Pushback – Trump’s Climate Red Team Forms

White House committee to reassess climate science conclusions: report

BY MICHAEL BURKE

The Trump administration is planning to create an ad hoc group of federal scientists to reassess and counter the government’s conclusions on climate change, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

The National Security Council (NSC) initiative would feature scientists who challenge the seriousness of climate change and the degree to which humans are the cause of climate problems, three unidentified administration officials told the Post.

The Post reported that the plan was discussed by administration officials on Friday in the White House Situation Room.

It is considered a modified version of NSC senior director and climate change denier William Happer’s plan to create a panel on climate change and national security, according to the newspaper.

The NSC declined to comment to the Post.

At the Friday meeting, deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman said President Trump was upset that the federal government last year released the National Climate Assessment, the Post reported.

The National Climate Assessment warned that climate change could have devastating effects on the economy, health and environment and that current efforts to counter climate change were insufficient.

Full story:

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/431330-white-house-committee-to-reassess-climate-science-conclusions

0 0 vote
Article Rating
153 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Phillip Bratby
February 25, 2019 3:45 am

Washington Post & “climate denier”. Say no more.

Lancifer
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
February 25, 2019 3:56 am

Exactly. I’m glad the Washington Post is pay walled. Keeps me from wasting time reading it.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
February 25, 2019 5:56 am

https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-burke-575b69b6/#education-section

Syracuse University Journalism 2014-2018. Fresh out of the box.

Exactly what is a journalism degree? What do they teach? Clearly not science. Apparently not ethics.

“climate change denier William Happer” ??? Really Michel Burke? You wrote that? Go back to school.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
February 25, 2019 10:07 am

I read nowhere in the Washington Post the term “denier.” It notes that Dr Happer is a contrarian, but no reference anywhere to him being a denier.

I will note, however, that the piece is a full-blown, get President Trump, blindly following the herd, nonsensical propaganda.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Dave Fair
February 25, 2019 10:23 am

Burke’s article was in “The Hill”, not the Washington (Com)Post. And he did use the “d” word.

Dave Fair
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 25, 2019 11:36 am

D. J., people on the thread were saying WaPoo.

Bryan A
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 25, 2019 1:33 pm

This likely time time begin “Labeling” Michael Mann et al “Climate Benefit Deniers” WRT the societal benefits of carbon dioxide

Foyle
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 25, 2019 2:45 pm

I think the term for the usual suspects should be Climate Alarm Profiteer or Climate Scare Profiteer.

Bryan A
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 25, 2019 2:56 pm

They seem to thing that the “Denier” label carries more weight so denier should be a part of labeling them as well

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 25, 2019 5:55 pm

“This likely time time begin”

Again, in English please.

Bryan A
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 25, 2019 7:38 pm

Autocorrect selecting the wrong word…again.
Time to begin…

Rhys Jaggar
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
February 25, 2019 10:39 am

Everyone who delegates their responsibility to inform themselves to the MSM has decided to misinform themselves.

Most journalists do not have the education to challenge scientists. I worked 10 years in R+D, 10years MBA/consultancy/science commercialisation and my job was to challenge scientists.

Scientists are like everyone else: salesfolk looking to close research funding deals, seedcorn capital deals for start ups, publishing deals for a book.

They are not saints serving humanity.

They are usually ambitious, avaricious, opportunistic, highly competitive, more than capable of spying, smearing, using and ditching.

It is a criminal dereliction of duty to trust scientists, engineers and doctors uncritically.

They should not be trashed either.

They should be treated like respected professionals expected to submit themselves to forensic due diligence.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
February 25, 2019 8:07 pm

Michael Burke’s ignorant and offensive article is here:

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/431330-white-house-committee-to-reassess-climate-science-conclusions

[excerpt]
“It is considered a modified version of NSC senior director and climate change denier William Happer’s plan to create a panel on climate change and national security, according to the newspaper.”

bit chilly
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
February 25, 2019 11:47 pm

Aiui Dr.Happer doesn’t react well to people labelling him a climate change denier.More people should adopt his stance.I look forward to seeing the outcome of this investigation,i doubt it will go well for alarmism.

Petit_Barde
February 25, 2019 3:58 am

When I read “climate change denier ” my bullshit meter skyrocketed.

Hugs
Reply to  Petit_Barde
February 25, 2019 4:22 am

Author: https://thehill.com/author/michael-burke

In SDA style: Our moral and intellectual superiors

Roger Knights
Reply to  Petit_Barde
February 25, 2019 8:33 am

The neutral term is “contrarian.” “Denier just makes the user look silly—or will in the future.

BillP
Reply to  Roger Knights
February 25, 2019 2:42 pm

Not really neutral, contrarian implies a minority position.

In any event very few people claim that the climate is not changing, so climate change denier is a stupid term, the dispute is the extent that man and man made CO2 is causing change.

As I see it there are natural climate change deniers, who deny that the majority of climate change is natural; and there are climate complexity deniers, who deny that more than one thing determines climate. The rest of us don’t deny anything, we recognise the truth.

Dave Fair
Reply to  BillP
February 25, 2019 5:52 pm

AOC coined a new the new term “Climate Delayer” for people that has the same negative connotation as denier. Climate Delayers are people in the U.S. Congress that don’t support immediately implementing the GND.

I’ve told people for years that the Left/Dems always push a thing too hard. Their Resist/TDS has unleashed the Hounds of Hell that will destroy them, especially in 2020.

beng135
Reply to  Dave Fair
February 26, 2019 9:26 am

AOC has DCD — delayed cortex development.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Roger Knights
February 26, 2019 6:23 am

Surely the correct term is “climate sceptic” – or “climate skeptic” if you’re American!
I’m proud to be a sceptic. Sceptics don’t deny anything. But they do ask for evidence and proof.
Remember – if you’re not sceptical then you’re probably gullible.
Chris

kenji
Reply to  Petit_Barde
February 25, 2019 2:48 pm

When I read “climate change denier” … I think … WINNING!!! WINNING !!!!

Mike H
February 25, 2019 3:59 am

Yeah, because saying future events COULD happen inspires a high degree of confidence. When CAGW could cause anything to happen in the future, the alarmists have removed infallibility from science thereby effectively neutering science.

HotScot
Reply to  Mike H
February 25, 2019 4:29 am

Mike H

The only things we know for certain are:

– Cold kills more people than warmth.

– CO2 dropping to ~150 ppm in the atmosphere means the extinction of the human race and all meaningful life.

– We are at ~400 ppm right now, only ~250 ppm away from extinction.

– C3 Plant life (~95% of all plant life) flourishes around 1,000 – 1,200 ppm atmospheric CO2.

– Since satellite observations began (35 – 40 years ago), the planet has greened by 14% (about 2 continents the size of mainland USA), 70% directly attributable to increased atmospheric CO2 of ~50 ppm.

The absolute certainty of what we do know makes any future ‘threat’ of climate change and increasing CO2 (neither of them meaningfully related in my opinion) pale by comparison.

Johnny
Reply to  HotScot
February 25, 2019 6:17 am

We needto start sending expeditions to Venus to mine the stuff. Seriously, it has way more than we cod ever possibly need.

I’m gonna do some calculations. Stay tuned…

MarkW
Reply to  Johnny
February 25, 2019 9:31 am

Using nuclear power to break down limestone would be cheaper.

beng135
Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2019 9:54 am

Right. May need to do just that in the far future, if we’re still around. CO2 starvation is the major threat facing Earth as volcanic activity winds down — even before the slowly warming sun problem. Eco-loons think man is a disease — we are in fact it’s only potential savior in the long term.

William Baikie
Reply to  HotScot
February 25, 2019 7:24 am

Do you have a link to 14% greening? The last report I saw was 8%.

A C Osborn
Reply to  William Baikie
February 25, 2019 7:58 am

It may come from this
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Certainly the “about 2 continents the size of mainland USA” does.

Reply to  William Baikie
February 25, 2019 9:01 am

Here’s a more recent graph for Asia
through 2017.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/144540/china-and-india-lead-the-way-in-greening

Note that NASA gives no credit to CO2
for any greening of our planet.

NASA is a “lost in space” organization !

Reply to  HotScot
February 25, 2019 8:28 am

About the 14%, is that just the land area or does it include the oceans?

Reply to  Bill McCarter
February 25, 2019 9:02 am

Just land area.

If ocean surfaces turned green,
we’d have a problem !

Reply to  HotScot
February 25, 2019 9:58 am

This planetary greening apparently only applies to the land masses. How much extra plant life are the oceans experiencing and is that good or bad?

beng135
Reply to  Rick
February 26, 2019 10:08 am

I can’t think of how increased production from phytoplankton would be “bad”, at least in the overall sense.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  HotScot
February 25, 2019 10:55 am

HotScot,
One other salient thing we know for certain:
We are currently enjoying a brief (in geological terms) respite from a long Ice Age, which we call an Interglacial period. The current Interglacial will end; it may be another 100 years or 1000 years, we don’t know, but it will end. Then the ice sheets will once again advance and the global climate will be much less hospitable to life.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Paul Penrose
February 25, 2019 6:00 pm

“it may be another 100 years or 1000 years, we don’t know, but it will end. ”

And humans will be blamed for it, you can bet on it.

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  HotScot
February 26, 2019 12:42 am

Pretty smart there HotScot. Not complicated when one looks at both the realist and the alarmist sides of the discussion. Nothing wrong with a little “absolute certainty” mixed in with “model projections”.

Reply to  HotScot
February 26, 2019 4:11 am

Well said HotScot – all correct.
Best, Allan

Furthermore:

Even if ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, this calculated MAXIMUM climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C per doubling of CO2, which is not nearly enough to produce dangerous global warming (Christy and McNider 2017, Lewis and Curry 2018). Climate computer models use much higher ASSUMED values to create false alarm.

Atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales, from ~9 months in the modern data record on a ~3 year natural cycle to ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a much longer time cycle (MacRae 2008, Humlum et al 2013). Rational observers have noted that the future cannot cause the past.

CO2 is NOT a major driver of global warming – any warming caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 will be minor and net-beneficial to humanity and the environment.

Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity and the environment. More than 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths occurred in just England and Wales last winter – an Excess Winter Death rate almost three times the per-capita average in the USA. (d’Aleo and MacRae 2015)

The continued false warming “adjustments” of the surface temperature record, the fraudulent Mann hockey stick embraced by the IPCC and the Climategate emails all prove the criminal intent of the leaders of the global warming/climate change scam.

The IPCC and the leaders of the global warming movement have a perfectly negative predictive track record – every one of their very-scary predictions of runaway catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather have failed to materialize. The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific competence, and the warmist cabal have a perfectly negative predictive track record, demonstrated negative competence, and negative personal credibility. Nobody should believe them or their alarmist nonsense.

Chaamjamal
February 25, 2019 4:01 am

“The National Security Council (NSC) initiative would feature scientists who challenge the seriousness of climate change and the degree to which humans are the cause of climate problems”

Brilliant.
This is more science than holocaust methodology. But the real actors behind fear based environmentalism set on a global scale are surely the UN! Eventually, Trump has to deal with these guys. Pls see

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/25/un/

Fred
February 25, 2019 4:10 am

Glad they are standing this up despite the fact that the cataclysmic global warming, climate change ‘believers’ hate it and the whole idea of anyone challenging them by providing alternative analysis, red teaming, let’s face it, any critical assessment, counter facts and logical alternative consideration that goes against their religion. But, that’s exactly why it is so important to do.

Henry Galt
Reply to  Fred
February 25, 2019 12:02 pm

IF it happens (it’s a hack job right now) we will find out how rotten the head really is. I live in hope but think this will not change much except the wider public’s opinion on DT (sadly IMO) and show us how vested the interests really are. The known bad guys will just pile on harder and with more money.

Hugs
February 25, 2019 4:17 am

Calling Happer ‘climate change denier William Happer’ is a cheap shot. Fact checking via desmo’ and there you go.

It would be funny if Big Green was not so huge and capable of destroying young careers.

TonyL
February 25, 2019 4:19 am

No Red Team-Blue Team debate here. (I hope)
I always liked the idea of the Red/Blue debate in principle, but I also had great misgivings of how it might work out in practice.
Specifically, I feared a Red Team would argue the science, and the Blue team would take the opportunity to score a major propaganda victory.

This is going to be vastly better.
Item:
USGCRP releases an hysterical alarmist report called the “National Climate Assessment”.
Result:
Debunked. By the National Security Council.

Item:
The Pentagon releases a series of alarmist reports on Global Warming and impacts on military readiness, as mandated by Congress.
Result:
Debunked. By the National Security Council.

If you really needed a debate, this should qualify.

George Daddis
Reply to  TonyL
February 25, 2019 7:08 am

YES!!!
Happer needs to (and is very capable of) making sure the committee doesn’t think that its charge is to debunk the National Climate Assessment. That cannot be perceived as its mission.

Rather his group must review the background of each policy proposal relative to security and the climate as it arises and give an unbiased report; and only challenge a “claim” relative to the specific issue at hand, that happened to be in the NCA. Do NOT make a big issue of that in the report.

The specific topic will then take on a life of its own in the press and more importantly in blogs like WUWT.

griff
Reply to  TonyL
February 25, 2019 8:40 am

How is it better? If the Obama administration had stacked up a bunch of Greenpeace nominees (perhaps they did!) on a committee it would have been seen as invalid/biased….. I don’t see having people with a track record with fossil fuel firms as better. Have both sides or don’t bother…

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  griff
February 25, 2019 9:05 am

So he has a track record with a highly successful industry. What’s the problem with that?

TonyL
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
February 25, 2019 9:39 am

???????????
I just checked.
William Happer seems to have had no interaction at all with the fossil fuel industry for his whole career. His big specialties are atomic physics and laser optics.
His career has been
1) University
2) Government (nuclear and military issues)
Nothing at all in industry, and absolutely nothing with fossil fuels.

I thought for sure that Happer would not get that old “In The Pay Of Big Oil” slander. Let’s see if the alarmists try it anyway.

Richard M
Reply to  griff
February 25, 2019 9:20 am

So naive, griff. Any CAGW narrative is automatically picked and broadcast far and wide by the media. Not true with non-catastrophic studies. However, being a US national security review will force the press to cover it whether they want to or not.

Hence, this now provides skeptics with media coverage which they did get before. Hence, the start of a debate. You know the press will continually attack it so you don’t need the other side as part of this effort.

Fraizer
Reply to  Richard M
February 25, 2019 1:30 pm

…being a US national security review will force the press to cover it whether they want to or not…

Don’t count on it.

TonyL
Reply to  griff
February 25, 2019 9:22 am

As I was trying to relate:
Red team, for their part of the debate, goes on and on about the science. OK, fair enough.
Blue team discards the science altogether by arguing:
1) The 97% consensus
2) “The Science is Settled”
3) You Denier.
With that, the scientific argument is off the table. Red Team then launches into a fear mongering campaign of Doom and Gloom. They know it will play vastly better with the public than a bunch of dry facts and figures. They also know that the media will carry their message for them and disparage the scientific arguments as “deniers”.
This is what is known as a propaganda victory.

you said:
“If the Obama administration had stacked up a bunch of Greenpeace nominees (perhaps they did!)”
They Did. Big Time!

You said:
“Have both sides or don’t bother”
We could have said that years ago, but nobody did. So far, the alarmists have had the stage to themselves in every way that matters in US policy. And it has been this way for a very long time. Just witness the National Climate Assessment and the various reports coming from the military. All alarmist talking points with terrible disasters looming. Not a voice of calm or moderation anywhere in any of these reports.
Now consider:
The severe over-reaction to William Happer shows that they are just not used to having any contrary voices around. This is new to them, and they do not like it.
Anyway:
To answer your concern, we do have both sides represented.
The warmists and alarmists have produced the National Climate Assessment and the various reports from the military. Now these reports get evaluated by a team of lukewarmers and skeptics. Both sides are heard from, arguments are set forth and can be judged on their merits.

That trash remark about “people with a track record with fossil fuel firms” could have been left out. I am far more suspicious of alarmists in the pay of Big Government.
Please griff, let’s stick to the issues. Throwing out that turd has not worked in the past, and will not work now.

Joel Snider
Reply to  griff
February 25, 2019 9:32 am

What Grift is actually saying that since Obama stacked the deck we should just leave it stacked – no movement the other way.

And then he presents his position as the moral high-ground – standing up for ethics.
Little weasel, ain’t he?

mike the morlock
Reply to  Joel Snider
February 25, 2019 10:12 am

Don’t feed griff more then once or twice. He’ll get overweight.

michael

john
Reply to  griff
February 25, 2019 10:07 am

Griff is starting to have bad dreams as his whole edifice of B.S. is facing the “smell test”.

Michael Keal
Reply to  griff
February 25, 2019 10:50 am

“… track record with fossil fuel firms …”
You mean like driving an internal combustion engine car running on diesel or gasoline perhaps? Be more specific. Your drive-by propaganda shots lack efficacy. Cmon Griff. You know you can do better than that.

UNGN
February 25, 2019 4:26 am

Someone needs to compile a list of Journalists that call actual scientists “deniers”.

Then we need to check on the journalist’s scientific credentials, backgrounds and their grades in the physics/chemistry classes they took in J-school.

Hugs
Reply to  UNGN
February 25, 2019 5:38 am

Naah. They’re already collecting lists of scientists they can call denier. Got a big stack of cash for that.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  UNGN
February 25, 2019 6:06 pm

“Someone needs to compile a list of Journalists that call actual scientists “deniers”.”

Anyone who thinks today’s weather or climate are unprecedented in any way. Easy list.

Ron Long
February 25, 2019 4:26 am

OCM has her hand on the Climate Change control knob and unless you pass her Green (Ripoff) New Deal she will turn it so all deniers burn in hell on earth. Or maybe not.

February 25, 2019 4:37 am

This panel is in response to defense reports parroting climatist talking points, according to a Reuters source.

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/02/20/climate-red-team-forming/

Just Jenn
February 25, 2019 4:41 am

Utilize the Socratic Method on this one…

I don’t believe anyone denies the climate changes so calling someone a climate change denier…is over reaching.

Actually when you think about it, all of the rhetoric on the green movement to “keep the climate where it was 100 years ago” is really denying climate change.

I propose that the true climate change deniers are those that can’t face reality and look to the past for greener pastures (pun intended).

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  Just Jenn
February 25, 2019 6:24 am

I think Prof Happer is a bit of a lukewarmer which is surprising to me but it may just be a bit of a nod to the many scientists who are. Apologies if this characterization is incorrect. His long interview, https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/, is very impressive.

Spalding Craft
Reply to  Shawn Marshall
February 25, 2019 11:35 am

From what I’ve read Happer is on the cooler side of lukewarmism. He does agree that CO2 is a heat trapper but says it’s trapping ability is limited and becomes more so as the atmospheric concentration rises. He also disagrees with the feedback mechanisms built into climate models.

In oral interviews he gets into his “the more CO2 the better” routine, which seems like reflex contrarianism. It hurts his credibility IMO and separates him from more subdued lukewarmers like Curry and Spencer.

OweninGA
Reply to  Spalding Craft
February 25, 2019 12:21 pm

Why does it hurt his credibility? It is essentially true (if a little over-simplified) and he backs it up with actual experimental science results from biology.

If saying something that the green blob disagrees with is “hurting his credibility” then we may as well all pack it in and line up for our new identification cards at the one-world socialist’s re-education camp admissions office.

MarkW
Reply to  Spalding Craft
February 25, 2019 2:42 pm

What’s wrong with the line “the more CO2 the better”?
Life has thrived with CO2 levels over 5000ppm.
Greenhouses routinely kick CO2 levels up to 1200.

Reply to  Spalding Craft
February 26, 2019 6:34 am

Spalding wrote:
“In oral interviews he gets into his “the more CO2 the better” routine, which seems like reflex contrarianism. It hurts his credibility IMO and separates him from more subdued lukewarmers like Curry and Spencer.”

Happer writes “More CO2 is better” BECAUSE MORE CO2 IS BETTER. Happer explains why below.

In summary, most food plants (which are C3) die at about 150ppm due to CO2 starvation. During the last Ice Age, only 10,000 years ago, atmospheric CO2 dropped to about 180ppm – only about 30ppm above a global extinction event – not just for one or two obscure species, but for ALL advanced terrestrial carbon-based life forms.

https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/
[excerpt]
Only once in the Phanerozoic, about 300,000,000 years ago, has the CO2 level been as low as in the recent geological past. Today’s 400 ppm is still a CO2 famine as far as most plants are concerned. During the coldest parts of continental glaciations of the past 5,000,000 years, CO2 levels dropped to 200 ppm or less [J.K. Ward, et al., “Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005, 102: 690–694], not much above the 150 ppm or so when many plants die of CO2 starvation [J.K. Dippery, et al., “Effects of low and elevated CO2 on C3 and C4 annuals: Growth and biomass allocation,”Oecologia, 1995, 101: 13–20).

Life begins to fade at half of today’s CO2 levels, and dies almost completely at one quarter of today’s values. Geological history has demonstrated that life flourishes abundantly at double or quadruple the CO2 levels of today. It is stupid to insure against damage that will not occur if CO2 levels are doubled or tripled.

Reply to  Shawn Marshall
February 26, 2019 6:18 am

Thank you Shawn for this link – indeed, the interview with Will Happer is most impressive.

https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/

William Baikie
Reply to  Just Jenn
February 25, 2019 7:35 am

Good point, it’s the alarmist who are the real deniers as they deny climate always changes and insist on maintaining an exact climate of 100 years ago. It always seems the crazed accuser is guilty of that which they are accusing.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  William Baikie
February 25, 2019 8:33 am

Lefties are indeed prone to project.

Reply to  Just Jenn
February 25, 2019 9:11 am

Since “climate change”
has been ‘defined’
as the average
temperature
of our planet,
I will compare the
average temperature
in 2003 with the
average temperature
at the end of 2018,
consider the claimed
margins of error in the
weather satellite data,
and now I conclude,
based only on the
temperature data:

THERE HAS BEEN
NO CLIMATE CHANGE
IN THE PAST 15 YEARS !

There, I’m now the only true
climate change denier in the world,
so if some smarmy leftist calls me
a “climate change denier”,
I will say “Thank You”.

I deny that the
average temperature
( aka “the climate” )
has changed
in the past 15 years.

My climate science blog:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

OweninGA
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 25, 2019 12:24 pm

See, I actually take it a different way. I often see it phrased as “Climate Science Denier”. I say yes I am to that one, I deny there is any SCIENCE in Climate Science™!

Reply to  OweninGA
February 28, 2019 7:20 am

The real science stops after
the infrared spectroscopy
laboratory experiments,
then the assumptions
and wild guesses start !

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 4, 2019 6:39 am

Richard, if you didn’t word wrap everything at 30 chars, your posts would be much more readable. Are you using a teletype or something?

fretslider
February 25, 2019 4:41 am

If the alarmists are so sure of their results, what’s the problem?

The left love to quote if you haven’t got anything to hide [like a decline]…

troe
February 25, 2019 5:06 am

WAPO is engaged in propaganda pure and simple. The writers and editors are aware of the game they are playing.. Their fatuous motto “Democracy dies in the dark” refers to the cramped mental closet they are working in. Hopefully they will continue to cover the Red Team. It will come as a shock to many Americans that real scientists doing serious analysis have thoughts other than the false consensus.

Trump is building one wall and tearing down another.

Bruce Cobb
February 25, 2019 5:22 am

Yessirree, the upcoming election looks to be a knock-down -drag-out fight about climate. Sweet. The dimbulb dems are gonna lose, big-time.

Spalding Craft
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 25, 2019 11:39 am

I doubt that. The dems are not going to let climate change sink their chances in 2020, which means they’ll find a way to shut up AOC and her acolytes. The electorate is not ready to vote in favor of serious climate change mitigation.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Spalding Craft
February 25, 2019 12:31 pm

I agree that Americans are unwilling to seriously raise their taxes for a nebulous climate change. BTW, that’s why the alarmists are pushing the idea that climate change is now hurting us as individuals in the here and now, Spalding.

I disagree, however, that the Party Dems will be able to silence the AOC wing of the party. The new, radical Dem base and the media love them too much. Extremism pays well.

MarkW
Reply to  Spalding Craft
February 25, 2019 2:44 pm

The trick for out side is to make sure the Democrats aren’t allowed to run away from the CO2 extremism of most of their voters.

Perhaps secretly backing the Greens if they promise to spend all of their time talking about CO2. Give the acolytes a choice of voting for Democrats who ignore them, or Greens who are courting them.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Spalding Craft
February 25, 2019 6:11 pm

“I doubt that. The dems are not going to let climate change sink their chances in 2020, which means they’ll find a way to shut up AOC and her acolytes. The electorate is not ready to vote in favor of serious climate change mitigation.”

Wa State Governor Jay Inslee is planning on running as a single issue candidate, on climate change. So far, none of his climate change claims are supported by data, but he’s still planning on doing it. Even though his own state has voted down a carbon tax repeatedly. Hard to imagine in the tree-hugging PNW.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Spalding Craft
March 4, 2019 6:40 am

“The electorate is not ready to vote in favor of serious climate change mitigation.”

That’s because they know it’s not really a problem, and know that most people won’t accept their absolute control just yet.

Marcus
February 25, 2019 5:22 am

Only one side is denying that the climate changes naturally .

February 25, 2019 5:33 am

“Climate Red Team”

Is there a ball cap or a T-shirt?

I want one!

Richard M
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
February 25, 2019 9:24 am

A red hat with the “make climate studies scientific again” would be nice.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Richard M
February 25, 2019 6:11 pm

MCSSA!

H.R.
February 25, 2019 5:33 am

Meanwhile, President Trump is headed to Vietnam to move NK denuclearization a step or two further, Syria is quieting down, a trade deal with China that is in the US best interest is just about set, jobs are increasing, unemployment decreasing, the wall is being built… and oh, by the way, “let’s have a look into this Climate Change fuss. I’m not buying it.”

I think President Trump gets more real stuff done before breakfast than the previous occupant of the Whitehouse did in 8 years.

R Shearer
Reply to  H.R.
February 25, 2019 6:59 am

A lot can happen in two years considering the world ends within 12.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  H.R.
February 25, 2019 7:47 am

Yeah, and future president, Vice President Pence, is down in Columbia trying to free Venezuela from its dictatorship.

Fourteen More Years of This is what the US needs! 🙂

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 25, 2019 6:12 pm

Colombia.

Reply to  H.R.
February 25, 2019 9:26 am

H.R.

You are projecting successes
for President Trump
that have not happened yet,
and may never happen.
.
NK has not denuclearized,
and will not denuclearize.
.
They are experts in talking
and talking but doing
almost nothing.
.
.
Syria is quieting down because
Russia saved Assad, which does
not make the region safer.
.
.
There is absolutely no evidence
China has even admitted to a problem
with the theft of intellectual property,
which is the first step toward actually
doing something. Maybe they will buy
more US soybeans — ho hum !
.
.
Obama created more jobs
in his last two years,
than Trump did
in his first two years.
.
.
Trump’s wall:
Almost nothing built so far,
and if he’s lucky,
he might build 50 miles
in his first four years.
Not very impressive !
.
.
On climate change:
No challenge to the
junk science wild guesses
of the future climate
in his first two years.
I hope that will change.
.
.
Please don’t get the impression
that I hate Trump — I recently wrote a
six page article in my economics
newsletter evaluating his
Administration’s first two years.
I gave him a grade of “B”.

nc
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 25, 2019 10:09 am

Hum, would not want economic advice from you.

Reply to  nc
February 28, 2019 7:22 am

Brilliant analysis of my comments.
If you are a sixth grader !

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 25, 2019 5:32 pm

How exactly did Obama “create” jobs? He was anti-business from day one.

And if he created so many jobs why was GDP growth so much lower and unemployment so much higher?

Your post doesn’t pass the logic test.

And as I recall, Obama’s job numbers were always revised downward and he often spoke of jobs saved rather than jobs created — trying to redefine the metric.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
February 28, 2019 7:25 am

Jobs were created in spite of Obama.

But they were created.

If Trump claims credit for
jobs created in his first two years,
then why can’t Obama claim credit
for jobs created in his last two years ?

John Boland
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 25, 2019 8:26 pm

Is this some kind of sick poetry?

Reply to  John Boland
February 28, 2019 7:26 am

No, I provided an accurate comment.
That was a brilliant retort, Mr. Boland !

troe
February 25, 2019 5:39 am

“It is worse, much worse, than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible. In California, wildfires now rage year-round, destroying thousands of homes. Across the US, “500-year” storms pummel communities month after month, and floods displace tens of millions annually.” New America

You know we joke around about the “it’s worse than we thought” comedy tagline but they actually believe their own scare mongering. New America is funded by every heavy hitter foundation you can think of and even some governments. They list the US State Department as a donor. After decades of trying the above shabby copy from a low budget 1950’s scifi film is all they have.

This tripe is what millions in funding get you.

Reply to  troe
February 25, 2019 9:28 am

Troe

“it’s worse than we thought”
is so 2018 !

For 2019:
“It’s even worse than, worse than we thought “

February 25, 2019 5:45 am

International conference on Coastal Ecosystem and Management
Theme: Sustainable Management of Coastal Ecosystem: A Global Responsibility
September 16-17, 2019
Amsterdam, Netherlands
https://europeanmeetings.net/conferneces/coastalzone

Dave Fair
Reply to  Joel Adams
February 25, 2019 10:26 am

With “A Global Responsibility” in its name, this conference will be a swell gathering for party-goers and one-world types. I’ll love seeing the outcome, assuming they jump on the CAGW’s prediction of 1+meters of SLR.

Steve O
February 25, 2019 5:52 am

I suggest he simultaneously appoint a Blue Team. The Blue Team exists anyway. You might as well have someone represent them.

It will give an appearance of fairness, the drama will generate more attention to the issues, and you’ll be able to nail down the arguments by forcing the alarmist side to take actual positions. Currently, the alarmists make public pronouncements of doom that aren’t supported even by their own scientists.

Rod
Reply to  Steve O
February 25, 2019 6:39 am

I suggested below that no one on either team should be allowed to apply for a government grant for at least five years.

It would be interesting to see how far down the bench they’d have to go to put a Blue Team on the court if that rule were in place, as it should be, and might be, given the recent announcement along those lines for staffing advisory committees.

George Daddis
Reply to  Steve O
February 25, 2019 7:17 am

No Red team Blue team. Period.

Happer’s group needs to give objective reviews of specific policy issues as they arise and ONLY contradict “alarmist” or “consensus” science opinions if they impact that specific issue.

To me this is the only way to get legitimate scientists to stop putting a “blind eye” to the alarmists’ narrative.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steve O
February 25, 2019 7:51 am

“I suggest he simultaneously appoint a Blue Team. The Blue Team exists anyway. You might as well have someone represent them.”

We’ve had a Blue Team all this time. We know who they are and we know their CAGW speculations. Let the Red Team take a shot at refuting whatever the Blue Team has already claimed.

Richard M
Reply to  Steve O
February 25, 2019 9:28 am

The blue team already exists. No need to appoint one. The media will make sure to quote anonymous “experts” when they attack anything this group reports.

EternalOptimist
February 25, 2019 5:54 am

tsk tsk. you climate deniers. AOC new green deal has addressed some of the biggest energy problems you have been whining about for years and do you show gratitude ? no you don’t.
Solar, for example. It only works during the day you say. In the GND, appendix 1, AOC explains in scientific detail and depth. The reason is something called the rotation of the planet. If that can be addressed, and it can, the solar panels will work all day and night, because night will be an outmoded male patriarchal concept. The taxation raised from the planet will be spent on more solar panels in a self sustaining cycle.
Obviously the taxation on rotation (TOR) will have to be set at the right level, otherwise the planet might go the other way, but this can be achieved with a committee. (C)
It attacks your war on lithium (WAL) batteries in the Kommisariat.
AOC, will TORC the TORC but will never, never WALK the WALK

bonbon
Reply to  EternalOptimist
February 25, 2019 10:55 am

Hilarious! LOL!
Tax the LOD which varies over Solar cycles, TAx Precession, and TAx Obliquity!
Talk about seasonal adjustment! Endless income!
TAP the TOR for the TAO, my LOD !

Tim
February 25, 2019 5:58 am

“The National Security Council (NSC) initiative would feature scientists who challenge the seriousness of climate change and the degree to which humans are the cause of climate problems, three unidentified administration officials told the Post.”

Why has this taken 35 years?

John
Reply to  Tim
February 25, 2019 6:42 am

We didn’t have the Trump card.

Earthling2
February 25, 2019 6:17 am

It would be nice to see MacKenzie Bezos get control of the Washington Post in her divorce and separation of half Jeff Bezos net worth of $137 Billion. Just to rub it in, just like Bozo likes to throw around ad hominem’s. The Washington Post really describes itself well with using the word Denier in describing Professor Happer. If that is all WAPO has, then it is on the back foot already and the whole debate about this dangerous world ending climate change fraud is near over.

Jtom
Reply to  Earthling2
February 25, 2019 7:14 am

It would be still nicer if the Covington teens lawsuit bankrupted WaPo completely.

Hugs
Reply to  Jtom
February 25, 2019 8:47 am

It will be an interesting case. In the end, this is a serious public attack against a minor. Would be a crime in many European countries. Also to note – he was targeted as a white Catholic.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Earthling2
February 25, 2019 10:33 am

Again, the WaPo (WaPoo) article didn’t use the term “denier.” It was the Hill “journalist” description of the article.

Earthling2
Reply to  Dave Fair
February 25, 2019 12:19 pm

Yes, Ok Dave, but it was abundantly clear that the WaPo said all the pertinent things against Dr. Happer to invoke the same sentiment aganst him that he was a major denier without saying the word, basically the same as the Hill journalist. They said everything except the D word. As journalists, they should give equal time to both sides of this debate and especially, they shouldn’t take sides in any debate. Just report the facts. This is what is wrong with this whole climate CAGW climate change charade.

My bad I didn’t read theWaPo article but inferred it from the post. I have read both WaPo articles now from the last 4-5 days. But I still hope that MacKenzie Bezos get control of the Washington Post in her divorce and separation with Jeff Bezos, and further hope she is a committed Conservative.

February 25, 2019 6:25 am

See http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/02/exchange-with-professor-happer-princeton.html
It begins:
Exchange with Professor Happer Princeton
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 9:43 AM
To: William Happer
\Subject: Climate Forecasting
Dr Norman Page Houston norpag@att.net
Professor Happer. Climate models surely are unable to make useful forecasts. A different forecasting paradigm is required….………..

Shawn Marshall
February 25, 2019 6:26 am

I think Prof Happer is a bit of a lukewarmer which is surprising to me but it may just be a bit of a nod to the many scientists who are. Apologies if this characterization is incorrect. His long interview, https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/, is very impressive.

griff
Reply to  Shawn Marshall
February 25, 2019 8:40 am

I don’t. He has been on the payroll of fossil fuel firms like Peabody.

Richard M
Reply to  griff
February 25, 2019 9:31 am

griff, how much was he paid?

Reply to  griff
February 25, 2019 9:44 am

Grifter:
Being on the payroll of a corporation
means Dr. Happer had to provide
valuable, accurate information to them,
or he would have will lost his job.

Being on the government payroll
just means you have to believe
whatever they pay you to believe
about climate change.

You can make wrong scary climate predictions
for 30 years in a row and your bosses
only care that you make the same scary
climate prediction the next year, using
the same wild guess about CO2 that was
in the 1979 Charney Report,
in spite of the fact that
those 1970’s-era numbers
cause gross overestimates
of actual warming !

I’d trust a person who had to deliver results
to a corporation, over a government bureaucrat
who has to believe the “right” things,
any day.

You leftists deal in character attacks,
but lack facts, and wouldn’t know
real science if it fell on you !.

It’s a dream world for
low intelligence,
overemotional people.

Adding CO2 to the air benefits
our planet.

If any of the slight warming since 1975
was caused by CO2, that also benefits
the higher latitudes with warmer winter
nights — the main change since 1975.

Of course my conclusions
are based on real science,
which would be like a
foreign language to you.

You live in a junk science world
of wild guess speculation about
the future climate, average temperature
wrong since the 1960’s
… with climate models predicting
triple the actual warming
since the 1970’s !

That’s YOUR team Grifter,
always wrong, but consistent !

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 25, 2019 2:46 pm

Being on the payroll seems to have a different meaning in the land of griff.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
February 25, 2019 4:01 pm

Depends on which payroll.

Reply to  griff
February 27, 2019 4:46 am

Another falsehood from Griff. Here are the facts:

https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/

“My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science, which have been so corrupted by the climate-change cult. If your client was considering reimbursing me for writing something, I would ask that whatever fee would have come to me would go directly to the CO2 Coalition. This was the arrangement I had with the attorneys representing the Peabody Coal Company in the regulatory hearings in Minnesota. The fee I would have received was sent instead to the CO2″Coalition, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization. The CO2 Coalition covers occasional travel expenses for me, but pays me no other fees or salary.
– Dr. William Happer

Rod
February 25, 2019 6:33 am

I would question whether they can actually find reputable, credentialed, climate scientists willing to join the Blue Team, especially if they set a rule than no one on either team will be eligible for a government grant for the next five years.

william Johnston
Reply to  Rod
February 25, 2019 7:24 am

I was thinking along the lines of no one who had received a government grant in the PAST 5 years would be eligible. Oh wait. Then there would be no blue team.

Gary Ashe
February 25, 2019 7:04 am

”and that current efforts to counter climate change were insufficient.”

Now the administration and its red team are going to counter it,……….. and still the left whine.

Wrong kinda counter i suppose, these useful idiots actually want it to be true, and will fight tooth and nail to make it true………….this is why leftism is a bona fide mental illness.

steve case
February 25, 2019 7:25 am

The other side won’t show up for the debate. They haven’t so far, why would they now? The media, academia, Hollywood, billionaire tech company CEOs and the entrenched swamp of bureaucrats and government funded “climate scientists” are on their side. They won’t show up and will launch an even more shrill, if that’s possible, public relations propaganda campaign. And if it does happen ABC CBS NBC MSNBC NPR etc will give it minimum one-sided coverage if any at all.

I used to hope that I would live to see the good ship Global Warming/Climate Change slip beneath the waves. The only way that’s going to happen is if hell freezes over.

Meanwhile some guy on a forum not far from here says it’s going to happen July 15th 2019. Well I hope he’s right.

Sorry to be so negative.

Spalding Craft
Reply to  steve case
February 25, 2019 12:07 pm

I would agree that setting up dueling panels would be a waste of time. Also, you already have the USGCRP, which produced the National Climate Assessment, and those people are still around.

If we’re going to have an NSC climate panel I would hope we can avoid genuine “deniers” and staff it with articulate, level-headed lukewarmers, of which Will Happer is one. Also, we should avoid an all-out, agressive contrarian report that takes on the consensus team. There’s no way the good guys can win this argument in today’s atmosphere – the press would see to that.

The NSC team can take on the conventional wisdom as dished out by the security establishment and try to introduce some sense into this dialogue. Build a solid case for common sense lukewarmism and avoid direct confrontation with the consensus crowd and their supporters.

steve case
Reply to  Spalding Craft
February 25, 2019 1:11 pm

Spalding Craft … If we’re going to have an NSC climate panel I would hope we can avoid genuine “deniers” and staff it with articulate, level-headed lukewarmers,

BINGO! It does not help if you have folks on your side who can be discredited. Denial of the greenhouse effect isn’t a winner.

Gordon Dressler
February 25, 2019 8:26 am

Rephrasing Sir Winston Churchill: Now this is not the end. It is not the end of the beginning. But it is, perhaps, the beginning of the end of the AGW and CAGW memes.

Joel Snider
February 25, 2019 8:35 am

I can hear the pucker of butts clenching all across the Progressive landscape.

Sounds sort of like insulation bubbles popping.

Ashby Lynch
February 25, 2019 9:37 am

Only two years left in the current Trump administration to reevaluate the endangerment finding. Does anyone know why this has not been done?

February 25, 2019 10:40 am

Correction. “Climate change could have devastating effects on the economy, health and environment and that current efforts to counter climate change were insufficient.”

Should read;

“Alarmist climate change policies will have devastating effects on the economy, health and environment and that current efforts to counter climate change alarmism were insufficient.”

Dave N
February 25, 2019 11:51 am

Did the administration itself actually use the word “counter”, or was it just WaPo nonsense?

If they were truly being objective, they should have just said “reassess”, though I fully expect the findings to counter the original assessment anyway.

Gunga Din
February 25, 2019 2:55 pm

“Settled Science” must always be reassessed.
Particularly when Government policy is funding it and then using it to support its policy.

Politics has been using “Climate Science” as a lever.
We are in no real danger from “CAGW” or “Man Made Climate Change”.
The only real dangers we face are the “solutions”.

February 25, 2019 3:19 pm

Here in Australia I fund it difficult to understand how in Trumps America that a Government Agency can issue a report so contrary to the Governments official policy on Weather event matters.

But then I recall that the once highly respected CSIRO, a government think tank and producer of good ideas and development mainly for the country folk and farming was taken over by the Greens.

So along comes a new manager and he says that as the “Science on climate change was said to be settled, then it did not need so many scientists studying it, “. So he got rid of them.

A big scram from the Green MP’s in the Conservative Liberal Government, and he was forced to set up a Climate study group in Tasmania so that the scientists could continue to study the settled science of Climate Change.

Its very difficult to defeat the Green Blob.

MJE

Dave Fair
Reply to  Michael
February 25, 2019 5:59 pm

Just like a fat lady in a girdle, things pop up all over. As long as there is money in it, you will have a green blob, Michael.

kim
February 25, 2019 3:43 pm

The red team should have Judy Curry, Nic Lewis and Steve McIntyre.

Heh, they’ve been among the leaders of the unofficial red team for many years now.
====================================

BR
Reply to  kim
February 26, 2019 12:13 am

Oh my goodness, hullo Kim! Hail, fellow, well met!

Found you via Citizenfreepress.com – a link to this article.

Had just mentioned McIntyre there a few days ago, in regard to this:

“WHY THE DNC WAS NOT HACKED BY THE RUSSIANS by Binney and Johnson” – with comments by McIntyre.

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/02/why-the-dnc-was-not-hacked-by-the-russians.html#more
2-13-19

BR
Reply to  BR
February 26, 2019 12:47 am

It’s a jolly group at https://www.citizenfreepress.com – and the site is better than Drudge. Come join us! No log-in required.

The comment threads disappear after a few days, but someone kindly archived this one, with my 7, mentioning McI.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190222002147/https://www.citizenfreepress.com/column-2/breaking-mueller-finished-report-expected-next-week/

BR
Reply to  kim
February 26, 2019 12:53 am

It’s a jolly group at Citizenfreepress – and the site is better than Drudge. Come join us! No registr required.

The comment threads disappear after a few days, but someone kindly archived this one, with my 7, mentioning McI.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190222002147/https://www.citizenfreepress.com/column-2/breaking-mueller-finished-report-expected-next-week/

BR
Reply to  BR
February 26, 2019 1:16 am

Ah, it posted twice, Thought the first one didn’t go through.

Anyway, more good stuff here:

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/column-3/mccabe-there-was-no-coup-to-remove-trump/

Archived here:
http://archive.is/prn9a

kim
Reply to  BR
February 26, 2019 4:27 pm

Hello, old pal. Tom’s requires registration now, so I just lurk.
===========

BR
Reply to  kim
February 26, 2019 5:50 pm

Oh really. Haven’t been there in ages. Sooo good to see you, hope you join us at CFP. It’s a rowdy crowd with pirate parties and music on Fridays and various astute commenters.

Here’s the link which serendipitously brought me here!
🙂

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/column-1/climate-consensus-my-ass/#the-comments

markl
February 25, 2019 5:49 pm

Better late than never but CC isn’t high on the list of vote getters these days. Lots of crap being thrown around but little of it sticks and it’s obvious the majority puts it almost last on their list of concerns. We (as in rational people) need to stop letting the vocal few control the narrative by speaking with our votes since the MSM ignores us.

Dennis Sandberg
February 26, 2019 12:54 am

Pretty smart there HotScot. Not complicated when one looks at both the realist and the alarmist sides of the discussion. Nothing wrong with a little “absolute certainty” mixed in with “model projections”.

Dr. Strangelove
February 26, 2019 4:39 am

Red Team
Richard Lindzen
Will Happer
Judith Curry
Sallie Baliunas
John Christy
Roy Spencer
Chris Essex
Patrick Michaels
Susan Crockford
Don Easterbrook

Julian Flood
February 26, 2019 8:37 am

It would be useful if the President were to mandate investigation into alternative causes of warming. My guess is that CO2 is a small part of the problem (if there is a problem at all) and other factors are coming into play as the world population increases inexorably.

For example:

Agriculture run-off increases dissolved silica in the oceans, lengthens diatom blooming, curbs phytoplankton blooms. Phytos emit DMS cloud-forming particles, so this reduction means fewer and less dense clouds.

Oil pollution of ocean surfaces reduces wave action, less stirring so fewer nutrients available in the top 30 metres, starved phytos produce less DMS.

Oil pollution reduces waves, lowers ocean albedo.

Humanity’s enormous synthetic nitrate production alters ecobalance in the oceans — I have no idea what this would do. Or, should I say, what this is doing, because it is certainly happening.

Someone above mentions ocean greening. Would this produce a feedback? Oceans green as CO2 levels rise, more phytos, more DMS, more clouds so oceans cool and absorb more/emit less CO2. When did the big agricultural boom begin? Did it coincide with the warming trend?

I just wish someone would have a look at all of the above. It might save us a great deal of money..

JF

Tom
February 26, 2019 10:10 am

Please! The only things that really affect the Earth’s climate in the long term in any significant way are the sun, the magnetic field of the earth, the oceans and to a lesser extent volcanic activity. Any person who thinks that science is settled in this is a moron.

Neo
February 26, 2019 1:03 pm

“I’m announcing that if the Trump administration moves forward with this fake climate panel, we’ll be introducing legislation to defund it. …It is long past time for President Trump and Republican leaders to admit that climate change is real, that human activity contributes to it and Congress must take action,” Schumer, D-NY, said in remarks delivered on the Senate floor.

kim
Reply to  Neo
February 26, 2019 2:52 pm

He’s afraid, so censorship. Typical alarmist response.
============================================

CA
February 26, 2019 6:32 pm

Climate alarmism is a degree of pseudoscientific fraud that few people fully appreciate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bauq42SxwLc

Climate alarm pseudoscience literally reduces to, and originates in, flat Earth theory.

%d bloggers like this: