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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
153 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.