctic ice albedo changes (ice albedo is decreasing).
Tampering of the temperature record (now called the tamperature record).
Increasing UHI effects on the tamperature record.
Solar cycles.

But one thing was CAN be sure of, is any warming is NOT due to greenhouse gasses. If warming was due to the greenhouse effect, then Downwelling Longwave Radiation (DLR) would be increasing, and it is not. If anyone can find a dataset with increasing DLR, I would be interested.

Face facts – if DLR is not increasing, then CO2 is NOT responsible for warming.


Reply to  ralfellis
November 5, 2018 10:55 am

Climate science’s DLR = elves riding unicorns. More or less elves riding unicorns seems equally unimportant.

Reply to  ralfellis
November 5, 2018 12:21 pm

They admit that they can’t prove that CO2 is causing warming, they just whine that their piss poor imaginations can’t come up with any other explanation, so it must be CO2.

Reply to  ralfellis
November 5, 2018 12:45 pm

“tamperature record”

V. good!

Reply to  ralfellis
November 5, 2018 1:30 pm

Downwelling Longwave Radiation does not exist unless there is an atmospheric temperature inversion and that is quite rare globally.

EMR can only be in one direction at any location at any instant of time and that direction is from the higher radiance source to lower radiance sink. Anyone with a grasp of field theory will understand this. The linked paper provides the proof:

Indeed, the instantaneous local flow of electromagnetic energy is given by a monodirectional real Poynting vector 𝑆(𝐫, 𝑡) =𝐸(𝐫, 𝑡) × 𝐻(𝐫, 𝑡).

Back radiation is imaginary nonsense used by climate modellers to derive nonsense.

Reply to  RickWill
November 5, 2018 1:45 pm

“EMR can only be in one direction at any location at any instant of time and that direction is from the higher radiance source to lower radiance sink. ”

Nonsense. Net radiation goes in one direction, but not radiation in general. If you put a 30 W and a 60 W bulb next to each other does the 30 W stop radiating towards the 60 W once you light up the 60 W?

Reply to  tty
November 5, 2018 5:29 pm

There is only one electric field and one magnetic field in existence at any single location in any instant in time. The electric field and magnetic field are normal to each other and the energy flow is normal to the plane of the fields. That is why it is called EMR – electro-magnetic radiation.

The EMR sources exist in the E-M field and those sources interact at the speed of light in the medium they exist in so of course a 60W globe will be affected by an adjacent 30W globe but there is only energy flow in one direction at any point in that steady field created by the interacting EMR sources.

Read the Mischenko paper I linked to above. If the maths is beyond you and have trouble grasping the concept of fields, think of how objects with mass communicate across space through the gravitational field. Look at the way planets and the sun interact in the gravitational field. Each distorts the field due to their mass and interact with each other at the speed of light. The electro-magnetic field can be viewed the same way as the gravitational field. E-M sensitive matter interacts with the field and are “communicating” by their interaction with the field with all other E-M sensitive matter at the speed of light.

When the 60W light globe is turned on in the presence of a 30W light globe the E-M field about it will be changed by the presence of the 30W globe compared without the 30W globe. There are NOT two separate fields giving a net result but a single field with energy flow in ONLY one direction at ant point within the field. That field is also affected by all other E-M responsive matter.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  RickWill
November 6, 2018 4:24 am

Wrong, see below.

D. Cohen
Reply to  RickWill
November 6, 2018 4:25 am

Sorry, that **one** magnetic and electric field you refer to is that of the total, or net, radiation flow. As tty said, there can be a small flow in one direction and a large flow in another. The smaller flow is associated with a smaller EM field and a smaller Poynting vector, while the larger flow is associated with a larger EM field and a larger Poynting vector. The sum of the smaller and larger EM fields gives rise to the net — that is, total — EM field, which can then be used to calculate the Poynting vector describing the direction of the total or net energy flow. Because EM theory is linear, the superposition principle applies, meaning that the sum of two solutions to the EM equations is also a solution to the equations. Hence it makes sense to regard the total EM field of the 30W and 60W bulbs as the sum of the 30W and 60W fields.

By the way, when you say

“…but there is only energy flow in one direction at any point in that steady field created by the interacting EMR sources.”

you should be aware that all electromagnetic radiation comes from time-varying electric and magnetic fields, so I do not think that “steady field” is correct here. You should also be aware that when you jump from the domain of elementary EM theory to talking about the net flow of power created by time-varying EM radiation fields, you immediately encounter a non-trivial set of statistical assumptions about the random nature of the time-varying EM fields associated with, for example, the glowing 30W and 60W bulbs discussed above. Standard undergraduate EM texts tend to avoid this backwater of EM theory because it is complicated and dull — although it does connect what is in those textbooks to the time-independent equations used by astronomers, engineers, and others to describe the average power flux from EM radiation.

Reply to  RickWill
November 5, 2018 1:47 pm

PS If the bulbs are close the 60 W bulb will become hotter when the 30 W is lit than when it isn’t. Try it sometime.

Brett Keane
Reply to  tty
November 5, 2018 8:37 pm

tty says: November 5, 2018 at 1:47 pm : Two pointa tty – First, EMF is a “Vector” Field for good reason. It has direction, but only one when more than one source is in play, as here.
Second, as Anthony found out, heating of a tungsten filament by a hotter one close by, lowers its resistance IIRC, so it then can use more power. Not what happens under our sun at all……
Full understanding of Gas Physics in an atmosphere over 0.1bar pressure shows that Equipartitition shifts exittance of Energy from ground to tropopause c.80% by bouyant uplift and Latent Heat transport via H20; and c. 20% to the frequencies not entangled. Obvious enough Empirically from the Solar System data. Brett

Reply to  tty
November 5, 2018 8:37 pm

Both bulbs will also get hotter if they are in sunlight than not. Does not change the fact that there is only one E-M field in existence at any point in any instant of time and only one direction of energy flow in that instant.

There is no such thing as Downwelling Longwave Radiation from a lower radiance atmosphere to a higher radiance surface. The energy flow is only ONE way.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  RickWill
November 6, 2018 4:22 am

So you propose that the E-M field appears instantaneously everywhere, even far away, and does not propagate only with the speed of light?

Reply to  RickWill
November 6, 2018 1:49 pm

So you propose that the E-M field appears instantaneously everywhere, even far away, and does not propagate only with the speed of light?

No, matter within THE E-M field interacts at the speed of light. Exactly the same as matter in THE gravitational field.

There is a single E-M field and the presence of matter alters that field. At any point at any instant the energy flow in the E-M field is in one direction.

Read Mischenko’s paper I linked to above. It gives the mathematical proof.

Reply to  RickWill
November 5, 2018 2:00 pm


November 5, 2018 11:59 am

” Trump said. “You know, you do have scientists that very much dispute it. I want to make sure that we have the cleanest air.” ”

That’s what I want to hear from politicians, that we deserve clean air. It would be hard to argue with that. And air pollution and most forms of pollution have been cut drastically the last 40-50 years, at least in the West. Let’s hear more from the skeptical scientists that do dispute CAGW. How else do we have a fair debate with the alarmist position that says that there are no credible skeptic scientists because they claim to have a 97% consensus? Clearly that is unscientific.

November 5, 2018 11:59 am

I wish for someone to say “sure were are responsible. What do you suppose we do about it?” After listening respectfully to their clap trap solutions, say “well, none of that, not one thing, will make the slightest difference.”

Its time to get past arguing whether climate change is “real” and start talking about “solutions” they hope to implement. Given we have reduced carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. rapidly, more than any other country on Earth, what more would you have us do? Given the Indians and Chinese have raised their emissions even more rapidly, negating every bit of our gains, what would you have us do? Given we don’t own most of the carbon sources in the world, and most are owned by autocratic governments with nothing else to sell, what do you propose we do?

We are already implementing solutions that are reducing our emissions about as fast as possible, and it doesn’t matter. I suppose we could do even more…but that wouldn’t matter either. The Chinese, the Indians, and the rest of the developing world have collectively decided not to do anything. We can’t pay them enough to change their minds. We can’t conquer them. We really can’t stop them.

The market in the western world for paying $0.25/kwh is very small, but in China and India it is non-existent.

November 5, 2018 12:16 pm

Here in the USA, it’s election day tomorrow. Go Vote!

Global Cooling
November 5, 2018 12:18 pm

“lukewarming” is politically sound position. You get into a swamp of scientific debate if you insist zero CO2 influence. Even if you were right persuasion of the voters could be next to impossible.

When you are out of the swamp, you argue that zero point something Celsius is harmless and the voters understand you.

Jean Parisot
November 5, 2018 12:40 pm

It provides a nice list of agencies and departments producing nothing but trivia.

michael hart
November 5, 2018 1:01 pm

Well said, President Trump.

The alarmists always tried to paint it as a black or white situation, ‘normality or death’, while the realist luke-warmers always said it was a question of degree, of “Yes, but not much, and nothing we can’t deal with fairly easily as time goes by”.
Trump seems to get it.

Of course the latter explanation doesn’t cause much alarm, doesn’t get to raise taxes, and doesn’t get to fund more funding of wastrels pretending to be scientists.

November 5, 2018 1:27 pm

At what temperature do the oceans stop releasing co2 and start absorbing ?

Wiliam Haas
November 5, 2018 1:58 pm

Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. It is all a matter of science.

AGW is a conjecture that is based on only partial science. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the
earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The atmospheric warming effect on Earth is caused by a convective greenhouse effect that is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere, gravity, and the depth of the troposphere. As derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect causes the surface of the Earth to be on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise. 33 degrees C is the number arrived at through a derivation from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. Additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. It is all a matter of science.

November 5, 2018 2:19 pm

The UN, Soros, and the Francis Papacy

Elizabeth Yore reveals her personal story regarding The Church and the Unholy Alliance
Pope Francis has made with Soros and the UN.

UN Climate Hoax and Population control.

“If You Control Carbon You Control Life”

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Codetrader
November 5, 2018 8:28 pm

ya very scary. It is interesting that the World Bank does NOT believe that the world has a population problem. It estimates that population will level off in 2100 at around 11.2 billion

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 5, 2018 8:37 pm

And, who do you think runs and controls the World Bank? You think the WB is an independent, trustworthy, honest group of leaders looking out for you and me and the rest of mankind? HUH?

Reply to  Codetrader
November 6, 2018 3:56 am

The WB and IMF were created by the 1944 Bretton-Woods meeting under FDR and Dexter-White. Unfortunately FDR died suddenly, Truman took over and by Nixon’s time the Bretton-Woods agreement was replaced by a petrodollar and the parody WB/IMF mafia.
That is why it is urgent a new Bretton-Woods – no coincidence the very fake Varoufakis is pushing now Keynes’ “bancor” – totally rejected at BR 1944, as a digital “cosmos” world currency to police globally green tech investment only.
That digital cosmos caper is the next move after CO2 fizzles out.

Steven Mosher
November 5, 2018 8:13 pm

wow, masterful!

Trump pulled a page right out of popper and feynman.

As feynman argued, “the best way to show a science isnt correct is to say ‘I dont necessarily agree’ ”
Feynman, 1974 ‘science for presidents’

‘I dont necessarily agree! genius! that rivals Lord Monkton in its verbal accuity and wit. Why doesnt anyone at WUWT come up with these zingers! ‘I dont necessarily agree’ , jeez what a killer line. Tough to beat that argument. Somebody tell Willis to use that on Sun nuts, screw looking at data, just say
‘I dont necessarily agree”

But wait it gets better, Trump also relies on the great Popper who said “The way to disprove science, is to find disagreement between scientists. The test of truth is that we will all agree, because Science!” Popper, 1954 “Philosophy of Science for head counters”

and lets not forget Scott Pruit!
“Red Team? we dont need no stinking Red team, we have a one man debate champion who slays the opposition in one sentence.. “I dont necessarily agree” “

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 5, 2018 11:07 pm

President Trump is always the smartest guy in any room. That assertion is impossible to disprove, so don’t even try.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 5, 2018 11:20 pm

Oh, and just because you’re onto all of your President’s tricks doesn’t mean you’re not paranoid.

Your President Trump, by giving voice to skepticism from his bully pulpit, makes thousands, even millions, of people ordinary feel free to follow suit, something they might have been reticent to express in our Orwellian liberal media-dominated society. Must be a helpless feeling to witness the most powerful man in the world abetting the unraveling of the AGW hoax.

November 5, 2018 11:04 pm

I once saw a little green man jump out of a flying saucer. Doesn’t prove I’m not crazy.

%d bloggers like this: