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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
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
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.
IMO the human contribution (via increased irrigation) to warming has ended but the increased risk of precipitation related flooding will continue.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
what does a president need “science advisers” for
when there’s Secretary’s of State and science departments.
This describes the organization and some of the activities.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/search/?s=Science
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.
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.)
Excellent discussion of echo chamber dynamics: “Where an epistemic bubble merely omits contrary views, an echo chamber brings its members to actively distrust outsiders.”