A Presidential Committee on Climate Security (PCCS) is needed now

Charles G. Battig, MD

By CFACT Ed|March 8th, 2019|

Congratulations President Trump on having the interest in and courage to ask that the American people be given the benefits of a fact based and unbiased examination of the topic of climate change. Your Presidential Committee on Climate Security (PCCS) holds the first promise of an open, and fact-based examination of the much talked about, but not scientifically quantified buzz-word “man-made, dangerous climate change.” Journalists, the media, and many of the scientific community usually drop the qualifier “man-made,” and treat it as a new and alarming phenomenon.

No student of history or of the scientific record denies that the climate changes. It is an indisputable attribute of the phenomenon known as climate that it has and will forever be changing on some time scale at all places on earth. No one knows why the last ice-age began or ended around 10,000 years ago. No one knows why the medieval warm period (950AD-1250AD) began, nor ended and was followed by the little ice age (1300AD-1850AD) …fossil fuels were not in any significant use.

As a graduate engineer and physician, I am attuned to classical scientific inquiry in attempting to explain physical phenomena. Open inquiry with multiple possible theoretical explanations is essential to determining the valid one, resulting from a process of hypothesis, testing of that hypothesis, and final formation of a theory. That theory is only so good until another one can be formulated with greater predictive accuracy.

The American people are rightly concerned about being good stewards of the environment. They deserve to be reassured that in their daily lives and activities that warnings issued concerning impacts on the climate are based on the scientific method, and not the result of biased motivations based on monetary, reputation enhancement, or misplaced good intentions

It is of concern that this expected scientific methodology and due process has been largely ignored by those promoting the fear of catastrophic climate change. I recall that Vice President Al Gore would not take questions from his audience when challenged on his claims. The earth did not exhibit a fever as he claimed. Beginning in 1979, satellite data became available and they show cycles of temperature change, with a long period of temperature stability. When verifiable satellite temperature did not show the proclaimed fever, global warming was rebranded with the amorphous term “climate change,” and somehow natural earth rhythms became an aberration. Polar bears have continued to thrive, droughts have come and gone, and pacific islands have not sunk beneath a rising ocean. I recall no publicized series of debates on the merits of a quantifiable change in global climate attributable to human activity. No one has defined the ideal earth climate.

Fast forward to the present. The idea that catastrophic, man-made climate change is factual has become an unassailable point in the media and academia. There has been no open proof of this…yet to question it brings ridicule and threats, but never any validated scientific proof. There is reference to a vague collection of scientists at the 97% level, but never any explanation of who they are or how that oft repeated number actually came about. Climate change disasters have become the stuff of urban legends, always imminent but never documented, always off in the future. The human remedy to change the climate has never been proved. Faulty climate models and computers portray a runaway climate, but those predictions have not matched the real-world record, which is mostly benign and without ominous trend.

As a physician, I can give another analogy. Another respected physician refers a patient to me with a serious diagnosis. I prescribe a plan of treatment based on that diagnosis. The patient does not respond and gets worse. Concerned, I refer the patient to another physician and provide the same diagnosis. He looks at my record and tries another therapy for that diagnosis. He sends the patient to another expert in the field, who treats the patient. The patient dies. What went wrong? None of the physicians questioned the original diagnosis, there was a consensus of thought and an appeal to authority which no one dared to question. They all treated the patient for the wrong disease.

This is the current status of climate dogma in America. Climate policy is being set in the media on the free-thought ramblings of a former cocktail waitress, and school children reciting the agenda of their handlers. Our British friends might label these as tweets by twits.

America needs your PCCS and Dr. Happer is the qualified adult in the room to head it up.

Charles G. Battig, MD

Houston, TX

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 8, 2019 10:10 am

Some of us know what the global warming scam is about, where it came from, and who was behind it. The corrupt left wing media have been in lock step with corrupt politicians to keep it covered up.

The History of the Global Warming Scare


March 8, 2019 10:19 am

I really hope that the Scientific Method isn’t abandoned for the cult and religion of imminent catastrophic climate change that has so corrupted modern day science. Asking for a review of what we think we know for a factual based update of where things really are should really be everybody’s objective. That would be within the scientific method to do so, just as an engineer would welcome another independent review of his/her work. This is very important to the future of humanity and how we govern going forward. A failure to even endorse this factual review of climate change fact and policy would really make it look like there is something to hide.

steven mosher
March 8, 2019 10:25 am

too bad happer wants to lead a closed process that refuses to abide by thong like the data quality act

Reply to  steven mosher
March 8, 2019 11:58 am

Other than what Steve Heller does, I trust no data. IMO, your temperature reconstruction is a work of fiction. You never validated the data, such as ocean temperatures. According to Phil Jones, “we made it up”. Of course they did, and still are. What data quality standard is that SM?

Reply to  EdB
March 8, 2019 12:45 pm

Tony Heller/Steve Goddard?

The first order of business should be to get to the bottom of all the adjustments and recreate the actual temperature record(s), even if this means coordinating with other countries, where the adjustments are of an even more dubious nature (e.g. Australia – cue Nick). Are the climate liars still using the Trofim Karl-ized adjustments?

Getting a call from military personnel should be akin to a “come to Jesus” meeting.

Reply to  philincalifornia
March 8, 2019 1:25 pm

Adjustments to the temperature record are NOT science. I don’t know of any scientific field where one can simply adjust the raw data. The result is that confirmation bias is injected into the resultant adjusted data. Which is precisely what’s happened to the adjusted temperature record – we now have a temperature record where almost all of the warming is due to adjustments to data.
This has turned the term ‘climate science’ into an oxymoron.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  iflyjetzzz
March 8, 2019 2:03 pm

We shouldn’t be using adjusted data, we should be using the raw temperature data.

The raw data from all over the world, shows the 1930’s as being as warm or warmer than subsequent years, including this year.

That’s why the CAGW promoters want to adjust the data, so they can make the temperature record look like it is getting “hotter and hotter and hotter” as time goes by. The raw data doesn’t show anything like that. The raw data shows the tempertures are not unprecedented today as compared to the past. There is no CAGW. It’s science fiction.

steven mosher
Reply to  EdB
March 8, 2019 5:06 pm

you avoided the question of happer running a closed process.

case is closed on your credibility.
your no better than mann or jones

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  steven mosher
March 10, 2019 10:01 am

Are you questioning either his honesty or qualification to do this review?

IPCC is a reviewed process but critical reviewers are all ignored.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  steven mosher
March 8, 2019 1:32 pm

You have no idea what process will be used by this new committee, so your objection is, in fact, a straw-man.

steven mosher
Reply to  Paul Penrose
March 8, 2019 5:07 pm

really.check the law.

Joel Snider
Reply to  steven mosher
March 8, 2019 1:57 pm

Even if that were true, I’d guess it’d still take about thirty years to even things up.

steven mosher
Reply to  Joel Snider
March 8, 2019 5:08 pm

two wrongs.
are you a liberal?

Reply to  steven mosher
March 8, 2019 6:47 pm

What do you mean by “thong like”?

Reply to  gregole
March 8, 2019 7:23 pm

It’s that string thing that goes around the “tentacles” as by young nephew once said. 😉

Reply to  lee
March 8, 2019 7:25 pm

“my” sigh

Clay Sanborn
March 8, 2019 10:28 am

Thank you Dr. Battig.
It is refreshing every time someone such as yourself, with a different science discipline, comes forward to put some sense into the climate discussion. Starting in 2007, I started looking into this “CAGW” thingy, and within 2 weeks, I found there to be no applied scientific methodology, and therefore no real science in the hypothesis and its dogma. For several years since, I had become disappointed with all science – that Doctors of Science of any persuasion (including Dentists and Chiropractic) were not speaking up about the lack of accountability, integrity, and veracity of the current state of Climate Science. It became clear to me that Climate Alarmism was strictly a political endeavor to something evil; not science.

John Endicott
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
March 8, 2019 10:53 am

To be fair, Clay, I don’t think Dentists and Chiropractic generally are even aware of what goes on in “climate science” circles. Kind of hard for them to speak up about a problem that they don’t even know exists. People (including scientists) tend to focus on their own field of expertise and leave it to the people in other fields to look after their own.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Endicott
March 8, 2019 12:13 pm

Not so sure about the unaware “Dentists” though.
Most Dentists are quite aware of what happens to Teeth in a High concentration of dissolved CO2

Clay Sanborn
Reply to  John Endicott
March 8, 2019 2:58 pm

John, you’re probably right about that. I was in computer science in the semiconductor industry, but I thought to look into CAGW; being that the issue has become a top topic, and has the potential to waste $Trillions of tax payer money, I would think most (educated) people would look into it. People should not vote or have an opinion on controversial topics unless they have done some due diligence.

March 8, 2019 10:38 am

Can we really do without fossil fuels providing us with energy? America needs a lot of energy produced if we are going to continue living the lifestyles we are accustomed too. Improvements have to be made as to how these fossil fuels are consumed.
America has over 500 years of hi grade coal in the ground. I believe electricity should be produced using coal. Clean coal is possible. https://youtu.be/RQRQ7S92_lo Coal can be combusted putting less CO2 into the atmosphere than a natural gas power plant. We turn CO2 into money and jobs.
Natural gas should be used by residential and commercial for building space heating and by industry to produce all those other products that everyone needs daily. Natural gas can be combusted much more efficiently, and by doing so a lot of CO2 will be not be put into the atmosphere. http://www.SidelSystems.com
Oil should be used for transportation. We need cars and trucks and trains and airplanes and ocean ships. The manufactures of these vehicles have been making great strides in increased mileage and reduced emissions. Let them continue to do so.
Wishing You All A Fantastic Weekend!

Reply to  SidA
March 8, 2019 12:21 pm

The first few times you posted here, I asked some questions about your process.
You never responded. I thought if the point of you posting here was to generate interest, you would want to engage with interested people. Apparently not.
So why are you posting here?

Some things to be aware of:
1) Pick one name and stay with it. Using multiple names is considered very bad form.
2) Stay on-topic. Your “clean coal” is off-topic for this thread.

March 8, 2019 10:55 am

“The patient dies. What went wrong? None of the physicians questioned the original diagnosis, there was a consensus of thought and an appeal to authority which no one dared to question. They all treated the patient for the wrong disease.”

Iatrogenic death. Not to rain on physicians’ parade (who I am sure most mean well), but the 3rd leading cause of death (after cancer and heart disease) in the US (at least in hospitals) is the medical industry. Something is seriously wrong.

Greg Woods
March 8, 2019 11:04 am

and tweets by a twat….(excuse me, mods)

Bryan A
Reply to  Greg Woods
March 8, 2019 12:21 pm

This is the problem with the modern society, too many People are learning how to communicate in incomplete sentences of less than 140 charac (ters)

Reply to  Bryan A
March 8, 2019 1:16 pm

You ought to check out Cher’s tweets. Emoticons, caps, a lexicon characteristic of a 3rd grader and a mind that thinks it’s God’s gift to mankind. It’s hilarious.

March 8, 2019 11:23 am

How ‘global warming’ became ‘climate change’ and the danger of euphemisms

The reinvention of vocabulary can often be more effective than any social protest movement. Malarial swamps can become healthy “wetlands.” Fetid “dumps” are often rebranded as green “landfills.”
Global warming was once a worry about too much heat. It implied that man-made carbon emissions had so warmed the planet that life as we knew it would soon be imperiled without radical changes in consumer lifestyles.
Yet in the last 30 years, record cold spells, inordinate snow levels and devastating rains have been common. How to square that circle?
Substitute “climate change” for global warming. Presto! Any radical change in weather could be perceived as symptomatic of too much climate-changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Suddenly, blizzards, deluges and subzero temperatures meant that typically unpredictable weather was “haywire” because of affluent Westernized lifestyles.

March 8, 2019 11:25 am

Dr. Happer will set them free

Mikhail Gorbachev, former chief communist on the planet, 1996: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
How will Dr. Happer and his panel set the world free? At the moment, the Marxist plotters bang on about the 97% scientific consensus on global warming. They have created a sealed edifice of lies and have maintained it assiduously. After Dr. Happer’s report is released, the mantra of “Are you denying the science?” will be turned on its head.
Global warming has been a state-sponsored religion, with its priesthood funded from the public purse to the tune of $2.5 billion a year in the U.S. alone. The priests of that cult will be plucked off the public teat, and the memory of what they preached will fade. That frabjous day can’t come soon enough.

Reply to  brent
March 8, 2019 11:54 am

Of dear I think your tin foil hat has fallen off.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Simon
March 8, 2019 12:14 pm

Hey look – another clichéd stupid comment from Simon-stain.

Bryan A
Reply to  Joel Snider
March 8, 2019 12:25 pm

Simon must have lost HIS tin foil hat…
Drats, (Tin)foiled again

Reply to  Joel Snider
March 8, 2019 12:35 pm

Joel thinks Brent’s comment is clever. It’s not. It makes a mockery of this article which is trying to make the point the skeptics have a scientific argument that holds water . You should be embarrassed to have drivel like that representing your side. Brent, stick to the science and leave politics and mindless conspiracy theories to the anti-vaxers.

Reply to  Simon
March 8, 2019 12:59 pm

Then simple, explain exactly, with specificity and links to confirmed replicated proof of why you believe Brent is in error and why you,simple, have any right to denigrate and insult Brent?

Otherwise, it is just another silly ad hominem by simple.
A comment that makes Joel’s comment very apt and clever. Except, you don’t have enough protein to stain anything.

Reply to  Simon
March 9, 2019 2:36 pm

Hello Simon,
I followed WUWT, Climateaudit, And JudithCurry since inception, however a lot less lately, and I haven’t been a frequent contributor over time.
I don’t recall you, however clearly others do from some comments you elicited. : )
What I say next may surprise you. Before I actually took the time to sit down and try to figure out how I would tackle modeling Climate, if anyone had told me the modeling was eyewash, and the agenda was politically driven, I without doubt would have dismissed the idea out of hand, just as you seek to do here. Sometimes one needs a wakeup call to jolt one, and that was quite true in my case.
I cannot address any of your concerns because I do not know what they are specifically.
In any event, this is not the thread to do so on.
You’re quite welcome to your opinion of course, I wish you well. : )
All the best

Does it make sense that IPCC keeps declaring increasing certainty as the models progressively diverge from reality??
When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?
95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

Reply to  brent
March 8, 2019 12:53 pm

Everybody calm down.
brents’ *entire* post was quotes from the American Thinker article. He did not get the quotation marks right, that is all.
The article was written by David Archibald, who usually gets a good reception here.

I do think Archibald is a little over the top here, so I just take it for what it is.
Spend a moment, click through the link, and consider.

Reply to  TonyL
March 9, 2019 1:53 pm

Hi Tony,
You are quite right that each of us need to be absolutely ruthless in what I would call taking ownership of our own views.
In this case I do substantially agree with David Archibald’s stated views although I’d probably have expressed it somewhat differently.
We are not dealing with Normative (I.E. real) Science here. Remember Jerome Ravetz trying to convince us that his so called “Post Normal Science” (really postmodern IMO) was the solution to the corruption of Climategate?. Willis and scientistfortruth disagreed and so do I emphatically.. The problem is that the alleged Climate Science agenda is really PNS in the first place. So Ravetz substitutes “quality” for a search for truth.
One of the things I like about Science is that say in a very complex problem there are 5 to 10 errors, any one of which would be fatal. One only would have to identify one to invalidate the whole mess!
The alleged “Science” (I call it Sceance) of Climate Alarmists is such a rich target zone for critique, that there are many ways to arrive at an appropriate conclusion, including just looking for blatant logical errors. I tend to forget this myself because I’m so focused on one aspect.
In terms of my own focus, the lack of GCM model validation is the killer issue. I refuse to accept output of models ( as a basis for very important public policy decisions) which have never been validated in the first place and have obviously failed.
(I’m an old/former petroleum downstreamer, a supply and refining guy who spent most my time in the industry heavily involved in downstream optimization modeling)
I especially appreciated Robert G. Brown’s (rgbatduke), and Rud Istvan’s insights on GCM modeling issues. The GCMs are the Climatariat A team. The Hockey Stick studies are the B team and Steve McIntyre completely demolished them. Steve is a hero in my view. Amazing that someone completely unknown in academia emerges and with a small group of people helping completely upends an entire subdiscipline.
Andy West has looked at CAGW in terms of memes, Richard Lindzen has openly called the Alarmism a Cult, I would tend to just call it Religion as David Archibald has (but whatever)
It was in 97/98 timeframe when I first looked at Climate and I was deeply shocked at the time. My opinion was because of the class of problem, that there was only the remotest possibility that the GCMs could even be validated.
Since that time I’ve tried to trace back how we got into this God-awful mess. IMO the Principle Godfathers of this agenda, were Maurice Strong, A Canadian whose highest level of formal education was high school; and Crispin Tickell a British diplomat who read history at University according to Nigel Lawson, and who is the younger cousin of Aldous and Julian Huxley.
BS Baffles Brains!

I’ve posted some threads about these two below FWIW:
As always, people should draw their own conclusions. : )

Call it conjectural if one will, however some comments:
The CAGW agenda went public in 1988 with James Hansen’s testimony to Congress and shortly thereafter Thatcher made a famous speech at the behest of Tickell.
If instead of a Carbophobia Apocalypse, the Politicians had insisted that it was absolutely urgent to take a Political Position on and prepare for a Biblical Apocalypse, and had lavished bazillions of dollars on the “experts” to study the issue, everyone would have understood what was going on, and it would have been clear that this agenda was in violation of the US 1st amendment. : )
The Carbo- Apocalypse provides a pretext to institute a single world culture(read Religion) that just co-incidentally or not : ) was exactly what was advocated by Julian Huxley, first director General of UNESCO, and Tickell’s older cousin. He called it Scientific or Evolutionary Humanism.
Michael Ruse provides some very useful analysis in an article I’ve sublinked.


Maurice Strong (CAGW Godfather)
The “Earth Charter” Is the work of Steven Rockefeller, Maurice Strong, and Gorbachev
Interview: Maurice Strong on a “People’s Earth Charter

Crispin Tickell (CAGW Godfather )
Nigel Lawson: Global warming has turned into religion

Bruce Cobb
March 8, 2019 11:47 am

“Climate security” eh? Whazzat? The climate is plenty secure. Humanity, not so much.

March 8, 2019 11:52 am

The approach to this will be interesting.

Trump is a communicator. He’s rough, gruff and bombastic but speaks to people in their language. The intelligentsia don’t like him because he’s, of course, far to crude and simplistic.

Happer on the other hand can tie the intelligentsia in knots, but I’m not sure he’s a great communicator, much like most scientists. They talk sense to each other but not to the man on the street.

The meeting of minds, converted into politics, will be subtle and stealthy. I don’t expect to see fireworks here, more a slow burning fuse which indicates to me that Trump is entirely confident of his ability to win his second term.


There are a lot of Brits behind The Donald.

Ric Haldane
Reply to  HotScot
March 8, 2019 1:54 pm

HotScot, Will Happer has no problem communicating with the general public. He is much more than just brilliant.

steven mosher
Reply to  Ric Haldane
March 8, 2019 5:13 pm


why then does he want to run a closed process?

after we fought so hard to open things.

a red team is good. but you cant do it secretly with no transparency

Danley Wolfe
March 8, 2019 12:01 pm

I have been saying exactly the same thing on many websites/venues…. How many of those fanatics have sufficient background on science and the Scientific Method to say anything at all… Also to be emphasized is the fact that the climate movement uses ALL of the same propaganda techniques made famous by the Soviets of the early 20th century and Nazi Germany:

‘Total propaganda’ and the art of ‘the Big Lie’ was pioneered by the Bolsheviks. Lenin, after Plekhanov, distinguished between the high-powered propagandist, who devised the strategy, and the low-level agitator, who put it into practice. Where Soviet agitprop led, the Fascists were quick to follow. ‘The (Catholic) church keeps going’, said Dr Goebbels, ‘because it has been repeating the same (message) for two thousand years. The National Socialist Party must do likewise.’ One of the more insidious aspects of propaganda, however, is that true sources of information are hidden from recipients and propagators alike. This genre of ‘so-called covertly directed propaganda’ aims to mobilize a network of unsuspecting ‘agents of influence’ who pass on the desired message as if they were acting spontaneously. By feigning a coincidence of views with those of the target society, which it seeks to subvert, and by pandering to the proclivities of key individuals, it can suborn a dominate elite of opinion-makers by stealth.

Such, it seems, was the chosen method of Stalin’s propaganda chiefs who spun their webs among the cultural circles of leading Western countries from the 1920s onwards. The chief controller in the field was an apparently harmless German Communist, an erstwhile colleague of Lenin in Switzerland and sometime acquaintance of Dr Goebbels in the Reichstag, Willi Münzenberg (1889-1940). Working alongside Soviet spies, he perfected the art of doing secret business in the open. The ultimate goal has been nicely defined; to create for the right-thinking, non-communist West the dominating political prejudice of the era; the belief that any opinion that happened to serve the Soviet Union was derived from the most essential elements of human decency.’

The five basic rules of propaganda (1) are:

1. The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.

2. The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.

3. The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.

4. The rule of unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it is the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people; including drawing doubting individuals into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, social pressure and by ‘psychological contagion’ a.k.a. psy-ops.

5. The rule of orchestration (or repetition): endlessly repeating the same message over and over; in different variations and combinations.”

One of the more insidious aspects of propaganda, however, is that true sources of information are hidden from recipients and propagators alike. This genre of ‘so-called covertly directed propaganda’ aims to mobilize a network of unsuspecting ‘agents of influence’ who pass on the desired message as if they were acting spontaneously. By feigning a coincidence of views with those of the target society, which it seeks to subvert, and by pandering to the proclivities of key individuals, it can suborn a dominate elite of opinion-makers by stealth.

Such, it seems, was the chosen method of Stalin’s propaganda chiefs who spun their webs among the cultural circles of leading Western countries from the 1920s onwards. The chief controller in the field was an apparently harmless German Communist, an erstwhile colleague of Lenin in Switzerland and sometime acquaintance of Dr Goebbels in the Reichstag, Willi Münzenberg (1889-1940). Working alongside Soviet spies, he perfected the art of doing secret business in the open. The ultimate goal has been nicely defined; to create for the right-thinking, non-communist West the dominating political prejudice of the era; the belief that any opinion that happened to serve the Soviet Union was derived from the most essential elements of human decency.’

(1) Oxford historian Norman Davies’ – “Five Basic Rules of Propaganda,” in Europe, a History, Oxford University Press, 1996, pp 500-501

March 8, 2019 12:05 pm

As far as I can see, the whole theory of AGW had completely crumbled as of at least 10 or 15 years ago. The body of this essay lists a few of the results of that crumbling. So what was the result? AGW became overtly political, out of the reach of science. Then AGW went overtly ideological, out of the reach of logic and reason.
Having a presidential commission exposing some of the failures of AGW will accomplish absolutely nothing.
Two generations of people grew up with constant bombardment of AGW for the whole time they were in school. We are now at a point where some 70%+ of people under the age of 45 believe in AGW.
(I love the way the polls ask that. “Believe in”, like it is a religion. As it is.)

As a comparison, well over 50% of young people believe in socialism. You would think the example of Venezuela would change some minds. Not a chance, no effect. Any exposure of the facts surrounding AGW will have the same effect.
All the science in the world will not fix this mess. Understand also that the vast majority of the people of this country are utterly and profoundly scientifically illiterate. Any argument based on science is incomprehensible to them. But they know how they feel.

It is more important to be morally right than to be factually correct. – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

They used to say: As California goes, so goes the country. You want to know the future of the United States, look at California.

Reply to  TonyL
March 8, 2019 1:23 pm

Far too pessimistic, IMO.
Dr. Happer and team will provide honest input to an EPA rethink of the endangerment finding, and a counter to the ‘new’ godawful NCA—in the process exposing and perhaps helping scuttle the next Congressionally mandated one after the 2020 election.
And with respect to 2020, AOC, Oman, and Tlaib are among the 2018 gifts that keep on giving.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 8, 2019 1:46 pm

“too pessimistic” Just call me Susie Sunshine.
The rest is true enough. Putting some honest thinking to work on the endangerment finding and the NCA is most useful. In addition we are out of the Paris Accord. That is a huge plus.

March 8, 2019 12:13 pm

The closest the whole thing comes to is the “The End of the World” cults who give a date, sometime in the future, when the world will end. The date comes and goes, the world goes on. The give a new, improved date for the end of the world. The date comes and goes, the world goes on. In some cases the world goes on without the members of the cult for they have committed suicide or been murdered based on the imminent end of the world.

Initially I was sceptical about the melting of the ice caps, then I calculated how much water they held and it scared the crap out of me. Then I thought about the quantity of heat required to do the melting, plus the average temperature of the locations where the ice caps were, and became a total sceptic.

Now I sit and eat popcorn while the trolls try to attack anyone with any intelligence while demonstrating that they have none.

Lance Flake
March 8, 2019 12:19 pm

Here’s a great example of the un-scientific nature of climate change discussion today:

Coming from a psychologist of course it is all about feelings and “stories”, explicitly blocking out rational thought.

1. Know thyself. Begin by asking yourself this question: “Why does climate change matter to me?” Spend time getting familiar with your own thoughts, emotions, assumptions, stories, and consumption habits.

2. Having a conversation about climate change takes practice. This 11-step approach is not for confronting trolls or deniers. So choose a friend and set yourself up for a win.

3. Begin by asking for consent. Your job is to lead with curiosity, make space, and mostly just listen.

4. Be a good host. Maybe you buy them a cup of coffee or a cookie.

5. Begin by asking, “What do you know about climate change?”

6. Ask: “How do you feel about climate change?” Be curious about confusion, anxiety, grief, anger, indifference, excitement, dread, or whatever else your friend may feel. Climate change is intensely emotional; we have to honor and talk about that.

7. Ask: “What do you think we can do about climate change?” You are helping your friend shift from being a passive observer to an engaged participant.

8. Ask: “What do you think you can do about climate change?” This question is designed to prompt a conversation about hope, participation, and a sense of personal involvement.

9. Ask: “Would you like to learn more or do more about climate change?” I use Project Drawdown as a source of solutions and 350.org, Sunrise Movement, and Climate Reality as examples of groups that help us learn more about climate change. I also suggest that people follow the work of climate scientists such as Katharine Hayhoe and Michael Mann.

10. Ask: “Can we talk about this again sometime?”

11. Continue to talk about climate change.

Bryan A
Reply to  Lance Flake
March 8, 2019 12:32 pm

Exactly why in the world would any intelligent person utilize 350.org or Climate Reality as a source of Valid Information? Far more misinformation than useful information there.

Reply to  Bryan A
March 8, 2019 1:01 pm

The author also recommended the Sunrise Movement, the group that was just in the news for using a bunch of young school kids to ambush Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi over the Green New Deal. The scene was hilarious just as much as the action was despicable.

Reply to  Lance Flake
March 8, 2019 1:10 pm

1. Most people only think about climate when they think about moving somewhere
2. Sounds like witnessing training at a church
3. What is this, a date?
4. LOL I would suck you for all you’re worth.
5. I’d answer, “Do you believe in Jesus?”
6. See #1
7. Answer: “Enjoy your climate, or move.”
8. Answer: “Rent a U-Haul and move.”
9. Answer: “I’d like another coffee. You buying?”
10. Answer: “You buying?”
11. And spend your money on me.

Reply to  icisil
March 8, 2019 3:56 pm

icisil wins the thread.

March 8, 2019 12:26 pm

Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’

Greenpeace Founder: AOC-Type ‘Eco-Fascists’ Pushing Green New Deal Are ‘Against Humans’

March 8, 2019 12:43 pm

“That theory is only so good until another one can be formulated with greater predictive accuracy.”

According to my simpleton understanding of scientific method, the above consist as a half truth and with a
“deceptive’ complication.

The above may have merit only if the said theory or hypothesis still stands firm against the nullification and falsification clause, as otherwise it happens to be considered, rightfully so, and standing up only as “rubbish”, regardless of there being or not another or any other hypothesis with some better formulation and better and greater predictive accuracy or value, in the given subject…

Under the simple logical rationale rule of cancellation, any theory or hypothesis failing clearly toward the scrutiny of validation in context of nullification and falsification, fails clearly and indisputably under its own lack of merit and lack of value, regardless of anything else.

Half truths do not help at all, only may cause more mess and confusion…around a given subject.

Oh, well, that is how I see it and consider it, within my simpleton approach, in consideration of the scientific

Failing the validity test in consideration of both, nullification and falsification, is just clearly simply the end of a hypothesis or theory, with no need for much more in consideration at that point.
No any complicating attempt will matter much at that point…It is dead Jim…
Very dead indeed Jim!


March 8, 2019 12:47 pm

Al Gore would not take questions from his audience

Could this be the Al Gore who said at the recent Climate Change Leadership summit in Porto, Portugal…

“I do not want to get into the issue, but as a politician I will say that I think politicians of the United Kingdom are cowards for not allowing a second referendum

To quote European Council President, Donald Tusk: There is a special place in hell… for Al Gore.

Reply to  fretslider
March 8, 2019 1:11 pm

March 8, 2019 at 12:47 pm

With my superficial understanding, I can not see how the legislation or the Constitution of UK can accommodate, permit or allow for a second referendum in the case of Brexit.

The first referendum already legitimized by the UK government and sanctioned by the British Parliament.
I can’t see or understand how a second referendum can have any legitimacy under such condition!
But hey, Gores of this world may know better.


Reply to  whiten
March 8, 2019 2:45 pm


The answer lies in passing new primary legislation – an Act of Parliament. Parliament would effectively hand the decision back to the people for confirmation.

There’s still some dancing to do yet.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  fretslider
March 8, 2019 3:14 pm

Not if they use the conventional means for considering legislation.
1 First reading and whether or not to proceed further.
2 Refer to a select committee,
3 Give notice of public hearings, public submissions. Hold same.

Return to committee to consider changes as suggested by public.
Back to parliament to debate, clause by clause.

Pass to the Lords, debate again Etc.

The process would take so long that the E.U would have broken up by then but the U.K. would have had to have followed current legislation and have left months before (1st April 2019).

Reply to  fretslider
March 8, 2019 4:07 pm

Maybe so fertslider, but I think that;
if the Parliament already sanctioned the referendum,
the same Parliament can not reverse that sanctioning by means of a second one referendum…what ever trick that it may try, will not be legitimate, I think.

The only means for a second chance can be by the way that the said Parliament resolves to an early dissolve of itself and the government, in consideration of opening the way for an early general election, for a new Parliament, that can make a reassess for the Brexit, where all this clearly in the means of a second chance in assessing the situation as per best outcome.
Where the new Parliament main mandate given by the people will be in the context of a reassessment and a follow through with whatever be the decision after that.
Without the need of a second referendum.

A correction in exercise of power and duty can be only possible when the failing party resigns and opens the way for a second chance…if it can do so without creating bigger problems.

That is what I think, which not necessarily to mention, is only an opinion.

But still I can not see or understand how a second referendum could have any legitimacy at all,
if Brexit referendum already sanctioned by the Parliament!
But hey that’s me, not a politician.
And in a strange world indeed, we live.


Danley Wolfe
March 8, 2019 1:12 pm

So all of this confirms that the climate change “crisis” is not about science at all but just socialist politics to take over a larger and larger role over people’s lives. The real climate change is not alarming and probably already well understood has little to control that will affect the future of the universe. I hope that the Presidential Committee on Climate Security (PCCS) lays bare the fraud that is going on in simple language that 1) any and everyone can understand and 2) cannot be debated either the science and the logic. Climate change is happening. It happens all the time. Solutions to control the climate will do more harm than good. Growth and welfare of economies is dependent on energy, economic supply of energy for developed and especially developing economies. Going to say, 50% or 80-90% renewables is a complete pipe dream, not needed and not doable.

Gary Ashe
March 8, 2019 1:33 pm


No student of history or of the scientific record denies that the climate changes. It is an indisputable attribute of the phenomenon known as evolution.on earth.

Without a changing climate and biosphere there would be no evolution, no reason to advance.

March 8, 2019 1:37 pm

… a former cocktail waitress …

At a faculty meeting it came up that all the faculty members who had been raised in North America had some kind of menial job on their way to academia … cutting grass, driving taxi, waitress, you name it. As far as I can tell, it’s a right of passage. The willingness to work at any available job is a sign of character.

Constructive employment should never be denigrated. Rome whipped Greece’s ass because the Greek warriors were too proud to dig ditches.

William Astley
March 8, 2019 2:45 pm

Let’s have some fun. Real science can once every couple of decades be very exciting.

We can stop CAGW.

We can prove to a barmaid, (using unequivocal simple observations, pictures, and high school level physical logic), we can prove to anyone regardless of their political affiliation, that it is an unequivocal fact, that humans did not cause the recent rise in planetary temperature and that we can burn hydrocarbons without worry.

There is a breakthrough, that is should not be there. This is a civilization changing (stops CAGW) ‘discovery’ that high school students could find if you gave them the observations and a few hints.

A dozen peer reviewed papers using independent observations and analysis have shown that atmospheric CO2 levels track planetary temperature and do not track anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This analysis shows that humans caused roughly 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.

If that statement is correct, then then must be a massive source of CH4 that is continually entering the biosphere.

The breakthrough comes by showing in pictures and using high school text book level logic, that there are piles and piles of unequivocal geological observations that show there are massive amounts of CH4 continually entering the biosphere and what is the source of the CH4 that is pushed into the biosphere.

This is fun as it is interesting for a general audience and it is real. I will prepare something. This is a topic that has legs.

Dudley Horscroft
March 9, 2019 1:42 am

Charles, who is the “former cocktail waitress” whose “free-thought ramblings” you refer to?

Also, if you have them, what are the terms of reference of Dr Happer’s inquiry?

Why do some of the respondents refer to the inquiry as being ‘closed’?
Eg: ‘steven mosher March 8, 2019 at 10:25 am’
“too bad happer wants to lead a closed process that refuses to abide by thong like the data quality act.”

BTW, I believe ‘thong’ refers to what are known in Australia as ‘flip-flops’ or Japanese Safety Boots.

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
March 9, 2019 2:10 pm

Yes the thong is a flip flop.

On the closed process, Donald is sending in the Red Team against the Blue Team with the intention of opening up this can of worms for all the world to see.

Mark Pawelek
March 10, 2019 10:07 am

I’d like to see some controlled experiments contracted out to the best available experimental physicists:
1) downwelling IR increase due to more CO2
2) degree of warming to water by this downwelling IR
3) degree of warming to typical earth by same downwelling IR.

If witnesses are called, please ignore any model makers; they’ve been hogging the spotlight for 3 decades now.

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
March 10, 2019 10:25 am

1) downwelling IR increase due to more CO2

%d bloggers like this: