Katharine Hayhoe’s High Hopes for President Trump’s New Climate Science Advisor

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

President Trump’s choice is approved by both Katharine Hayhoe and Roger Pielke Jr.

Can Trump’s new science adviser convince him that climate change is real?

Brandon Miller-Profile-Image
By Brandon Miller, CNN
Updated 2030 GMT (0430 HKT) January 3, 2019

(CNN) In the eleventh hour of the outgoing Congress’ term, the Senate confirmed one of President Trump’s nominees that could have a profound impact on the future of our planet.

Kelvin Droegemeier, a meteorologist and former University of Oklahoma professor, was confirmed to be director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on Wednesday– a role commonly referred to as “science adviser” and the top scientific office in the country.

The position has sat vacant since Trump’s presidency began nearly two years ago.

“It is encouraging to see that this position is finally filled, and by someone with solid scientific credentials and extensive experience in connecting cutting-edge science to policy decisions,” according to Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist with Texas Tech University.

Trump has a history of dismissing his own experts, whether they be top intelligence reports or senior military officials, so many are skeptical that Droegemeier will have much influence over Trump’s view on climate.

No one should expect that he will be advising this president on any meaningful manner,” said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado who studies the intersection of science and politics and who has published on the history of US science advisers. Pielke has worked with Droegemeier and known him for more than 20 years.

“This president does not appear to seek advice,” Pielke said, adding that the primary function of the science adviser has historically been to coordinate budgets and support science and technology programs that cross agency boundaries.

Science advisers have historically had little, if any, impact on major policies,” Pielke said. “This goes for John Holdren under Obama and all others before him.”

Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/03/us/trump-science-adviser-climate-change-wxc/index.html

Droegemeier is certainly good at something, if he can get the thumbs up from people as opposed as Katharine Hayhoe and Roger Pielke Jr.

Update (EW): Fixed misspelling of Katharine Hayhoe’s name

Advertisements

166 thoughts on “Katharine Hayhoe’s High Hopes for President Trump’s New Climate Science Advisor

  1. What does Trump’s pick for science adviser think about climate science? A 2014 talk offers clues
    By Jeffrey Mervis Aug. 20, 2018 , 12:45 PM

    The meteorology professor picked to advise President Donald Trump on science-related matters has urged climate scientists to be more humble when they talk about the conclusions of their research—and said Earth might be more resilient to human-caused environmental assaults than many believe.

    The comments by Kelvin Droegemeier, Trump’s pick to lead the White House science office, were made during a talk he gave 4 years ago to researchers at a climate science center in Oklahoma.

    […]

    Grappling with uncertainty
    A group of scientists had asked him about his stance on climate change, Droegemeier related. And here’s what he told them.

    “The [climate] models tell us what they tell us, but they’re not perfect,” he recounted. “If we’re intellectually honest with one another, we should say, ‘Yes, the observations show that the planet is warming. The evidence suggests that it is human-induced, that is, there’s a strong human signal. But we don’t know everything about the nitrogen cycle, about all the carbon cycling, and about carbon sequestration …’”

    “Unfortunately, a lot of scientists have gotten to the point where they say, ‘[I’d be] an idiot [to] go up [to policymakers] and say’ what I just said to you. But I think if you say it’s obvious, then you’re not a scientist. Because science is never, ever, that certain. And I’m very skeptical of people who take that almost deeply ideological position and say we absolutely know the answer. No, we don’t.”

    To buttress his point, Droegemeier cited lessons from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

    “It was a massive, catastrophic disaster beyond all proportions,” he began. “[So] where’s the oil? It got eaten by microbes. Guess what? We didn’t know those microbes existed and that they had the capacity to do that. The oil’s gone. And there’s no catastrophe. Yeah, there’s oil on the shore and stuff. But the planet is incredibly resilient.”

    “So what do I feel about it?” he said to the climate scientists. “My feeling is that the planet, you can kick it in the butt really, really, hard and it will come back.”

    “Is there a tipping point for climate change? I don’t know. The only thing we can say for certain is that they have our model results, and that’s what we know. That’s the intellectually honest answer. But a lot of people don’t [want to] allow that debate to happen.”

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/what-does-trump-s-pick-science-adviser-think-about-climate-science-2014-talk-offers

    • “We didn’t know those microbes existed and that they had the capacity to do that.”

      It has been known for a long time. There are many others.
      ZoBell. C. E. et al., 1943. Marine microorganisms which oxidize petroleum hydrocarbons. Bulletin American Association Petroleum Geologists. 27:1175-1193.

      He wrote a Marine Microbiology book in 1946. We knew it was resilient from all the oil spilled in WWII.

          • If I remember correctly they were warned that about the 2010 spill, but ignored it. I was told by a geologist that the best thing would have been to get all the hay possible out there ASAP to soak it up and burn it or maybe collect it. The whole thing was an incompetent fiasco, except for the technology operation that stopped it.

            I don’t have the reference handy but there was a paper in Science a century ago on Gulf natural seeps, one of which was over the Deepwater Horizon location. There are also organisms out there that ‘eat’ the bacteria that ‘eat’ the oil. But that was written in old script or something. Thanks for the paper, my hard copy is buried.

          • Chemosynthetic communities thrive on oil seeps. My old co-worker, former astronaut and current Director of the USGS, Jim Reilly, did his PhD thesis on chemosynthetics while we both worked together at Enserch Exploration. We were one of the early deepwater players and Jim managed to wrangle a couple of trips on the NR-1 to study the relatively newly discovered chemosynthetic communities in the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico. Some of his work was cited in this 1995 MMS (now BOEM/BSEE) report…

            https://www.boem.gov/ESPIS/3/3323.pdf

            There are hundreds, if not thousands, of oil & gas seeps in the Gulf of Mexico. The location of Macondo (Deepwater Horizon) is indicated by on the maps…

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285573846_Natural_and_unnatural_oil_slicks_in_the_Gulf_of_Mexico/figures?lo=1

            The cleanup of Macondo was generally well-managed. There are some things they could have done better. Some interference from the Obama maladministration did slow things down a bit. Until the well was capped, there was no point in trying to burn the oil off and it would have made it impossible to access the well. I worked for the E&P subsidiary of Helix Energy Solutions Group back then. About half of the Macondo “fleet” were Helix vessels.

            https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/technical-presentations/deepwater/panel-ii-presentation-3-lafayette.pdf

            The best thing to come out of Macondo was the fact that LLOG was able to successfully drill it and put it on production.

            https://www.google.com/search?q=deepwater+horizon+epillog&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS820US820&oq=deepwater+horizon+epillog&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.8159j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

          • A few years after the spill, the shorelines that were left alone, were healthier than the ones that had been “cleaned”.

          • Having been an auditor during the MC252 (Deepwater Horizon) spill cleanup, I recall hearing that only about half the oil made it to the ocean surface. The other ~half was atomized to a diameter that was neutrally buoyant so it remained at depth. After searching for the missing oil, they found that the ocean chemistry was indicative of biodegradation but they did not find the oil. For those of you not familiar, in the environmental field, biodegredation is commonly part of the solution for contaminated site cleanup. One of the Battelle Conferences has covered this topic for many years.
            https://www.battelle.org/newsroom/conferences/chlorinated-conference

          • Crude oil cooler than 80°C is is easily biodegraded.

            Biodegration really sucks if it happens to the oil while it’s still in the ground…

            In reservoirs cooler than approximately 80°C, oil biodegredation is common and detrimental. Oils from shallow, cool reservoirs tend to be progressively more biodegraded than those in deeper, hotter reservoirs.[1] Increasing levels of biodegradation generally cause a decline in oil quality, diminishing the producibility and value of the oil as API gravity and distillate yields decrease. Additionally, viscosity, sulfur, asphaltene, metals, vacuum residua, and total acid numbers increase. For a specific hydrocarbon system (similar source type and level of maturity), general trends exist for oil-quality parameters vs. present-day reservoir temperatures of <80°C. However, other controls on biodegradation may also have significant effects, making predrill prediction of oil quality difficult in some areas.

            https://petrowiki.org/Biodegradation

          • Farmer Ch E retired,

            I’m not sure you posted the correct link. Battelle used to host an “In situ and on-site bioremediation” symposium…every year or two. I think it has slowed-down in frequency and changed-names.

            Biodegradation is the mechanism by which it is achieved, but bioremediation is the more appropriate name of the solution.

          • Michael Jankowski

            This is a better link:
            https://www.battelle.org/newsroom/conferences/bioremediation-symposium

            I still use the shoulder bags given out at past conferences and was able to quickly locate the following bags:
            – Monterey 2002
            – Bio Symposium 2003
            – In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium 2005
            – Monterey 2006
            – In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium 2007
            – Battelle Monterey 2008

            These conferences, if not predominantly dedicated to bioremediation, at least had sessions and papers dedicated to the topic. The bio conference runs every other year.

      • I think the key word is capacity, not the word existed.

        I’ve known for a long long time that song birds existed.
        I did not realize their capacity to consume Sunflower seeds,
        until I put the seeds out for them.

      • Kelvin Droegemeier wrote:
        “[So] where’s the oil? It got eaten by microbes. Guess what? We didn’t know those microbes existed and that they had the capacity to do that. The oil’s gone. And there’s no catastrophe. Yeah, there’s oil on the shore and stuff. But the planet is incredibly resilient.”

        Yes – I knew that. Don’t remember when I learned it – many years (decades?) ago.

        Thanks to all for the good references.

      • Bermanella macondoprimitus was a new name given to a microbe identified as the dominant bacterium at early stages of the oil spill and identified to have oil-degrading capabilities. It isn’t the only oil-degrading microbe, but this particular one suspected of playing the key role in the Deepwater case was not known to exist.

        As far as “capacity” goes…maybe you’re equating that with “capability,” but I can easily see it as referring to something along the lines of wastewater treatment plant capacity, which is volume per unit of time. And it seems as if the biodegradation of that large volume of oil happened in a surprisingly short period of time…

      • Knowing they exist, but not knowing the Gulf bugs could handle an oil well failure of that magnitude. A mess was made with the Valdez spill, but the BP one was remarkable for its not even needing but minor cleanup.

    • Thanks David, sounds like he does have some idea about how science works , at least. Though judgeing by the mugshot , I would not trust him my loose change to go to the corner shop for a loaf of bread.

      ” director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy ”

      What part of that title implies he is a science adviser to the POTUS ? This is just more media BS, they think that by pretending that the post means “science adviser” they can force the Pres. to take notice of his advice.

      Tomorrow’s headlines : President refuses to listen to his own “science adviser” on climate, he’s a science denier.

      • I don’t know which came first… the Office of Science and Technology Policy or the national/presidential science adviser. I think the first time I heard the phrase National Science Adviser was in Escape From the Planet of the Apes. He was played by the same actor who played Captain Dietrich on The Rat Patrol… Yes, I watched a lot of TV and went to lots of movies back then… 😉

        For whatever it’s worth, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy has been unofficially described as the National or Presidential Science Adviser for a long time.

        • Eric Braeden is the actor you mentioned. He also was the creator of the supercomputer that enslaved mankind in “Colossus, the Forbin Project”. “Colossus” was “Skynet” without Terminator robots.

        • He is making a statement: we must be prepared toupe for our climate change sins.

          • That got a laugh outta me, Krudd!
            With apologies to the Bard: “Toupe or not Toupe? That is the question!”

    • https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/what-does-trump-s-pick-science-adviser-think-about-climate-science-2014-talk-offers
      [excerpt]

      Grappling with uncertainty

      A group of scientists had asked him about his stance on climate change, Droegemeier related. And here’s what he told them.

      “The [climate] models tell us what they tell us, but they’re not perfect,” he recounted. “If we’re intellectually honest with one another, we should say, ‘Yes, the observations show that the planet is warming. The evidence suggests that it is human-induced, that is, there’s a strong human signal. But we don’t know everything about the nitrogen cycle, about all the carbon cycling, and about carbon sequestration …’”

      “Unfortunately, a lot of scientists have gotten to the point where they say, ‘[I’d be] an idiot [to] go up [to policymakers] and say’ what I just said to you. But I think if you say it’s obvious, then you’re not a scientist. Because science is never, ever, that certain. And I’m very skeptical of people who take that almost deeply ideological position and say we absolutely know the answer. No, we don’t.”
      [end of excerpt]
      ___________________

      A worthy comment – cautious and thoughtful.

      I do have a significant difference with this sentence, regarding “the planet is warming”:
      “The evidence suggests that it is human-induced, that is, there’s a strong human signal.”

      I do not see that “strong human signal”. Here is why:

      ARGUMENT A:

      a. Fossil fuel consumption (and reportedly also atmospheric CO2 concentration) strongly accelerated starting about 1940.
      b. Then the world COOLED until the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977.
      c. Then the world warmed a little, and that warming was distributed over a decade or more by two century-scale volcanoes, El Chichon and Pinatubo.
      d. Then global temperatures were near-flat for another decade or more during The Pause.
      e. All this time, atmospheric CO2 concentrations reportedly increased – so THE CORRELATION OF CO2 WITH GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS NEGATIVE, POSITIVE AND NEAR-ZERO.
      f. That is all the evidence anyone needs to know that CO2 IS NOT THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE.

      ARGUMENT B:

      As I published in January 2008 and Humlum et al expanded in 2013:
      1– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
      2– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
      3– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

      It’s a bit complicated, but most people (warmists excepted?) would agree that the future does not cause the past in our current space-time continuum.

      In the 11 years since I published this observation, it has largely been ignored or obfuscated. It is the only clear signal I see in the modern data record, and it happens to coincide with a similar observation from the ice core record, where CO2 also lags temperature, by a longer time lag in a longer temperature cycle. Again, the CO2-primarily-drives-global-temperature meme insists that the future is causing the past.

      I think we really understand very little about global climate, and we have squandered trillions of dollars and decades of research on dead-end false global warming nonsense and related green energy schemes that are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy.

      To me, this is a tragedy of lost opportunity and deliberate academic and political misconduct worthy of a major criminal investigation. In my opinion, global warming alarmism and green energy schemes are the greatest frauds in human history.

      Regards, Allan

    • As long as he can draw pictures, he may be able to reach Trump. Although to be fair he seems to have read the love letters from Kim.

      • Simon seems to think he is a comedian. Simon seems to think that trashing the president is ‘edgy’. What simple Simon doesn’t realise is what an intellectual lightweight he is for writing this rubbish reply.

        • Lighten up, guys. Liking Donald Trump is not a loyalty test on this blog or in any other rational forum.

          • Yea, but casting aspersions on someone’s intellect is not addressing the argument-it is just childish name calling.

          • Eh, I don’t even notice it anymore. To liberal anyone who has a different opinion then them on any subject is both stupid and a racist.

            SOP

            ~¿~

        • Craig, oh come on. It’s well know Donnie doesn’t read his notes and did you see his performance re the love fest between himself and Kim. Anyone watching that must have cringed, particularly if you were in the military and had served over there. Imagine it, all that money and time and tense diplomatic effort and Donald thinks he has sorted it with a few notes to his new best friend. If it wasn’t so dangerous it would be truely laughable. And it is all relevant in this thread, because we are talking about whether Trump actually listens to anyone (except Hannity).

      • One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that the only mental ability your average leftist has ever been able to master is projection.

        • I don’t know – they’re pretty good at misinformation and propaganda – in fact, I’d say they OWN it.

          Now that projection is certainly VISIBLE in that misinformation.

  2. “Climate change is real.”

    Of course climate change is real. The climate has always changed and will always change.

    • Exactly. Makes me mad when I read this type of crap. We all know climate change is real.

      • The “crap ” part is that they say one thing and mean another.

        We all agree that climate changes but what they mean is human induced climate change, which we also agree is real. The $64 trillion question is how big is it compared to natural climate change and does it matter.

        Any talk about “climate change” without saying exactly what you mean pointless and can always be walked back by changing what you claim to have been referring to.

        • I suspect, only suspect, the human contribution to climate change is no more than 25%, probably closer to 10%. I believe land use changes account for most of the human contribution to climate change.

          Because I have lived through what? — a dozen or more major climate “tipping points” that never happened, it is highly unlike human greenhouse gas emissions are a primary driver of the climate.

          But we will never know until we actually start to look.

    • Yes, being called a “climate change denier” is almost, but not quite as bad as being told that I “deny climate”.

      If they can’t get basic English correct, what chance do you think they have about getting complicated science correct?

    • As I often said to my Ann Arbor, climate change loving neighbors, “You should be grateful the climate warmed or your over-priced Ann Arbor house would still be encased in a mile thick ice sheet.

  3. ““This president does not appear to seek advice,” Pielke said”

    I heard Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s OMB head say just a couple of days ago that Trump was eager to hear all opinions and sought out advice from everyone.

    That being the case, it doesn’t mean that Trump doesn’t have his own ideas about things and although he listens to everyone’s opinion, the final decision is his and he makes it based on his instincts and on the input he has recieved.

    Listening does not mean automatically agreeing.

    Trump has his own personal opinions about CAGW. It’s clear he is familiar with Climategate and alludes to that as a reason to be skeptical of the whole CAGW speculation. His new science advisor won’t make Climategate go away.

    • I think perhaps Pielke was referring to Trump not seeking advice regarding the climate, or perhaps not publicly seeking advice on the climate. I don’t think it’s a blanket statement about Trump, but I can see how that’s a legitimate interpretation on your part.

    • I wish Trump would sic his NSA to crack the passcode on all those ClimateGate emails that were put out quite a while ago. It might be interesting.

      • ? I thought all those emails were already published.
        There are more? Password protected? If so, then link please.
        And why password protected, who knows the code?

        • As I recall it all the Climate Gate e-mails were put on line with a password sent to a select few. I think Antony W. was one recipient, nut not sure.I recall the recipients were threatened with law suits if they opened up the file. None did. I think that all the important e-mails were already in the public domain and it was not worth the risk to use the pass word.

          • I remember Andy Revkin’s blog printed hundreds, maybe thousands, of the emails, and there was enough damning stuff there to damage any climate movement.

    • My children were decades ahead. A common refrain was “You never listen to me!!”

      As they now understand with their own kids, “listening to” and “agreeing with” are not synonymous.

  4. On the massive Gulf oil spill.
    I have it on good authority that the bugs did not eat it.
    It all disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle.
    🙂

  5. … the primary function of the science adviser has historically been to coordinate budgets and support science and technology programs that cross agency boundaries.

    He could suggest removing the climate stuff from NASA and letting NOAA get on with its mandated job. The President hates duplication and inefficiency. 🙂

    • He could also suggest assigning a “Tiger Team” of skeptical scientists and statisticians to evaluate the data acquisition and analysis procedures at NOAA and NCEI.

  6. “Science advisers have historically had little, if any, impact on major policies,” Pielke said.
    “This goes for John Holdren under Obama and all others before him.”

    I reeeeeaaally doubt….

  7. Climate thot (“Hey, ho”) thinks she’s doing God’s work. She actually quoted a bible verse on twitter as justification for her climate solutions advocacy. She’s basically a motivational speaker.

    • She is funded by George Soros’ money. Part of an Evangelical Brainwash Tour. Forgot where I saw the info. Drudge Report?? Anyone else see the report?

      • Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist on the faculty at Texas Tech. She has carried the mail for orthodox climate science and has proved to be an effective spokesperson. She toured the country promoting the recent Climate Assessment.

        She doesn’t fit the mold of the arrogant academic. Don’t underestimate her influence.

        • “She doesn’t fit the mold (sic) of the arrogant academic”

          I would say, from my readings, that she very much does fit the mould of the arrogant academic. And we don’t underestimate her influence. She has already done enormous damage to the world and will do more in the future.

        • She’s a social/political scientist at TT with a degree in atmospheric science. She’s a total lightweight who IMO is only concerned about her image, which she strives to sanitize by blocking anyone on twitter who makes her look clueless and foolish.

  8. Thanks David. I’m pretty sure President Trump has already taken Droegemeier’s advice, and that’s why he’s there now. The most important role this advisor’s office can perform now is to inform the public of the pitfalls in the current state of climate knowledge and expertise, in order to re-open the door for public debate and discussion. If he can accomplish that in the next few years without engaging the public like his predecessor has done, ie, blaming everything under the sun on man-made emissions, we’ll gain tremendous ground.

    I hope this will be the one and only time we hear Pielke whine about Trump. Maybe Roger would rather we had an Obama and Holdren in there to keep shoveling the climate BS, eh?

    • He seems like a pretty good pick… Particularly in comparison to Holdren and most of his predecessors.

  9. If it hasn’t happened already, I hope some close science-savvy adviser (perhaps Droegemeier can do) educates Trump on the Milankovitch cycles and what it portends for the next 200+ years. This adviser can then outline the relative impacts of natural cycles versus man-made (if any). Himself savvy, Trump can mull his new knowledge with his prior awareness of warmist/alarmist frauds over the years, and guide us to sane political policies.

  10. First things first… Katharine Hayhoe is joke… a bad joke, as far as actual science goes.

    She’s shill for the alarmists – an alarmist’s-renstseeker.
    -Her past predictions of permadrought in Texas have fallen as flat as the Texas Panhandle.
    -Her mixing of mixing of Christianity with her pagan climate religion is sickening.
    -Her actual work is shoddy (if anyone cares to actually dig into details of it).
    -Her big play in the IPCC and the climateer’s world is to provide gender diversity. (Yes, I said that, because it’s true.)
    -Anything she touches re: climate predictions, you could go to Vegas and play the opposite/contrarian position and make a killing.
    -She’s the “George Costanza do the opposite” as the climate answer person. She says “more rain”, expect less. She says “Hotter”, realize it’ll be colder.

  11. The problem with Trump is that he doesn’t take the time nor energy to produce persuasive arguments for most of his positions, although they certainly exist. The only high ranking politician that ever has shown the ability to do that was Newt Gingrich. You have to give people a good reason to believe what you say, not just assume that people will agree with your blanket statement.

  12. According to Trump, he knows more than anybody about everything .. be it knowing more than the generals about warfare, or more about economics than the economists, or more about science than the scientists, or more about business than the successful business people (of which he was not). According to Trump, he is a highly functioning genius about everything.

    Meaning, Trump is impervious to learning about anything and everything.

    The less said about Trump on a website dedicated to science, the better.

    • Trump has an instinct for calling “Bullshit” when bullshit is being shoveled his way.

      Apparently you do not Duane.
      As a New Year’s resolution, maybe you should work on your climate pseudoscience BS detector Duane?

      • Trump’s track record on just about everything totally outclasses Obama’s. Full employment, GDP, wages for most everyone including minorities, etc. Apparently he is using Obama policies as a negative indicator. AGW is a joke and an obvious tool to gain control, cause turmoil and implement Alinsky type policies. Conventional Washington DC wisdom lacked common sense which the Donald is bringing to the table.

      • Trump IS the bullshit. And I and the large majority of American voters recognize his bullshit when we see it and read it and hear it. 38% in the polls, and falling.

        Trump can no longer attract even the second stringers any more to work on his “team” … he is left with the scrubs.

        • So much hatred, so little actual data.
          Last poll I saw had Trump at 47%, pretty much where he’s always been.

        • The poll aggregator, RealClear Politics has Trump’s current average approval rating as 42.5%. It hasn’t been as low as 38% in more than a year.

      • January 1, 2011 RCP Average…

        Obama: 45.4% Approve, 47.9% Disapprove

        RCP Average at the same point in Trump’s presidency, January 1, 2019…
        Trump: 42.8% Approve, 52.3% Disapprove

        Trump’s job approval is only 2.6% lower than Obama’s was at the same point in his presidency.

        Considering the fact that the mainstream media fawned all over Obama and bombard us with a steady stream of fake news about Trump… and the bias in most polls, it’s shocking that their numbers are so close.

        Putting it in non-poll dependent context. Obama’s party lost 7 Senate and 63 House seats in the 2010 midterm elections. Trump’s party gained 2 Senate and only lost 40-41 House seats, slightly worse than the long-term average for the incumbent president’s party.

        Regarding Mueller…

        Let’s just imagine that the House Democrats do something really stupid and spend the next two years trying impeach President Trump. It takes a 2/3’s vote of the Senate to convict and remove a president from office. That’s 67 votes. There are only 47 Democrat votes in the Senate… And not all of them are stupid enough to vote to remove Trump from office.

  13. It is encouraging to see that this position is finally filled, and by someone with solid scientific credentials …

    I bet that if he showed the slightest (scientific) scepticism about AGW she would not be praising his ‘solid credentials’.

    • History will record that John Holdren and his “science” was easily forgotten. Or worse, made a joke of for all time, like Stalin’s Lysenko becoming Lysenkoism.
      That is what usually happens to scientists who put political ideology (to get ahead of peers) before science and integrity.

      • Some history is more easily “forgotten” than others. It is another aspect of political bias and media control that allows this and history itself to be shaped. As an example of this I’ll give you the quiz of who the Federal Reserve Board Chairman was when mortgage interest rates in the U.S. went to 20 percent and who appointed him.

    • In this video, Dr. D. talks about his research to predict extreme weather events so that people can be made safe. There is a flaw in this logic – even if we are able to predict tornado paths hours in advance, people will not be fully safe and they and their homes will continued to be destroyed.

      It amazes me that people in the hurricane and tornado areas of the USA continue to build with wood-frame construction, which is so easily destroyed by high winds and flooding.

      In the mid-1990’s, I designed and patented an Insulating Concrete Form (ICF) System called Advantage Wallsystems. http://www.advantageicf.com/

      I no longer have any interest, financial or otherwise, in this product or company, but want to point out the advantages of ICF Systems. An ICF structure can be built with concrete floor and ceiling decks and steel shutters to survive most natural disasters, even tornadoes.

      The polystyrene foam is closed-cell, so it will also survive a flood – interior finishing materials such as drywall must of course be replaced. Moving valued possessions to the second floor should preserve them in most flood situations – if your second floor floods, you are building in the wrong location.

      The primary benefit of this particular ICF system is that it is stronger and can sustain much higher concrete pour heights than most other ICF products – it also has features than enable ease of use.

      I suggest that when people rebuild after natural disasters, they should avoid wood-frame construction that will be destroyed by the next natural disaster, and employ ICF construction that can survive floods, hurricanes and tornadoes.

      Regards, Allan

  14. White House science nominee ducks chance to refute climate skeptic at Senate confirmation hearing
    By Jeffrey MervisAug. 23, 2018 , 4:45 PM

    Kelvin Droegemeier got exactly one hardball question at today’s Senate hearing on his nomination to be director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). It came from Senator Ted Cruz (R–TX), who believes the planet is not warming and that climate change has been fabricated by those “who want to expand government control over the economy.”

    “Are you familiar with the empirical data from satellite measurements that show no statistically significant warming over the past 18 years?” Cruz asked. And Droegemeier, a professor of meteorology at The University of Oklahoma in Norman and an expert on severe storm prediction, chose to sidestep the question.

    “I’m familiar with some of those studies,” he replied. “But I don’t study climate.”

    Conventional wisdom says Droegemeier’s decision not to offer any substantive response may be a good strategy for winning confirmation. But some climate scientists are disappointed Droegemeier didn’t defend the vast body of science that contradicts Cruz’s position on climate change. They also worry that his tepid answer signals that Droegemeier has decided to remain mum on an issue that pits most of the scientific community against President Donald Trump and his administration.

    […]

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/white-house-science-nominee-ducks-chance-refute-climate-skeptic-senate-confirmation

    • Dave,
      You highlight the main reason I dropped my membership with AAAS. AAAS leadership has become anti-science with regards to climate and actual science. History will not be kind to the AAAS of our period for their abandonment of skepticism and science ethics and rigor of data. AAAS President Holt and the editors at SciMag arrogantly seems to think no one notices their ethical lapse and bias on climate issues.

      • I get some of my best material for WUWT posts from my daily AAASofA email update… LOL! Rarely does a day go by that there isn’t at least one news item worthy of scorn and ridicule.

    • David,

      You say “… that pits most of the scientific community against President Donald Trump …”.

      Most? Really? Has anyone actually ever surveyed all scientists on the Earth on this topic?

      Not picking a fight here – just asking for substantiation.

      And please keep posting here – I very much enjoy reading your articles.

      • I was quoting the article from Science magazine. I didn’t use the blockquote tags because it messes up the formatting in comments.

        That said, every survey I have seen of “scientists” indicates that a majority do think that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change. The main exception is among geologists, where only about 30-40% think that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change. That said, there haven’t been many broad-based surveys of scientists and almost all of them have been limited to government and academic scientists.

  15. “Can Trump’s new science adviser convince him that climate change is real?”

    Every time someone writes nonsense like that, they expose themselves as knowing nothing about what skeptics are saying. That strikes me as recklessly lazy if life on earth is at stake. I mean, humankind is on track to destroy the planetary habitat because of those of us who have contrary views, and they can’t even bother to understand what those contrary views are? That’s weak.

    • They also don’t seem to know that Droegemier isn’t exactly in the Warmunist camp. They are just assuming he is… because he’s a meteorologist who specializes in severe weather.

  16. Manntastic!

    On a STEM-talk podcast two years ago, Droegemier discussed climate models further, saying “they are never perfect.”

    “We can have some degree of confidence of what the human impacts are versus the natural impacts,” Droegemeier said on the podcast about models. He noted that climate models can assess the past “quite faithfully.”

    “Every day, we are learning more. So science never ends, and models are never perfect, but I think they are getting better and better all the time,” he said.

    In his faculty profile video, Droegemeier explains how he founded a center to help predict extreme storms and expresses support for university work on climate and the human microbiome.

    After Trump picked Droegemeier, several climate scientists offered support. Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University who has criticized Trump’s climate policies, said Droegemeier has “absolutely mainstream views about the atmospheric sciences and climate.”

    After hearing about Droegemeier’s comments to the center, Mann said maybe he was premature in his judgment.

    “Without further explanation or context, it comes across as overly dismissive of the threat of human impacts on our environment including human-caused climate change,” Mann said.

    https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060094981

  17. Guess what? We didn’t know those microbes existed and that they had the capacity to do that.

    Yes we did. I know I did, unless I just happened to imagine it and turned out to be fortuitously correct.
    The media, politicians and various catastrophists didn’t, maybe. And what we did know was thus ignored or downplayed.

  18. Can Trump’s new science adviser convince him that climate change is real?

    This question is a miscast absurdity, since Trump knows that climate change is real. I don’t know of anybody who thinks that climate change is not real.

    When are people asking this question going to understand how utterly stupid this question is?

    Who does not believe in climate change? What definition of “climate change” is being assumed and/or forced onto readers (unknowingly or confusingly), when such a question is asked?

    • I’m no psychologist, but I suspect it helps people as some kind of an intellectual stepping stone to get to where they already want to go.

      Thus, on BBC Radio 4 today (the BBC’s flagship radio channel for ‘serious stuff’) they had a program “New year Solutions”. You can guess what it was about.
      The guest moron/presenter, while telling us how to lead our lives, insisted that
      A) “Climate change is happening”, and
      B)” It will be catastrophic, if”
      C) “We don’t take serious action now.”

      It seemed to me that she was using statement A, which is always true, as some kind of a mental crutch to then more confidently assert that statements B and C must also be true, statement C being what she wanted to justify from the outset.

      Obviously it makes no logical sense, and this is nothing new. But it seems like the most common argument I see being put forward, not just in the MSM, but among people who really ought to know better.

      • They are conflating “climate change” with “human-caused climate change/global warming”. They are actually two different things. One is happening and has been happening since the beginning of time, and one may not be happening at all. So conflating the two causes a lot of confusion.

        The Earth’s climate changes continuously within certain parameters. There is no evidence that humans are causing any of these changes. There are lots of assumptions to that effect but no evidence.

        So when someone asks you if you believe in climate change, you should ask them which one they mean, the natural kind of climate change, or the human-caused kind of climate change. If they don’t understand the distinction, don’t be surprised. 🙂

  19. The point is, who cares what Trump or his science advisor think about global warming? There is nothing the US can do, regardless of who is President or Science Advisor, which will have any effect on global emissions. It doesn’t matter what they, or the Democrats even, think about global warming, the thing is out of their hands.

    Because the US is doing too small a share of global emissions for unilateral action to have any effect. And because no-one takes the US seriously as an example to be followed.

    The first question to ask about any policy the climatist tendency in the US advocates is: how much direct effect will it have on global emissions? And then ask, and how much effect will this have on global temperatures?

    The answer will be, almost nothing.

    And then go on and ask what the indirect effect will be, from other countries following the US example? Demand to have the countries specified and their reductions as a result of a US example itemized.

    Again, the answer will be none big enough to be measured.

    • Not to mention that another question they should be asked until they are forced to answer it is “What will be the impact on the U.S. economy of adopting such actions? And show their “justification” for any economic impact assessment. By the time their BS response to THAT has been pulled apart, AND compared with the non-effect of any such “action,” the prols might actually awaken (and don their “yellow vests”).

  20. Okay so he gets an A for interview skills whereas Holdren got an F for blatant stupidity at the podium with political misuse and mis-statement of science.

  21. Trump has been everything anyone could have asked for on climate related issues. Don’t think that we could have seen that coming prior to November 2016. His science advisory is unlikely to change that.

    • Would be nice if he can (a) cancel the CO2 Endangerment Finding and (b) close GISS, archive all its materials (requiring full documentation before they turn out the lights) and hand the archives over to NOA.

    • Not even close. About the only positive I can see the the withdrawal from Paris. He has done nothing to rein in the alarmism that comes from government agencies such as NOAA and NASA.

      • The EPA is on course to be at half the staff it was when he took office by the end of his first term. He has also reduced mandated fleet mileage requirements for car manufacturers and relaxed Obama’s “Clean Coal” that crippled the industry.

      • The abomination known as the Fourth Climate Assessment was released on his watch, which among other things could have used a clear-eyed editor, not to suppress it (more harm than good) but to make it readable and consistent with other orthodox science. It even overstates what the IPCC says.

        The entire scientific government establishment, including Trump, went to sleep on this one.

    • I could have asked for more. There was no reason to think I would have gotten it.
      The president has a lot on his plate. Concentrating more on climate change would have meant less time spent on other things we want him to do.

  22. Climate Science as it exists today is absurd. The world’s climate is not a univariate system determined by microscopic changes in the concentration of a trace gas. But belief does not depend on reason. It depends on faith.

  23. I would prefer the dismemberment and disestablishment of the National Science Board, The National Academies of Medicine, Science and Technology and the National Science Foundation.

    However, to many subversive Obama “Vietcong” bureaucrats would block such. The next best avenue would be the expulsion of Obama (and Bush_ “Vietcong” bureaucrats themselves from the Federal Government, and life.

    Ha ha

  24. All reporting agencies agree there has been little or no change in average global temperature since about 2002.
    CO2 has increased since 2002 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dv8kE26U0AEKfdY.jpg
    Given this latest and two previous 30+ year downtrends in temperature with relentlessly rising CO2, demonstrates that apparently CO2 has little if any effect on average global temperature.

    What then, if not CO2?

    NASA/RSS have been measuring the ghg water vapor by satellite and reporting it since 1988. WV was rising with a trend of about 1.5% per decade which is about twice that calculated by vapor pressure increase of the warming surface water. The rise correlates with rising irrigation.

    Discounting the aberration of the el Nino that peaked in Jan, 2016, it appears water vapor trend has settled at about 29 kg/m^2 which is about 7% more than it was in 1960. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvXU3FGVsAAXaEn.jpg IMO the human contribution (via increased irrigation) to warming has ended but the increased risk of precipitation related flooding will continue.

  25. So far, I like what I read about Professor Droegemeier. That he testified during his confirmation ‘… I don’t study Climate’ I find important. This was termed a ‘dodge’ by some, however I think it represents an aspect of how he uses language to convey information.

    His education is in an area of Science that works to understand something that affects us all, every day: Weather. B.S. Meteorology with Special Distinction; M.S. in Atmospheric Science; Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science. Dissertation Title : ‘The Numerical Simulation of Thunderstorm Outflow Dynamics’. Check out his CV for additional details at

    http://kkd.ou.edu/Droegemeier_Full_CV_2018.pdf

    So, I think he has the potential, as a scientist, researcher and administrator, to make a difference in the Administration. I look forward to seeing how things progress.

    • He’s trying to get through the confirmation process without descending into the climate wars, which would be political suicide.

  26. The Climate Liars have usurped the language. When they say “climate change” what they really mean is CAGW. This is deliberate confuscation on their part, allowing them to outright lie while telling what on the surface is an obvious truth, such as “climate change is real”.

  27. Maybe Hayhoe is getting some advise and attempting reverse psychology.
    Or demonstrating her rather stunning ignorance in yet another matter.
    I love the idiotic line “Does not believe in Climate Change”.
    I would love to see these people forced to define this “Climate Change” under penalty of perjury.
    And then held to their own definition.
    Currently “Climate Change” is as meaningful as “Water wet”.

    Of course for bureaucratic purposes undefined terms are required.If you intend to defraud the citizenry.

  28. The reaction in France to taxing “carbon” at the individual level to finance the UN Global Warming scam is telling. Taxing corporations is OK but when it gets personal people revolt. This is the part that the UN didn’t think through very well. They thought the donor countries would be shamed into just coughing up exorbitant amounts of money to save the world. Wrong. As long as it doesn’t hurt people’s pocket books (even though corporate taxes do indirectly) every one was aboard. Now they’re asking questions.

  29. Climate change has been taking place for eons. Current climate change is so slow that it takes networks of very sophisticated sensors decades to even detect it. We must not mix up true climate change with weather cycles that are part of the current climate. Considering the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been 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 there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

    The AGW conjecture seems plausible at first but a more detailed scientific investigation uncovers that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and cannot be defended. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere provided for trace gases 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 The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well, This is what the president needs to know.

  30. what does a president need “science advisers” for

    when there’s Secretary’s of State and science departments.

  31. The fact this person was NOT educated in a major coastal university or college gives me hope that they may have the common sense God gave to a nat… I don’t know what has happened to universities and colleges on the coasts, but I hope it isn’t incurable.

  32. From a lay person…
    We should stop calling it “Climate Change”. We give it credence by repeating THEIR deceptive propaganda term as if it was patented.
    Instead, call it “CO2 Scam” because that is the truth of it.
    Calling ourselves “skeptics” too, is weak. We “doubt” Climate Change is real? Big deal. Like true skeptics, we have driven trucks through their “settled science” but who takes notice of annoying little skeptics yapping at the feet of the “greatest moral challenge of our time” – that “nice little earner” Climate Change. Big government doesn’t take notice, big corporations don’t, big media doesn’t, globalists don’t and the populace is too busy.
    If we keep doing what we are doing, nothing will change. Our side has to start being noticed as a formidable bloc with a strategic plan.
    (Aside: The population needs to be taught the value of CO2 biologically. Right now it is not respected.)

  33. Excellent discussion of echo chamber dynamics: “Where an epistemic bubble merely omits contrary views, an echo chamber brings its members to actively distrust outsiders.”

Comments are closed.