President Trump Admin Claims Fourth National Climate Assessment Was Rigged To Produce Bad Outcomes

Official White House Photo of President Trump

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

President Trump’s administration has struck back at the Fourth National Climate Assessment, claiming that the report was rigged to disregard reasonable responses to warmer temperatures.

Clashing with Trump, U.S. government report says climate change will batter economy

(Reuters) – Climate change will cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century, hitting everything from health to infrastructure, according to a government report issued on Friday that the White House called inaccurate.

The studies clash with policy under President Donald Trump, who has been rolling back Obama-era environmental and climate protections to maximize production of domestic fossil fuels, including crude oil, already the highest in the world, above Saudi Arabia and Russia.

White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said the new report was “largely based on the most extreme scenario, which contradicts long-established trends by assuming that…there would be limited technology and innovation, and a rapidly expanding population.”

The government’s next update of the National Climate Assessment, she said, “gives us the opportunity to provide for a more transparent and data-driven process that includes fuller information on the range of potential scenarios and outcomes.”

Read more:

We’ve seen this kind of baseless scaremongering before, like with the “End of Beer” story which was floating around a month ago.

As the Brewers Association pointed out, a key flawed assumption with the “end of beer” prediction was that farmers would attempt no adaption whatsoever to changed circumstances, they would keep attempting to grow Barley in exactly the same way as today with no attempt to change growing regions or planting times to match the new temperature range.

Predicting the “end of beer” while disregarding the option of adapting to changed circumstances is like predicting everyone who jumps into water will drown, because you are disregarding the possibility people in water will attempt to swim and stay afloat.

It is easy to predict bad outcomes, if you rig the report process to ignore other possibilities.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
November 24, 2018 1:38 pm

So it is more RCP8.5 booga booga?

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 24, 2018 6:32 pm

So the changing climate will cost “hundreds of Billion$” by 2100.
2100 is 81+ years from now so…
$200b / 80 years is $2.5b per year…
So if we do nothing it is projected that the economy will suffer to the tune of $2.5b per year.
What will it cost to do something?
How many $Trillion$ will we be required to spend over the next 80+ years to avoid the $Billions loss?

Reply to  Bryan A
November 25, 2018 5:48 am

And voila! For $2.5B per year we get this solution from the Geoengineering Post… (not that I want to do it but it shows that even harebrained mitigation ideas are cheaper than the $Trillions proposed).

Dr Gernot Wagner, from Harvard University’s John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, is a co-author of the study. He said: “Solar geoengineering is often described as ‘fast, cheap, and imperfect’.

“While we don’t make any judgement about the desirability of SAI, we do show that a hypothetical deployment program starting 15 years from now, while both highly uncertain and ambitious, would be technically possible strictly from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive, at an average of around $2 to 2.5 billion per year over the first 15 years.”

Reply to  BobM
November 25, 2018 7:44 am

And if Climate Change is supposed to the huge problem we are supposed to believe you would get the best and brightest actual hard scientists and economists on the problem NOT third rate Climate Scientists.

Reply to  Bryan A
November 25, 2018 6:21 am

Obviously this report did NOT take into account the obvious economic benefits of a warming climate, and only looked at the costs.

Let’s look at one simple metric: energy consumption for space heating vs. space cooling, the largest single consumptive energy use that most people and companies must pay for today.

For all but the southernmost extreme of the US – that would be the states of Florida and southern California, average energy consumption for space cooling is but a small fraction of the energy consumption for space heating over a typical year’s time. Even in the somewhat less extreme states with relatively mild winters but hot summers (like Georgia, Texas, Arizona, etc.) , the average energy consumption for space heating in winter is still more than double that for space cooling in summer. And as you move progressively north thru the border states, northern tier states, and to Canada, the ratio of space heating energy consumed to space cooling energy consumed becomes ever more lopsidedly in favor of the former.

I don’t have the time or resources to conduct a PhD dissertation on this subject, but it is just common sense obvious that a warming climate will create significantly lower net annual energy costs for space heating and cooling, tremendously overwhelming the postulated $2.5B per year costs projected in this National Climate Assessment study.

Reply to  Duane
November 25, 2018 7:24 am

I would put the dividing line quite a bit north of where you put it. Doing HVAC design in the Houston area, as well as energy engineering, I found the cost of cooling (in an average office building) about 4 times the cost of heating, and presently living in Birmingham, AL, I still spend more on cooling than I do on heating. However, in general I agree with you, I think even most of the U.S., and certainly worldwide (where over half of residential living space is not even air conditioned at all?), more money goes toward heating than to cooling.

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
November 25, 2018 7:36 am

I just noticed you said energy, and I said money. Quite the difference, idnit? If I do just the load calculations, the excess BTUs that need cooled are less than the negative BTUs that need warmed up, and there are no internal heat loads, I agree the line of equality runs just about where you said. But when you consider the energy it takes to actually accomplish those loads, that’s a different story. The best heat pumps still only move ~3.4 BTUs for each BTU expended (that’s called the Coefficient Of Performance, or COP) and many parts of this country the cost of a BTU of electricity is more than 3.4 times the cost of a BTU of natural gas. So that’s why we spend more $ on cooling than we do on heating.

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
November 26, 2018 5:11 am

Texas is a big state with significantly differing regional climates … Houston is in southeast Texas along the Gulf coast, so it experiences very mild winters with little heating required, similar to other Gulf coastal areas from Houston all the way to southwest Florida (where I live) … whereas north Texas – along a line running roughly from Texarkana west through Dallas to Midland and to the north through the panhandle, winter heating is a much bigger energy consumer than summer cooling. I”ve lived and worked in that part of Texas previously, and can attest to that personally.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
November 27, 2018 8:19 am


The best heat pumps move 10 times as much energy as they consume in the Southern US. The performance factor is temperature dependent.

The latest work down to -40 before reaching 1:1.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 27, 2018 9:17 am

The best heat pumps move 10 times as much energy as they consume…”

Not even close. I guess you’re thinking of an SEER, or something, which is BTU/Whr, a mixture of units. But even the best air conditioner can’t have a SEER higher than 23, according to Engineering Toolbox. That turns into 6.74 BTUs moved for every BTU of energy the unit consumes. For your average run-of-the-mill residential unit that has the bold-text SEER 13, that turns into 3.8 units for every unit consumed. I agree,

The performance factor is temperature dependent.

and the SEER number is derived only from steady-state operation at probably the most favorable conditions for the unit, i.e., completely divorced from reality (which is why the mini-split units, with a big sticker on them that says “inverter” that’s really a rectifier, and all imported from SE Asia somewhere (which is not to say they’re bad units, they work great AFAICT, I’m just making the point they’re not made in the good ol’ U. S. of A.), are nearly impossible to rate; they are variable everything, which means you can’t make them run at “steady-state” conditions for long enough to get a rating, but that’s a separate post). And I have yet to find a unit that can operate to -40°F, though I was highly impressed to find ones claiming they could operate to -10°F (meaning they are supposed to provide air that feels warm, and not like a cold draft), since I’m used to needing a low-ambient kit to operate below +40°F.

Komrade Kuma
November 24, 2018 1:45 pm

The so called Fourth National Climate Assessment is just another example of fitting linear models to data that is clearly oscillating or otherwise is evidence of far, far more complex mechanisms. You can get a linear trend out of data that is generated by a pure sinusoid, i.e. which by definition has zero trend, if you start your data on a trough or crest and end it on the opposite or even a mean losition. The ‘trend’ is a fabrication generated purely by selecting the data period. Similar with these so called ‘assessments’, if you provide a grotesquely simplistic ‘model’ of what will hapen then you can extrapolate that model to infinity and beyond….. Gaia Uh Akbar!

Reply to  Komrade Kuma
November 24, 2018 2:07 pm

The average temperature here in November is changing a rate of about -3C per month, -36C per year or -360C per decade. At this rate, well within a decade it will drop below absolute zero!

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 24, 2018 2:24 pm


Where is “here”?

Reply to  HotScot
November 24, 2018 3:32 pm

Probably most of the northern hemisphere, going into winter you see. For someone who posts so quickly you deem seem a tad slow HotScot.

Reply to  Andyd
November 24, 2018 3:43 pm

Northern Hemisphere covers a lot of square miles.
Perhaps you are the one who needs to slow down instead of jumping to conclusions.

Reply to  HotScot
November 24, 2018 3:44 pm

California, near San Jose. Avg drops by about 5F (2.8C) this month. In the mountains, the change is even larger.

Boris Birch
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 24, 2018 4:07 pm

Dropping Earth temperature to anywhere near absolute zero would take a similar amount of effort as making James Hanson’s (model) oceans boil.

Reply to  Boris Birch
November 26, 2018 12:26 pm

It takes work to heat something, but cooling is the response to heating and occurs with no effort at all. Of course, shutting down the Sun will take some effort …

Hocus Locus
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 24, 2018 5:14 pm

And if you toss a log on the fire… the temperature will rise at a rate of around ~31 million degrees per year! These are truly perilous times.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 24, 2018 11:59 pm

“…-3C per month…”

It’s worse here, where the temperature goes up about 20C from morning to afternoon. At this rate, by next week it’s going to be 140C in the shade. It’s worse than we thought!

Reply to  Komrade Kuma
November 25, 2018 7:34 pm

Right on!

Reply to  Komrade Kuma
November 27, 2018 9:45 am

…another example of fitting linear models to data…”

If only it were that intelligent. But I think what we see instead is a report where the framers knew what answer they were supposed to produce before they ever even began, the data be damned. I can’t make myself read it, but if you have the stomach to handle it, give it a re-read with that frame of mind, and see if that doesn’t fit better.

November 24, 2018 1:48 pm

The problem is that all liberals think that everyone is as “stoopid” as they are !

November 24, 2018 1:50 pm

Read the report. It is on line. It is a fear mongering joke. Look at the photo of the forest fire on their webpage.
The report is juvenile.

Reply to  Joel
November 24, 2018 2:21 pm

The list of authors is a nice roster of the Swamp. Why does it not include all usual suspects?

Reply to  Joel
November 24, 2018 4:17 pm

I tried to read it, but it sickened me after just a few paragraphs, and so I could not waste any more time on the equivalent of torturing myself. I’m not that much of a masochist.

Reply to  Joel
November 24, 2018 7:29 pm

Every author contributing to that report should be cashiered, with prejudice.

Each one of the authors must supply the evidence they used to develop that claim. If the claim is attributable to another article; then the contributing author must supply provable evidence, not claims of consensus, authority or assumption.

Every author that relied upon external claims, without proof should be banned from receiving grants, awards or even loans from the government.

It would be nice to list all of the claims in the report along with the authors that claim is attributed to; even those authors who supported the absurd claims.
That way, future generations can learn about the fools who tried to scam nations and destroyed science in the process.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  ATheoK
November 25, 2018 11:25 am

+10 :<)

November 24, 2018 1:53 pm

Trump Admin only has itself to blame.
They new this would happen chapter & verse.
Should have directed the department to present all scenarios including from scientists that believe elevated CO2 is beneficial.
Negligent Trump administration simply reactionary robbing policy makers and the public again.
Unsophisticated and aimless to the core . . .

Reply to  warren
November 24, 2018 2:26 pm


It’s a poker game. Show your hand and you’re stuffed.

Softlee Softlee Catchee Monkey…………..

Gunga Din
Reply to  warren
November 24, 2018 2:44 pm

Ever hear of “Deep State”?
Previous administrations have packed the personnel in various departments with those faithful to “The Cause”. Look at the DOJ. (Comey etc.)
Trump wanted to cut off funds to “Sanctuary Cities” but the money was already in the pipeline.
The “Political Science” that produced this …. already had funding. (And then there’s political fallout of shutting down an almost sciency sounding thing without giving them enough rope to hang themselves.)
It’s a big swamp to drain.

Reply to  warren
November 24, 2018 4:01 pm

“Unsophisticated and aimless to the core . . .:”

Your signature suits you., !

Reply to  fred250
November 25, 2018 12:34 am

You referring to the lower case ‘w’?
My improper noun is more sophisticated than your ‘f’ if that’s the argument?

Reply to  warren
November 26, 2018 10:49 pm

Why end a statement with a question mark?

Reply to  warren
November 24, 2018 7:01 pm

I saw an interview with Trump and Pence, during the campaign, that delved into climate change, and neither had bothered to memorize a half dozen talking points. It made me angry to witness this laziness and lack of political savvy.

As President, Trump has continued both his low information ways, and is even more clueless, politically. Part of his job, IMNSHO, is waging a constructive propaganda war. About the closest Trump comes to this are his grossly insufficient tweets.

I have speculated that Trump is clueless with what I call “moral voters” because he projects his crass, bottom line ‘philosophy’ onto the public, as a whole.

Trump should have not only destroyed CO2 catastrophism; he should have educated the public as to the dangers of global cooling, with attendant crop failures, and at least made a case for the government investing in food stores. Zharkova is predicting world-wide food shortages for 2028-2032.

Alas, Trump the incompetent politician (his victory in 2016 was a bit of a freak, aided by his revolting competition) is out to lunch….

Reg Nelson
Reply to  metamars
November 24, 2018 9:42 pm

The US economy is booming with record low unemployment. Trump has bigger fish to fry. He has already pulled the plug on the Paris “agreement” and the EPA will have half of Obama level staff at the end of his first term.

I don’t like Trump as person (and didn’t vote in the last election) but it’s hard to argue with his success, especially when he has had to do all of this with a incredibly biased media against him.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
November 25, 2018 8:09 am

His “success” includes losing the House of Representatives, terrible approval vs. disapproval ratings ( , complete failure to emulate ANYTHING of the partly populist 5 Star Movement in Italy (which has enough structure to easily survive the loss of it’s founder, Beppe Grillo – i.e., the opposite of Trumpism), failure to put the media in its place (though their anti-Trump overt bias constitutes an own-goal), failure to become more of a statesman, etc., etc.

Yes, the deck is stacked against him. Shall we all make excuses for him, because of this handicap?

It would have taken Trump about 30 minutes to memorize all the talking points he’d need to at least sound like someone who cared about the potential danger. He’s basically too lazy and/or too dumb. Or else, he just doesn’t care.

In a worse case scenario, coming crop failures will be blamed on anthropogenic CO2, even as temperatures fall. We would not only get starvation, but CO2 taxation to boot. Trump has been in a tremendous position to drive a stake through CO2 catastrophism, but has wasted his abundant opportunities.

Russ R.
Reply to  metamars
November 26, 2018 12:55 am

He lost roughly the average house seats that an incumbent loses in a midterm, and picked up Senate seats which is better than average.
He has had to fight the media, a special counsel, and members of his own party that do not like the fact that he didn’t run for lesser offices for 30 years before running for President. And a federal bureaucracy that has been packed with union workers that make sure the “nail that sticks up, gets pounded down”.
Emulate Italy??? I thought that was Greece’s strategy.
You can’t put the “media in their place”. They are free to do what they want, and you can ignore them or fight with them.
He is a businessman, not a statesmen. We have elected statesmen and got a bigger more expensive government that made life more difficult for us.
I am not a fan of his style or his personality. And I did not vote for him in the primary, and would not if I had the same choice again. But he mostly gets it right on policy, and that is what really impacts the public.
He has two years to work on the Suburban women problem. And there is no indication that the Democrats can get a good candidate through their process. They are looking for another Obama, but could easily find another Shrillary or Lurch.
In the end it comes down to a growing economy, or a growing bureaucracy.
And if the middle class can see through the spin, and media bias they will vote for limited government and freedom.
If only Peoples Republic of Mexifornia would secede, we would have Republican presidents for the rest of the century (apologies to those still living behind the silicone curtain).

Russ R.
Reply to  metamars
November 26, 2018 1:07 am

AGW is a religion. Talking points don’t sway voters when most of them rate it way down the list of their concerns. And if you don’t live in CA or NY, it is a winning issue for him.
There is no political upside to wrestling with the pigs on this one.

Reply to  metamars
November 26, 2018 7:30 am

You’re just making excuses for his political incompetence. Oh, and by the way, the 5 Star Movement IN Italy is not the same thing as Italy, itself.

Steve Banon has already spilled the beans, regarding Trump’s limited accomplishments:
“In the forty-eight hours after we won, there’s a fundamental decision that was made . . . you might call it the original sin of the administration . . . We embraced the establishment. I mean, we totally embraced the establishment.”

Of course, it would have been stupid, and unviable, to completely go to war against the Republican establishment. Somebody who was less incompetent than Trump, however, would have made a reasonable attempt to navigate between the Scylla and Charybdis of “totally embrace” and going to war against.

Russ R.
Reply to  metamars
November 26, 2018 8:51 am

He won the Presidency against the incumbent party. That incumbent party had 8 years to run the establishment, and pack it with liberal bureaucrats. They are civil servants, who cannot be fired if you don’t like their politics.
Your point of view is that you could do better, so that makes him “stupid and incompetent”. How many countries have you run? You must think pretty highly of yourself to think you are in a position to know the details of everything that goes into every decision he makes. And you trust the word of Steve Banon?
When Italy is competitive in anything they produce, I will care about the politics of Italy. Until then they are the under performing little country in an under performing chronically bureaucratic region.
We don’t need slick political maneuvering. That gets us happy politicians and special deals for special constituents. And more people getting access to taxpayer funds to spend on stuff that doesn’t improve the lives of the taxpayers.
We want the government run more like a business, where there is accountability and performance is required. It is not a jobs program for those that can’t cut it in the competitive world that produces everything of value.

Reply to  metamars
November 26, 2018 11:56 am


His ‘disapproval’ is almost exclusive along party lines. The left hates him with a passion because he’s not an incompetent, globalist like Obama or Hillary who submits to special interests under the guise of ‘the greater good’. He won because he has a track record as a competent leader, says what’s on his mind and follows through. Those who dislike him are either vested in the swamp and don’t want to be led or have bought into the lies and misinformation propagated by the MSM. I think that one of Trump’s best qualities is that he’s not afraid to hear what others think, or afraid to reply if he thinks otherwise, and as a result, doesn’t need to surround himself with sycophants like Obama did and Hillary surely would have. His administration has also been the most transparent we’ve ever seen.

Obama was undeniably one of the worst US Presidents we’ve ever had, yet the same press that constantly demonizes Trump tingled over Obama and gave his administration a pass on so much wrongdoing it was unconscionable. The depth of their hypocrisy is clear when they demonize Trump and his administration for continuing the same things that the Obama administration did. I guess they don’t need to be worried about being called racists when they dump on Trump.

Given the unprecedented crusade against Trump by the Democratic leadership in collusion with the MSM, it’s amazing that his approval rating is as high as it is and that he’s gotten as much done as he has. The left is apoplectic and has created such a toxic environment based on lies and misinformation, it’s become ripe for exploitation as a means to de-legitimize the progressive left as a viable political force. Once it becomes well known how wrong they are about climate science, which is one of their top talking points, it should cause people with a brain to question the rest of the progressive agenda.

Trump does need to address the climate science issue more forcefully. It’s clear that the swamp doesn’t want climate science fixed. If he only knew how incredibly wrong the IPCC’s pseudo-science is and realized how devastating the scientific truth will be to rest of the progressive agenda, I expect that he would be more aggressive and make destroying the IPCC a goal. At least he seems to understand the danger to humanity from the horribly anti-west biased UNFCCC.

Reply to  metamars
November 26, 2018 10:34 pm

@Russ R

Oh, wow, so one must “run a country” in order to be able to criticize incompetence in a national leader? Does this POV also hold for presidents of companies? How about a Mom and Pop restaurant? Oh, say, like one I was in 30 years ago, where the owner put salt in Perrier bottles, replace the caps, but didn’t bother cleaning the black scum from the cap ridges? Do I need to run a restaurant before I can open my eyes, and speak the obvious truth about the owner’s business sense?

I was being kind in calling Trump incompetent, because that implies some sort of honest effort which is wide of the mark. However, Trump’s lack of mastery of half a dozen talking points can hardly be called an “honest effort” – it’s really a NON-effort.

Similarly, Trump’s lack of effort to master even a handful of details about healthcare was painfully evident in one of the Republican debates, where he couldn’t muster EVEN ONE point, other than allowing for insurance sales across state lines. He was challenged by one of the moderators to provide more details, but couldn’t. Instead, he got angry and even indignant by the question.

Also, to have utterly failed in creating a sustainable movement that would challenge the Republican establishment (as well as the rest of the establishment) – which Candidate Trump strongly implied with his “drain the swamp” rhetoric, but, thanks to Steve Bannon, we know Trump more or less completely abrogated, suggests dishonesty as well as lack of effort. Again, not simply incompetence – I was again being kind.

Your willingness to defend the indefensible is duly noted. One can only wonder how you attained the temerity to defend Trump, as you haven’t “run a country”, either, so should be disqualified from any right to analyze Trump’s performance.

Finally, you are missing most of the point about Trump’s political incompetence, by thinking that is exclusively in the domain of the textbook job description of President. In point of fact, educating the public about real climate science is more of a PR/ constructive propaganda effort than, say, getting a bill passed through Congress requiring the public to get a rudimentary education on climate.

Trump has a fairly miserable record in a number of areas, given his status as President, and the opportunities that afforded him. While I sure am glad that he’s the President, and not Hillary Clinton, there is no denying “Bad Trump’s” failures. Not to anybody with a modicum of objectivity.

Reply to  metamars
November 26, 2018 10:53 pm

I don’t want “talking points” from Trump!

What are you trying to turn him into?…A blonde Al Gore?????

Reply to  metamars
November 27, 2018 12:04 am


“I don’t want “talking points” from Trump!”

I do. As a bare minimum. If you know anything about how mainstream media operates, you’d know that this is basic.

However, to educate the American public in serious way would require much more. A lot of it wouldn’t even require Trump doing the education – he could just be the alpha male in the limited audience, and the teacher could be a domain expert, like Richard Lindzen. (All this while the cameras are rolling. If Main Stream Media censors it, it can at least make it into alternative media.)

A periodic address to the nation would be justified. As would a speaking tour.

He could also offer $1 million of his own money for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anybody involved in deliberate data tampering (such as is covered by Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard).

Instead of just entertaining his rabid fan base that attends his rallies, Trump could ASK them to pony up $5 apiece for ad buys explaining real climate science.

I have zero training in advertising and public relations, and I can easily throw together a bunch of suggestions.

So, what is Trump’s problem? I don’t know, exactly, but I’m hardly impressed.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
November 26, 2018 10:36 pm

@ Russ R

Oh, wow, so one must “run a country” in order to be able to criticize incompetence in a national leader? Does this POV also hold for presidents of companies? How about a Mom and Pop restaurant? Oh, say, like one I was in 30 years ago, where the owner put salt in Perrier bottles, replace the caps, but didn’t bother cleaning the black scum from the cap ridges? Do I need to run a restaurant before I can open my eyes, and speak the obvious truth about the owner’s business sense?

I was being kind in calling Trump incompetent, because that implies some sort of honest effort which is wide of the mark. However, Trump’s lack of mastery of half a dozen talking points can hardly be called an “honest effort” – it’s really a NON-effort.

Similarly, Trump’s lack of effort to master even a handful of details about healthcare was painfully evident in one of the Republican debates, where he couldn’t muster EVEN ONE point, other than allowing for insurance sales across state lines. He was challenged by one of the moderaters to provide more details, but couldn’t. Instead, he got angry and even indignant by the question.

Also, to have utterly failed in creating a sustainable movement that would challenge the Republican establishment (as well as the rest of the establishment) – which Candidate Trump strongly implied with his “drain the swamp” rhetoric, but, thanks to Steve Bannon, we know Trump more or less completely abrogated, suggests dishonesty as well as lack of effort. Again, not simply incompetence – I was again being kind.

Your willingness to defend the indefensible is duly noted. One can only wonder how you attained the temerity to defend Trump, as you haven’t “run a country”, either, so should be disqualified from any right to analyze Trump’s performance.

Finally, you are missing most of the point about Trump’s political incompetence, by thinking that is exclusively in the domain of the textbook job description of President. In point of fact, educating the public about real climate science is more of a PR/ constructive propaganda effort than, say, getting a bill passed through Congress requiring the public to get a rudimentary education on climate.

Trump has a fairly miserable record in a number of areas, given his status as President, and the opportunities that afforded him. While I sure am glad that he’s the President, and not Hillary Clinton, there is no denying “Bad Trump’s” failures. Not to anybody with a modicum of objectivity.

Reply to  metamars
November 26, 2018 10:55 pm

You need to run for the job if you think criticism is productive!

You DO meet the qualifications, don’t you?

Russ R.
Reply to  metamars
November 27, 2018 10:07 am

@metamars – your problem is that you have no clue what you are talking about, yet you seem to think that you do!
A politicians job is to form a coalition that can get more votes than anyone else that is running.
It is not to pick your particular issue, and run with it the way you think it should be done.
He has done more with this issue than any other President, yet you are clearly under the false impression that doing more would be “competent”.
We elect a “representative” to deal with all the complexities of changing laws and enacting new ones. The public has a limited attention span because they have other priorities. Priorities that have a direct impact on financial stability and relationships with other people, is what is really important to an individuals life. My life is only peripherally impacted by the entirety of politics, let alone who is currently President.
Politicians operate within a band of acceptable behavior, speech performance, and policy decision making. Where that band is, depends on the public mood and is fluid. If they get outside this band, then they will lose to those that manage to stay inside it.
You seem to think you can convince everyone that your band is the correct one, and anything that occurs outside your band is “incompetent behavior”. It may be time to write down what is really important to you and rate how important it is. You may find that what a President does or doesn’t do, is not going to have much impact on your life.
If you are a climate scientist and have been “adjusting” temperature records to fit your biased agenda, then the magnitude of your negative opinion of President Trump would be completely justified. If not, then you have TDS, and are in complete denial. Cold turkey is the best remedy.

Reply to  metamars
November 27, 2018 1:41 pm

@ Russ. R

“A politicians job is to form a coalition that can get more votes than anyone else that is running.”

It’s absurd – to anybody with even a casual acquaintance of politics as practiced in the US – to think that this is a fair description of a politician’s “job”. Are you really ignorant of their need to be endlessly fund-raising? Do you understand, or don’t you, that even though it’s been shown statistically that we live in a de facto plutocracy (Gilens and Page; see, that the public nevertheless has SOME degree of influence over what their representatives do – i.e. their votes on whatever bills that whatever coalitions can be formed will produce. And to that end, leaving the public in its current, largely ignorant state about the state of climate science, and the corrupting political and financial eco-system within which it exists, is pathetically stupid, if you want some sort of honest resolution of the “global warming/climate change” issue.

Why do you think the Democrats (as do the Republicans) repeat talking points that just happen to coincide with their political strategy of the day? Are their targets other politicians, with whom they hope to strike a deal, or are their targets mostly the public? Watch the documentary “Outfoxed” if you need a clue.

Of course, their targets are mostly the public. So, the politicians whom you pretend to understand don’t act like the textbook examples of statesmen that you desperately would like us to believe in.

Trump’s outrageousness and tweets allowed him to win the Presidency, coupled with the vile Hillary’s un-likeability. But his lousy approval vs. disapproval ratings, even compared to other Republican presidents, tells us, in a glance, how well persisting with his campaign ‘strategies’ and low information ways have served him.

His failure to EVEN invest 30 minutes in memorizing some talking points re climate change, so he doesn’t come off as a complete ignoramus on the subject, shows an abysmal lack of political savvy.

That was during the campaign. Have things changed? well, right now, the #4 article on is “Trump Responds To Dire Predictions In The Latest US Climate Report”. Basically, Trump says, “I don’t believe it”, and doesn’t recite a SINGLE factoid that would justify his belief. Same old Trump! The dilettante politician who won because of a mere 70,000 votes being cast in key areas of the country. He doesn’t have the common sense to step up his game; and neither does anybody in his staff have the ability to conceive of a stepped up game, or else get Trump to do even a LITTLE bit of homework in this direction.

You can make excuses for Trump and his staff until the cows come home, but IMO, you only impress 2 kinds of people. First, Trump fan tribalists, who can’t question their dear leader because they’re irrational. And secondly, people who WANT Trump to fail, and so are quite happy to 1) reinforce any idea in Trump’s head that he’s doing a bang-up job and 2) keep Trump’s base from realizing that not only is he greatly failing in many fronts that he could be a success in, but SO ARE THEY.

I’m actually more annoyed by the Trumpian cheer leaders that attended his rallies, and never lifted a finger to create a populist reform group, similar to Italy’s 5 Star Movement, in the US. The 5 Star Movement will easily survive their comedian founder’s exit from the movement. Trumpism, OTOH, will collapse the day Trump exits the scene (barring the emergence of somebody similar). Trump is just one guy. He is no visionary. And his narcissism blinds him to the fact that he is much more the beneficiary of an undercurrent of discontent with the swamp, than he is any sort of political leader of a reform movement. (Which he largely sold out, Day 1, anyway, as Bannon has pointed out.)

But Trump’s followers are in the millions, and those attending his rallies I’ll guess have exceeded 1 million. What the heck is their problem?

“You get the government you deserve”. Did you ever hear that saying?

I would add “You get no better government than the goverment you make excuses for”.

“It is not to pick your particular issue, and run with it the way you think it should be done.”

Ridiculous. This isn’t just “my particular issue”. This is considered an EXISTENTIAL issue to those who have been successfully propagandized to accept CO2 catastrophism. These people number in the 10’s of millions, in the US, and about half of them will vote. Their numbers VASTLY exceed Trump’s 70,000 voter margin of victory in 2016.

I don’t see how ANYBODY, who wants Trump to succeed (in the sense of being a good President, which requires the he also be a competent politician and honest propagandist), and isn’t an irrational tribalist who will cheer Trump on no matter what fool thing he does or says, could possibly steer him in a direction that just kisses off this huge voting bloc.

That is a recipe not just for failure, but humiliation:

Russ R.
Reply to  metamars
November 27, 2018 3:15 pm

@metamars – None of which matters if they don’t get elected! So his JOB is to get more votes than anyone else running for the office.
Once they are in office they are running for reelection, unless they are retiring after the current term.
So it is safe to assume he is currently running in 2020, and he needs to maintain a coalition that will elect him in 2020.
There are plenty of moderate Republicans and Independents that will support him if he doesn’t alienate them with scientific arguments over the present AGW boondoggle. He is not a scientist. He is not the one to debate the subject matter, and talking points without in depth understanding is asking for trouble defending your talking points.
Not to mention the undecided voters that may be turned off by the whole issue. Some don’t like math and science, and would prefer to follow the advice of their favorite celebrity. Those voters are not turned off by “I think it is a fraud”, but might tune you out if you spend time and effort debating point by point.
Bottom line: My choice was not between him and MY perfect candidate. It was between two flawed candidates that managed to get the nomination of their party. Trump is much better than the alternative, and will be better than whoever the Dims nominate for the next election.
It makes no sense to whine about the things you don’t like about him. It will not change him, and only strengthen the opposition. And that is precisely what your agenda is. Everyone can find fault when comparing any President against an ideal. It comes down to whether they are better than another flawed human being who has to herd enough cats to get elected.

Reply to  metamars
November 27, 2018 7:25 pm

@ Russ. R

“There are plenty of moderate Republicans and Independents that will support him if he doesn’t alienate them with scientific arguments over the present AGW boondoggle. ”

So, your high opinion of Trumnp is only exceeded by your low opinion of “moderate Republicans and Independents”, whose precious ears just couldn’t bear to hear the truth about climate change. So, just cater to their anti-scientism, and whistle past the graveyard, in the hopes that Trump can carry the day with voters who prefer ignorance and denial. (Obviously, I don’t mean “denial” in the same sense as the CO2 catastrophists.) Do you really believe this tripe?

I don’t suppose you have a shred of evidence for your ridiculous claim, do you? Because I can point you to a quality, SERIOUS, well-moderated debate, by the “intelligence squared” folks, that showed a dramatic increase in support for the realist position after a relatively small exposure to scientific arguments. (I’m pretty sure I’ve also read of a study or two that citizens who actually studied the matter became MORE skeptical of CAGW, but I couldn’t find them after spending a few minutes searching.)

Here is the link to the intelligence squared debate. “IQ2US Debate: Global Warming Is Not A Crisis” If you skip ahead to 1:38:26, you will see the results of the debate.

pre-debate: for = 29.88% against = 57.32%
post-debate: for = 46.22% against – 42.22%

Your claim that, essentially, “ignorance is political bliss”, is quite convenient to an apoligist for Trump’s political incompetence. However, convenience is no criteria for truth.

In light of the results of the intelligence squared debate, it’s sort of obvious that Trump would profit enormously from just the simple, SINGLE act of sponsoring a high profile debate, say right within the White House, and FORCING the event (to the extent possible) into the national awareness. He wouldn’t even have to tax his brain by learning anything!

Hell, Trump could have gotten political mileage out of just calling attention to the Intelligence Squared Debate that I’m referring to! But he wasn’t even that clever!

I strongly suspect that he has “advisors” with the same sort of pseudo-realistic, timid beliefs that you appear to hold….

“It makes no sense to whine about the things you don’t like about him. It will not change him, and only strengthen the opposition. And that is precisely what your agenda is.”

Ya know, it’s funny, but that’s what I think your agenda is. Let the CO2 catastrophists dominate the American mindscape and political landscape, continue encouraging Trump not to fight it, but instead appear like a clueless buffoon. Let Trump wallow in his incompetence. “Let Trump be Trump”, as Lewandowski says. Don’t even ATTEMPT to develop as an effective politician and leader. I DON’T think that you’re just a clueless tribalist, but just pretending to be one.

Expanding your base is politics 101, but you prefer Trump (again, the winner because of a mere 70,000 votes or so) to just cede the 10’s of millions of moral voters, who view CAGW as an existential issue, to the CO2 nutters. I can well imagine the 2 or 3 crocodile tears you will shed if he goes down to a humiliating defeat in 2020.

Russ R.
Reply to  metamars
November 27, 2018 9:41 pm

4 of the last 5 presidents has been re-elected. The one that didn’t get re-elected made a very public promise to not raise taxes, and then caved in and raised them anyway. So as long as he doesn’t do anything stupid, his odds of re-election are very good.
Another few years of mild to non-existent warming will make the case for him. He will need the midwest again, and they are already getting an early winter. I shoveled nearly a foot of snow yesterday, which is very unusual for this area, this early. And today the temps were 25*F below average. And that is something that we have seen a lot of. People notice that. You don’t have to get in their face about it. It is more effective when they notice it for themselves. Nobody wants to admit they have been swindled.
Your shallow assessment of President Trump is typical of Leftist ideologues. He has your undies in a knot, and all you can do about it, is get on a blog and rant about how horrible he is, and how much you are man-crushing on your 5 star smooth operators, and how lame he is in comparison. Everyday for the last three years I have been hearing about how “stupid and incompetent” he is, and everyday he moves one step closer to his goals.
He did not “luck” into his election. It was brilliant. He knew what states to work, and how hard to work them. He knew what issues to hit, and how hard to hit them in what states and to what demographics. His team of pollsters and focus group teams played it to perfection.
Hillary had all the momentum from the incumbent party. The media was in the tank for her. She had more money and a better organization, and HE STILL WON!!!
The climate is not going anywhere, and his plan is to have another 6 years to work on both the public and the government.
The next two years will be different than the last two. The legislative agenda will slow to a halt, and he will have more time and focus on his agenda for 2020 – 2024. Time will tell what he will do. Fixing the EPA, and cancelling our commitment to Paris were big steps in the right direction. The AGW movement is treading water and he will throw them an anchor, instead of a life preserver.

Reply to  metamars
November 28, 2018 3:39 am

@ Russ R.

Presented with evidence (intelligence squared debate results) that even a modest investment of time on Trump’s part, and essentially zero effort, could yield large political dividends, the best you can do is regale us with tales of shoveling snow. But, there’s no mystery about how the CO2 catastrophists will deal with an uptick of extreme weather events. None, at all. Your inability to predict what other people, who are not Trump tribalists, will do is, to use a common Trump twitter comment, “Sad!”.

The sadder thing is, as far as I can tell, not just Trump but his advisers must be as politically clueless as you appear to be.

Nevertheless, I should thank you, because you’ve given me an idea about how to force the painfully obvious takeaway from the intelligence squared debate into the consciousness of part of the Trump inner circle. This is made easier by the fact that I live about 17 miles from Trump Tower.

Reply to  metamars
December 2, 2018 9:36 am

One must realize that even Trump himself may not have realized that he may win the Election.
On top of the fact that he does not come from any organized Political party, and, did not enter Office with a “Posse”, as would Hillary. Obama, the Bushes, the Clintons etc.
He was understaffed to begin with, and had no real advisors. His job from the git go was to get something going, figure it our on the run, and try and identify friend and foe, while doing his best to learn the job.
From what I understand, Hillary had over 4000 staffers and appointees ready to go, many with leases on expensive homes and apartment in the DC. area., ready to move, or, already there. That is just part of her Posse. How many would Trump have had? Boy, are
those Clinton people pissed. Especially when the concession /apology party for her supporters only included those who had made campaign contributions of over $1,000,000 or more. Let them eat cake…

November 24, 2018 1:59 pm

here is the link to it

Reply to  vukcevic
November 24, 2018 2:12 pm

comment image
top-cold spells (days): falling
middle-warm spells (days): below average
bottom-heat wave magnitude: below average
so what is there not to like?

Reply to  vukcevic
November 24, 2018 2:29 pm


I don’t like that the sceptical world must wish for all their might for precisely what they don’t want, a colder world, just to prove their point.

Reply to  HotScot
November 24, 2018 3:15 pm

Speak for yourself.. I want a warmer world, and I don’t think CO2 has any ability to make it warmer. yes, yes,, theory and all that, but we still have not surpassed 1940.

Reply to  EdB
November 24, 2018 4:29 pm

I agree, the present method of attempting to show a single number to represent the entire earth is wrong, way wrong, but I think the paper you linked is exactly backwards. Since 70%(?) of the Earth’s surface is ocean, and only 30% landmass, wouldn’t the areas over land, relatively sheltered from ocean affects, be the aberration? Something in a minority, and therefore not truly representative of the Earth as a whole? But really, a better method of attempting to determine if anything is really changing, is to record the air heat content so as to capture whether we have truly increased heat, or whether we just lowered the amount of water vapor in the air and thus posted a higher temperature, even though the heat content remained the same? How come nobody is presenting that information to us consumers?

Reply to  HotScot
November 25, 2018 12:56 am

I think you mischaracterise the issue. The world is so focused on mythical global warming that they will miss the next inevitable and overdue dive into glaciation. During the last ice age New York was under a km of ice, I don’t see How wall st. Is planning to manage the next. We hope the next minimum will just lead to another little ice age, but what if it doesn’t what if glaciation is around the corner. We need to stop bullshi!!ing about global warming and start using our energy resources to hedge climate changes whether they be warming, cooling or freezing. Energy is our only real weapon against climate/weather yet we aim to destroy our energy systems and doom half the population to have no protection in the name of climate. How dumb can you get.

Reply to  Bobl
November 25, 2018 3:26 am

“I don’t see How wall st. Is planning to manage the next.”
Simple, knock down the ‘wall’ and invade Mexico 🙂

Reply to  Bobl
November 26, 2018 2:34 pm

You would think that the Northern countries who benefit the most from global warming and are harmed the most by glaciation, would be a little more circumspect regarding their own self interests. If they really believed CO2 was as powerful as claimed, they would be clamoring for the World to be emitting as much as possible. The next ice age is inevitable and even before man started emitting CO2 on an industrial scale, the current inter-glacial warming period was already longer than most. No amount of CO2 will stop the next glaciation and the best we can hope for is raise the bottom by about a degree.

Warming is indeed an anomaly that we should appreciate while we can. Much of the land comprising the developed world has been buried under ice for most of the last several million years spanning dozens of distinct ice ages. The probability that it will happen again is 100% and is the only thing we can predict about the future climate that’s absolutely certain.

Reply to  Bobl
November 27, 2018 9:39 am

One place I think we need more research… We have (we think) reconstructed past temperatures that seem to indicate coming out of a glacial, WRT air temperatures at least, was much more abrupt than the descent into the next glacial. But have we been able to construct a time-series of the ice position? I have seen the pics indicating the size and location of the ice sheet with respect to time as we came out of the last glacial, but has anyone been able to reconstruct the ice locations WRT time as we went into a glacial? From any glacial, not necessarily the last one, although I suspect the most recent would be the easiest to reconstruct.

Reply to  vukcevic
November 24, 2018 6:55 pm

Chapter 1 lays out the emotional case with charts, graphs and hyperbolic rhetoric reinforced with social guilt.

Chapters 2, 3 and 4 are supposed to lay out the scientific case.

Chapter 2 starts out correct that the Planck ‘feedback’ they quantify as -3.1 W/m^2 per degree is the largest factor. They don’t understand that it’s not feedback, but is the primary physical constraint on the ultimate behavior of the climate system and is more properly considered as bounding the maximum sensitivity to 0.3C per W/m^2 or about 1.1C per doubling of CO2. Everything past the first paragraph is unnecessary and where its not wrong, its misleading and incomplete, especially with any mention of ‘feedback’.

Chapter 3 is a treatise on how to conflate correlation with causation.

Chapter 4 talks about models and bogus RCP scenarios, but seems to be missing any mention of how wrong these same models have been in the past. They do talk about uncertainty and mention the range of 1.5 to 4.5 presumed by the IPCC for doubling CO2, but the range is more accurately presented as 3C +/- 50% which is so far from ‘settled’ its a joke. Even worse is that the theoretical maximum and the actual measured sensitivity to changes in solar forcing are both less than the claimed lower limit with zero uncertainty.

The document has already exceeded my threshold for the acceptable number of references to the IPCC by a very wide margin. That there’s so much deference to the IPCC is disturbing as they are the embodiment of all that’s controversial about climate science. The rest of the chapters look like fear mongering on top of more fear mongering and my patience has already been exhausted.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 25, 2018 11:43 am

I agree with your analysis of the Assessment… at least as far as I got reading it before pegging my B.S. meter :<)

Bill In Oz
November 24, 2018 2:00 pm

The models on which this is based, do not explain past climate change periods like the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warming, or the Roman Warming period.

In all of these periods of changed global climate CO2 levels did not change. Yet the global climate changed significantly in each time. So none of the CO2 forcing models are useful or applicable.

If the models cannot explain the known past, why the hell should anyone trust their ‘predictions’ of doom for the future ?

Nahhh. They are just crystal ball gazing & scaremongering.

The question is “why is Trump still funding this crystal ball stuff ?”

michael hart
Reply to  Bill In Oz
November 24, 2018 2:22 pm

Like warren above, I too am somewhat disappointed at progress. The new administration should have known they would only have a limited window of opportunity. Already the Republican majority in Congress is gone.
I would like to have seen them start on Day 1 with a list of people to simply be defunded, fired, and kicked out of important federal positions where the administration has the authority to make changes. As it is, many of these people think that they immune from the consequences of naked political adventurism and telling lies to further political goals while in important government positions. They are still there and are confident they will just sit it out and wait for the political wind to change direction again so that they can come back like a drug-resistant cancer, worse than before.

Reply to  michael hart
November 24, 2018 2:33 pm

michael hart

Whilst climate change might be your singular imperative, Trump has many more irons in the fire.

He can lay some groundwork in the hope he’s re elected, then he can put the boot in. But if he’s not careful, there’s no chance of re election.

Reply to  HotScot
November 25, 2018 1:41 am

Thanks to his daughter and ego (stroked by globalists) he’s unlikely to be re-elected.

Reply to  michael hart
November 24, 2018 2:56 pm

I think most of the D.C. politicians are in on the payola. Trump is just one guy.

Reply to  michael hart
November 25, 2018 5:11 am

Agreed. I see the earmarks of what is going on here. I worked in government (agency and state university) for about 12 years. People in these government-supported positions are afraid that their funding will be cut and they will be forced to find some way of furthering careers, supporting themselves and families, in the private sector with a lack of preparation or required skill set.

When I worked in government, I observed that whenever budget cutting was anticipated we would project the consequences in the most severe and headline-worthy sound bites possible. One place I worked was responsible for historic sites among other things, and of course the most popular and heavily attended historic tourist attraction would be closed if budget cuts occurred.

Similarly, the most severe effects possible are being projected here to elevate the importance of continuing and enhancing support of their professional careers and operations.

Reply to  michael hart
November 25, 2018 9:59 am

The American Intelligence Media youtube channel has done a number of programs on the Senior Executive Services, which obscure their members and compensation. (According to AIM, their members include Obama and Jeff Sessions). According to AIM (who I don’t trust 100%) the SES hires cannot be fired by Trump or any other President, their real function is to make the US government agencies do the will of transnational economic interests, they are not vetted like normal civil service employees, their starting pay is higher than the regular civil service maximum (which is something like GS 14), and some of them even have explicit loyalties to globalist entities.

While I don’t trust AIM 100%, their SES claims strike me as very credible. If so, the swamp is deep, indeed.

However, this also raises the question of Trump’s competency as a politician of even a minor scope as a reformer. I’ve ONLY heard of SES through AIM. Surely, Trump must know about his SES handcuffs. Why is he not using his extremely visible position to make sure that as many Americans as possible know about the existence of SES, and how SES has been subverted from it’s original intent?

Reply to  michael hart
November 26, 2018 10:59 pm

President Trump never had a majority in the House!

Some of his staunchest opponents were Republicans that favored pork marinated in a deep state!

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Bill In Oz
November 24, 2018 3:08 pm

@Warren and Michael Hart: As the two of you are, I am also frustrated and disappointed that Trump and his administration are simply being reactionary in the face of all this climate alarmist scaremongering and disputable science that is getting put out.

He should have gone on the offense against the alarmist narrative a long time ago with a panel of scientists of his own who would have presented the refuting evidence that makes this whole thing highly questionable. It seems apparent that their are still quite a few alarmists in the Federal Government that Trump has taken no action against. And it is all still be funded.

If and when the Democrats retake the White House and full control in both houses of Congress in 2020, they and their alarmist allies can consider themselves fortunate that Trump did little to act against the climate alarmist narrative and place it in doubt. Trump still has time to end his reactionary stance and go on the offense, but the clock is ticking and their are no guarantees that Trump will win re-election in 2020.

Even if the Earth’s climate does cool off in the years ahead, it is no guarantee that it will bring all of this to an end. The alarmists are still pretty much in control in the media, in govt, in academia and in science, and the narrative is quite deeply entrenched.

The alarmists are a stubborn and determined bunch, and they will not stop milking this for as much as they can get and for as long as they can. As long as they can continue taking advantage of the scientific illiteracy of the media, the American people and the politicians, a nationwide carbon tax here in the U.S. is likely still very much a part of their future plans.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Bill In Oz
November 24, 2018 3:25 pm

“The models on which this is based, do not explain past climate change periods like the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warming, or the Roman Warming period.”

yes they do

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 24, 2018 3:35 pm

From first principles, or through tuning, Mr. Mosher?

Tom Halla
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 24, 2018 3:48 pm

Or by doing a Hockey Stick, and basically denying they existed at any real level?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 24, 2018 3:36 pm

Please explain how these models explain anything.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 24, 2018 3:37 pm

PS: Aerosol assumptions work wonders.

Bryan A
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 24, 2018 6:38 pm

Now you’re just blowing smoke

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 24, 2018 3:44 pm

No they don’t.

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 24, 2018 7:50 pm

Please cite the model(s) which do and/or provide a link to output runs, plus projections at least through 2030. Or alternatively, a paper which describes the fit, and the assumptions. From what I’ve seen, models that get the MWP right (ie roughly as hot or hotter than today) run way to hot for the present and/or get the LIA too hot. Please advise.

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
November 25, 2018 9:02 am

What, still no reply to my polite question/challenge Steven? Must have been another “drive by” post from the famous climate guy. Man up, Mosher, and either: 1) post the data I asked for, or 2) stick your fingers in your ears and yell ‘Nah, nah, nah, I can’t hear you…”

tom s
Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
November 26, 2018 7:36 am

Mosh is a drive by poster. He’s one of those ‘booksmart’ types so don’t expect much logic.

Reply to  tom s
November 26, 2018 9:12 am

My take on ‘booksmart’ types:

When you limit what you know to what you have been taught, you will never learn.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 25, 2018 8:13 pm

To “explain” is not the requirement for a model that is used in making public policy. To “predict” is the requirement. While today’s climate models “explain” they fail to “predict.” It is impossible for them to “predict” as the statistical populations underlying these models are nowhere identified.

tom s
Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 26, 2018 7:33 am

No they don’t.

November 24, 2018 2:03 pm

Please let me know when the fear mongering and juvenile attempts to scare me come to an end. Thanks!

Reply to  Sara
November 24, 2018 2:58 pm

Hmmm, that did not scare you.
Alright then, I will try this:

President Hillary Rodham Clinton

That should do it.

F. Ross
Reply to  TonyL
November 24, 2018 3:52 pm

Wash your mouth out with soap!
Foul (fowl) language should be prohibited on a blog like this.

Reply to  TonyL
November 24, 2018 3:59 pm

That’s not just scary. Its a nightmare.

Reply to  Tim
November 24, 2018 7:42 pm

People have fallen out of bed and died from such nightmares.

John V. Wright
November 24, 2018 2:05 pm

Whatever happened to the Red and Blue team approach to considering the climatic impact for various forcing scenarios? Wouldn’t that be the perfect approach for these four-yearly assessments?

Reply to  John V. Wright
November 24, 2018 2:18 pm

A more objective report will have to wait for the next one. The ball got rolling on this one during the Obama administration which more or less preordained its direction and conclusions.

Reply to  John V. Wright
November 24, 2018 2:41 pm

John V. Wright

The public don’t care about the science. If they did they wouldn’t have listened to Al Gore.

The situation is quite simple. Whilst the scientific community squabble amongst themselves, the 10% educated of the world, the likes of Gore appeal to the 90% of the voting public with BS and lies.

And one scientist = 1 vote. One layman also = 1 vote.

The sceptical community maintains the higher moral ground, and loses the popular vote.

Simple stuff.

Jan E Christoffersen
November 24, 2018 2:16 pm

Don’t forget that COP 24 is coming up in a week or so. All big climate gabfests are preceded by a major uptick in scary claims of climate doom.

Reply to  Jan E Christoffersen
November 24, 2018 2:48 pm

Jan E Christoffersen

Also following the gabfest.

November 24, 2018 2:27 pm

> “… a rapidly expanding population.”

This is an incongruous insertion. Is climate change conducive to supporting more people? Higher birth rates? Survival rates? Extended lifespans?

Or is this a negative consequence in their opinion?

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
November 24, 2018 2:47 pm


This is an incongruous insertion. Is climate change conducive to supporting more people? Higher birth rates? Survival rates? Extended lifespans?

Depends what you mean by climate change. If it means the planet gets colder, then no, climate change isn’t conducive to supporting more people.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
November 25, 2018 7:30 am

They just what-if population explodes, and use that as a basis to believe emissions will therefore explode, if not something is done. RCP8.5 incongruency.

Something means ‘give us money and power’.

November 24, 2018 2:34 pm

What?! Government funded people hype a report in order to insure continued funding?! Tell me it isn’t so!

Richard Keen
November 24, 2018 2:47 pm

The USGCRP was mandated by congress,(and signed by Pres. GHW Bush) 28 years ago, and is out of the current president’s hands. Trump didn’t ask for the report, and can’t stop it, and is stuck receiving it.
From the last report in 2014, approx.:
“The National Climate Assessment (NCA) is being conducted under the auspices of the Global Change Research Act of 1990, which requires a report to the President and the Congress that evaluates, integrates and interprets the findings of the $2.6 billion USGCRP every four years.”
“aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities”
So the report is mandated to assess “cumulative effects of human activities” on climate. Of course it will spout global warming nonsense; that’s what the report is supposed to do. That’s why the lead authors are hacks like Kate Hay-hoe and Brenda Ekwurzel, rather than from anyone with scientific creds.
Perhaps the Republicans should have repealed the bill when they had the chance, but likely McCain would have given the repeal his Obamacare thumbs down.

Reply to  Richard Keen
November 24, 2018 2:57 pm

Richard Keen

According to your citation: “aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities”……

It doesn’t preclude natural effects. In fact the term “including” suggests man’s effects are merely a part of other effects.

Richard Keen
Reply to  HotScot
November 24, 2018 3:51 pm

Technically true, but since human activities are specifically stated, while natural effects are not, I think it’s clear where the direction of the activity will lead.
And it did.

Lee Riffee
November 24, 2018 2:52 pm

I would like to know at what points in history did climate change not tend to batter economies? Let’s see – climate change pretty much put an end to (or at least so goes the prevailing theory) the Aztec, Maya and Incan civilizations, it ran the Vikings out of Greenland (or at least prevented them from growing crops there), and (long cold spells) might well have contributed to so much of the starvation, illness and death in the “dark ages” in Europe. Surely the economies of these civilizations took a hit when the climate changed.
But then again, there is no reason why the word “change” must always be for the negative. Warming allowed the Vikings to grow crops in formerly (and currently) inhospitable places like Greenland. Warming contributed to the flourishing of the Roman empire.
Really, these reports, however exaggerated, don’t really even qualify as news. OK, so the climate changes. Volcanoes erupt, earthquakes rumble and rattle, and all sorts of other natural events and disasters will happen. All we can do is to do what every living thing on this earth have done since day one – adapt to it or die out. And being that we are a highly intelligent species, I think we have a bit more of a leg up on that than dinosaurs or even ancient peoples who often made sacrifices to their deities to try and prevent natural disasters and climactic calamities. But even in that regard it seems so little has changed – despite our technology and scientific acumen there are still people who believe that making sacrifices at the temple of Gore and company (that includes both money and people’s lives) will prevent such changes and potential disasters.

Reply to  Lee Riffee
November 24, 2018 3:20 pm

Lee Riffee

Fair comment. The problem is, like religion got in the way of progress (which isn’t true either, religion encouraged some progress) science is the new religion, and like religion, it often hinders progress.

We like to believe science is the answer because it’s based on observation, but that’s a belief in the powers of observation, and at every step in science, that belief is challenged.

The next step of human evolution might see us laughing at the religion of science as a primitive belief in the powers of observation. In much the same way people look back and laugh at the belief in religion that also brought us progress.

Reply to  Lee Riffee
November 24, 2018 3:39 pm

Spaniards put an end to both Aztec and Inca civilizations. Are Spaniards a climate change?

Gary Ashe
November 24, 2018 2:56 pm

I would have wished Gav’s science chav’s defunded, and their data ”services” transfered to a Christy type led New Nasa dept.

Gav’s abominations drive the the whole IPCC muppet show.

Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.
November 24, 2018 2:56 pm

CAGW will cost the US economy “hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century”?

That’s 81 years from now. For an average cost of $12.35 billion a year (assuming $999.999 billion total loss). That’s 0.3% of today’s annual US budget. And that’s supposed to be scary? If the report is, indeed, skewed to point to the worst case (and I have no doubt he’s right, since I work in the federal government and see it daily), then this is certainly a good-news assessment!

David Hood
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.
November 24, 2018 3:21 pm

So Michael, if I read what you wrote correctly, it doesn’t matter to you, that the amount indicated as “hundreds of billions of dollars” is broken down into small yearly increments – and therefore unworthy of concern?
If, again if I understood you correctly, this money might as well be spent in this manner, anyway.

Well, that being the case, I suggest this view point is representative of someone who enjoys spending other peoples money.
Truthfully, so would I, however, I’d much rather do so where it would be beneficial to those it is being spent on.
Alternatively, if it is a total waste of time spending it in the first place, such as the area it is, then spending it in an area needing additional financial support….like kids, the (truly) poor, teaching (note, I didn’t say teachers), nursing/medical, starving, the thirsty, the oppressed etc.

If I read you wrong, please, take my oligopoly as given.
If not, then re-evaluate the idea of spending other peoples monies, in a wasteful manner.

Reply to  David Hood
November 24, 2018 3:41 pm

Let’s spend trillions to save billions.

Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.
Reply to  David Hood
November 24, 2018 7:48 pm

I’m not sure where you get the idea that I am the kind of person who likes spending other peoples’ money, at all. I’m not.

I’m also not the kind who looks at one kind of government spending and thinks “wasteful” spending should be diverted to spending I believe to be “noble,” which you evidently do by citing recipients such as the “kids,” “the (truly) poor,” and “the oppressed,” whoever they are. Your values are good, and someone else’s you think are wasteful are not…because? Because of what?

I should, perhaps, have stepped back and noted that the “cost” the report asserts is to the US economy, which today produces some $15 trillion per year in wealth. So the alleged cost to the economy is then only 0.083%. And it is a cost that needn’t (and shouldn’t) be paid by the government, because the government doesn’t know what it’s doing. All it does is seize money from those who have it, and, after taking its enormous cut, fritter it away to whoever has the loudest lobbyist. And I assure you, that lobbyist isn’t “oppressed.”

You can call that wasteful all you want, but your opinion doesn’t count for anything in this case, because it isn’t your money.

David Hood
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.
November 24, 2018 8:47 pm

Hello again Michael – by your reply, I feel we may have more in common than not, so any sleight I may have given you , incorrectly, I once again without qualification, apologize for.
Opinions such of mine certainly do NOT count, if said opinion can only be made by people living in the country affected.
I care however for your country and its people.
I also care that WHEREVER monies are spend with little or no benefit, those missing out may suffer.
I care greatly that these misappropriated funds (solely in my opinion) would be better spent of real world issues and real world poor.
I care even more so, when a non-issue has the average person FORCED to cough up their legitimately earned dollar, against their will.

If I am wrong, I need polite people like yourself, to better inform me of the error in my logic/thinking.
Afterall, we may be neighbours – and who wants an unfriendly neighbour?

Reply to  David Hood
November 25, 2018 5:23 am

I think Michael’s point had to do more with a realistic cost/benefit analysis of money spent trying to control the planet’s climate rather than how some of that money should be allocated. The costs are expected to far exceed the benefits of money spent that way.

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.
November 24, 2018 3:46 pm

Waste is ok, so long as each individual one is less than 1% of the budget?

It’s attitudes like yours that guarantee that spending, and waste, always goes up.

November 24, 2018 2:57 pm

I had hoped junk like this would have a harder time getting released from the government when Will Happer got hired.

Richard Keen
Reply to  DMA
November 24, 2018 4:49 pm

The USGCRP is a congressional mandate.
Will Happer works for the Pres.
Separation of powers.

Duncan Smith
November 24, 2018 3:08 pm

End of Beer, now that is truly scary, those monsters.

Reply to  Duncan Smith
November 24, 2018 3:24 pm

Duncan Smith

S’ok….I brew my ownnnnnn….Hic!………..zzzzzzzzzz.

Duncan Smith
Reply to  HotScot
November 24, 2018 3:47 pm

I thought it came in a bottle, sorta magically. My world is crumbling around me. Noooo…..

Reply to  Duncan Smith
November 25, 2018 5:41 am

Not to worry, they are justing recycling the scare over the end of bees.

November 24, 2018 3:22 pm

Maybe the funds will be used to have a Senate review of each of the predictions, with funding for red/green experts. Open testimony. Let Steve McIntyre finally earn some money by giving his expert opinion on hockey sticks.

It is only over if the Repubs allow it to be over.

November 24, 2018 3:26 pm

24 Nov: Daily Caller: ‘Embarrassing’: Climate Expert Explains What’s Wrong With The White House’s New Climate Report
by Chris White
The scientists who wrote the National Climate Assessment (NCA) used unreliable information that exaggerates the risks global warming poses, University of Colorado Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. noted in a series of tweets. He fears the report will make it easier for critics to dismiss future climate studies.
“By presenting cherrypicked science, at odds w/ NCA Vol,1 & IPCC AR5, the authors of NCA Vol.2 have given a big fat gift to anyone who wants to dismiss climate science and policy,” Pielke Jr. wrote in a tweet Friday shortly after the White House released the report. “Embarrassing.”…

A White House statement Friday said the report was “largely based on the most extreme scenario” of global warming and that the next assessment would likely be more balanced. Pielke agrees…

November 24, 2018 3:45 pm

So Trump uses his scientific ‘intuition’ to dismiss a 1500 page “data driven” report issued by 13 government agencies as part of his ongoing war on logic, without even an attempt at offering some alternative facts.
The scientific method is dying in the USA.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 24, 2018 4:59 pm

“broken computer models and flawed assumptions,”
You haven’t proven either in the real World, posting ‘evidence’ here is laughably unscientific.
Please, just submit a properly written paper and put us all out of our misery.

Rich Davis
Reply to  WTF
November 24, 2018 5:41 pm

Is that your new sock puppet Appell? You’re so clever. Next time why not use “POS”?

David Hood
Reply to  WTF
November 24, 2018 3:57 pm

So, three doctors walk in to my hospital room and ask…”So David, what seems to be wrong?”
Not being an expert in the medical field, I reply tersely, “my leg got cut off after a concrete block fell on it!!!”
The doctors look sheepishly at each other at having ‘missed’ the obvious, and then one replies….
“lets us consult with another expert, and we’ll get back to in that.”

Reply to  David Hood
November 24, 2018 5:07 pm

Did you hear the one about the denier who would only preach to the congregation but couldn’t put up any evidence ?.

David Hood
Reply to  WTF
November 24, 2018 5:30 pm

Mate, we hear that ALL the time. (from both sides sadly)
But making such a statement in the face of the evidence being submitted, doesn’t make that statement true.
The ‘evidence’ as such doesn’t have to come solely from ‘experts’, as is often the opinion of the anointed.
When the waters start to rise more than historically shown, I’ll swap camps.
When the storms ‘increase’, more than historically shown, I’ll swap camps.
When heat-waves/cold spells/hurricanes/forest fires/etc…increase beyond the historical norms, then I’ll change camps….and gladly so, having been shown to hold false beliefs.

comment image
h/t vukcevic

I think the future as we both want it, is one where we BOTH are happy with the outcome.
We both I assume, want what is good for us and our fellow man(person), so we aren’t combatants, merely well intentioned people not yet sharing a common view, so I thank you for your polite reply.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  WTF
November 24, 2018 5:32 pm

That fairy tale again ?
Troll .

Reg Nelson
Reply to  WTF
November 24, 2018 10:01 pm

You have no clue of what the scientific method is and why climate science has abandoned it.

The CMIP5 model run ensemble contains 32 different models — none of the models agree with one another nor do they agree with reality.

Scientific Method — I don’t think know what that word means.

November 24, 2018 3:51 pm

He should have just used the quote from Willis’s post yesterday, and included the graph:

“As you can see, since the First US National Climate Assessment some 18 years ago, the US average temperature has gone up by … well … about zero degrees Celsius. Or for Americans, it’s gone up by … well … about zero degrees Fahrenheit.”

And then include the link to the Willis post above.

November 24, 2018 4:13 pm

Sitting at my computer yesterday morning, I heard the TV news blaring in another room, blathering on about “climate change” and the terrible things that were in store for the United States as a result.

I felt rather confident in my whispered-to-myself commentary of “bull$t”, aimed at ever lame claim. I think it was a local news channel. I should have checked and written something to the station, but I didn’t, and I feel slack because of it.

This crap is so rampant, … to the point of being fraudulent reporting on a mass scale. I hope the White House continues to put it in better perspective.

November 24, 2018 4:50 pm

That pattern is the fundamental principle of climate since

Reply to  Chaamjamal
November 24, 2018 4:52 pm


science not since

November 24, 2018 6:50 pm

What a weak and pathetic response. The recently released IPCC report said there was low confidence that droughts, floods and hurricanes had increased in the last 50 years.

US records show bushfires are declining.

But the Whitehouse response seems to have no knowledge of this. Do they not have anyone there who knows how to repond to these lies.

Taylor Pohlman
November 24, 2018 7:38 pm

Ok WTF, please cite a paper (properly written, of course) that gives experimental evidence or real-world data proving that RCP8.5 has any reasonable probability (> 20%?) of playing out 20 years from now, let alone 20 years from now. You can start by going back to the original creation of 8.5, and provide a simple graph of current global temps (UAH please, no cheating) vs. the original RCP 8.5 projections (average of multi-model runs would be fine). Since all the scary projections in the NCA were based on 8.5, the exercise I’m suggesting will help us know how to correctly treat the conclusions.

If you want my help on this exercise, I’m happy to provide it, but frankly, I think it’s best for you to do it as a way to learn to not be so trigger happy with your cheap shots

Roger Knights
November 24, 2018 7:59 pm

Some Trump relatives are warmists—a desire not to offend them and maybe have them turn against him is likely a factor in his pussy-footing. His chief of staff Kelly bruskly informed Pruitt that his red/blue team idea was scratched. Maybe Trump doesn’t want to have to bone up on a complicated subject, but is so insecure he doesn’t want to let anyone else be his spokesperson on the topic. Or maybe his political advisors have (mis)calculated that the issue is a tarbaby better not touched.

Of course, this isn’t the only dumb move (or inaction) Trump has made.

Flight Level
November 24, 2018 8:49 pm

Better sources needed, however a remote friend working there claims that every polar native soul north of NWT (meaning: bitter cold) totals a structural yearly cost to the government in excess of 1M $.

Which would set the costs of cold (and it’s impact on everything) to more than astronomical levels in comparison with much hotter regions.

Global Cooling
November 25, 2018 12:27 am

Trump would do better by not attacking a report that no-one reads. Instead he could ridicule media about the unsubstantiated fear mongering propaganda. Weather in the USA is now cold, climate is stable and vegetation loves CO2.

Reply to  Global Cooling
November 25, 2018 1:07 am

Let’s go one better, our food likes it warm and CO2 rich..

November 25, 2018 2:32 am

If US sceptics insist on doing nothing to mitigate the effects of climate change, then they are no better – in fact probably even worse – than the socialists in Ayn Rand’s ‘novel Atlas Shrugged’ ( who are determined to bring down their nation’s economy:

The Report’s summary findings ref. the US economy:

“Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century.
In the absence of significant global mitigation action and regional adaptation efforts, rising temperatures, sea level rise, and changes in extreme events are expected to increasingly disrupt and damage critical infrastructure and property, labor productivity, and the vitality of our communities. Regional economies and industries that depend on natural resources and favorable climate conditions, such as agriculture, tourism, and fisheries, are vulnerable to the growing impacts of climate change. Rising temperatures are projected to reduce the efficiency of power generation while increasing energy demands, resulting in higher electricity costs. The impacts of climate change beyond our borders are expected to increasingly affect our trade and economy, including import and export prices and U.S. businesses with overseas operations and supply chains. Some aspects of our economy may see slight near-term improvements in a modestly warmer world. However, the continued warming that is projected to occur without substantial and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cause substantial net damage to the U.S. economy throughout this century, especially in the absence of increased adaptation efforts. With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states.”

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
November 25, 2018 9:15 am

Oh please! Ivan, this dire and virtually unsubstantiated set of assumptions is based on RCP8.5. Please have a look at that and let us know if it has any realistic chance of being accurate before you pontificate. That scenario has been scientifically discredited and has no place in serious discussion about the future. I doubt it will appear seriously in the next IPCC reports. That they would use such a scenario in the NCA is just testimony as to how desperate the ‘climate swamp’ has gotten, a true last ditch effort to scare us into doing something foolish.

If you want to take action, try adaptation, not mitigation, a lot cheaper, and no big deal if you’re wrong…

Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
November 25, 2018 10:49 am

… climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century.

Upon what evidence is this expectation based ? The evidence seems very weak or non-existent. At best, it seems willed into being, following biased hunches that get incorporated into models that propagate the bias, through inappropriate, erroneous redefinition of basic concepts.

C’mon, trace the claims all the way down to the hard evidence. You can’t do it, because solid evidence does NOT exist. And fabricated language expressing confidence levels is just that — fabricated language — designed to capture people’s attention and lead them to follow somebody’s emotionally preferred course of actions.

The government report is pure crap, … built upon crap.

David Grange
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
November 25, 2018 4:47 pm


Dave Fair
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
November 25, 2018 10:17 pm

View the report’s conclusions in light of the IPCC’s SR15; it showed the costs of doing anything meaningful are astronomically high such as to be impossible.

Lance of BC
November 25, 2018 4:11 am

Ivan Kinsman , after 50 years of doom, gloom and lies…I just don’t care.

Reply to  Lance of BC
November 25, 2018 5:36 am

Perhaps we are reading the report wrong….maybe “the hundreds of billions of dollars” is the amount needed by the Alarmists in the coming years, to convince us that what they predict to happen ‘is always just around the corner’.

Reply to  Lance of BC
November 25, 2018 7:19 am

You might not but fortunately millions do, and are taking concrete action instead of sitting in front of their pcs debating the issue.

November 25, 2018 6:06 am

I did not bother to read the national climate assessment report because it is obviously a skewed, biased, one-sided propagandistic diatribe.

Anybody with even the most basic scientific education understands that the earth has been changing constantly over its multibillion year lifetime, and that all changes create winners and losers. The winners either favor the change, or are more adaptable to the change, and the losers fail to adapt and die out. Ditto with economics – if the earth warms, it will create winners and losers, and if the earth cools, it will create winners and losers. The only change that creates winners only does not exist … and the only change that creates losers only would be one that entirely destroys the biosphere, such as another planet collides with the earth.

For every dollar lost to the economy by a warming climate, it is vastly more likely that more dollars will be created. But until a study group truly looks for all the winners, as well as the losers, and tallies up both sides of the results, then it is just political propaganda.

David Grange
November 25, 2018 4:51 pm

Piffle. Balderdash. Warmistas are so very dumb.

November 25, 2018 4:59 pm

Sorry. Cancel the abuse.

tom s
November 26, 2018 6:38 am

I cannot stand the idiocy coming from the hoodwinked BELIEVERS. The blaming of the fires on CO2 and everything else that happens that is bad. It makes me want to just go about life lying at every turn to benefit myself and screw honesty.

32yr in the field meteorologist.

%d bloggers like this: