A letter sent to president Trump supports Dr. Will Happer, has dozens of supporters.
Dear President Trump,
The undersigned organizations and individuals write to express our strong support for the proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security. It is our understanding that this commission, which is being planned and would be directed by Dr. William Happer of the National Security Council staff, is currently being considered by your senior White House staff and relevant Cabinet secretaries and agency heads. The commission would consist of a small number of distinguished experts on climate-related science and national security. It would be charged with conducting an independent, high-level review of the Fourth National Climate Assessment and other official reports relating to climate and its implications for national security. Its deliberations would be subject to the transparency requirements of the Federal Advisory Committees Act.
In our view, an independent review of these reports is long overdue. Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports. Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2 concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative impacts of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has actually occurred. An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific method.
The conclusions and predictions made by these reports are the basis for proposed energy policies that could cost trillions of dollars in less than a decade and tens of trillions of dollars over several decades. Given the magnitude of the potential costs involved, we think that taking the insular processes of official, consensus science on trust, as has been the case for the past three decades, is negligent and imprudent. In contrast, major engineering projects are regularly subjected to the most rigorous and exhaustive adversarial review. We suggest that climate science requires at least the same level of scrutiny as the engineering employed in building a bridge or a new airplane.
We note that defenders of the climate consensus have already mounted a public campaign against the proposed commission. We find this opposition curious. If the defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been raised. On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand critical review.
We further note that opponents of the proposed commission have already stooped to making personal attacks on Dr. Happer. Many signers of this letter know Dr. Happer personally and all are familiar with his scientific career. We know him to be a man of high capabilities, high achievements, and the highest integrity.
It has been reported that some officials within your administration have proposed an internal working group as an alternative to an independent commission subject to FACA. Insofar as an internal working group would consist of federal career scientists reviewing their own work, we think this alternative would be worse than doing nothing.
Although an independent commission of distinguished scientists would have high credibility, we do not mean to imply that its report should be the end of the matter. We therefore suggest that the National Academies of Science and Engineering would be appropriate bodies to conduct an initial review of the commission’s report.
Mr. President, you have made a number of comments in recent years expressing doubts about the global warming consensus. Many of the signers of this letter have been similarly skeptical. Without prejudging the results, we think that a review of climate science produced by an independent, high-level commission would be a fair test for your views (and ours): either it would provide a sound basis for revising your views or it would confirm your views and confound your critics.
For these reasons, we urge you to create by Executive Order a President’s Commission on Climate Security. Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Myron Ebell, Director, Center for Energy and Environment
and Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Tim Huelskamp, Ph. D., President and CEO
and Joseph L. Bast, Founder and Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute
Adam Brandon, President
FreedomWorks
Tim Chapman, Executive Director
Heritage Action for America
Thomas Pyle President
American Energy Alliance
Thomas Schatz, President
Citizens Against Government Waste
Craig Rucker, President
and Marc Morano, Publisher, CFACT’s Climate Depot
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
Steve Milloy, Publisher
Junk Science
James L. Martin, Founder and Chairman
and Saulius “Saul” Anuzis, President
60 Plus Association
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, Chairman
and Kenneth Haapala, President
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Robert L. Bradley, Jr., CEO
Institute for Energy Research
Craig D. Idso, Ph. D., Chairman
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Tom Harris, Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Eunie Smith, President
Eagle Forum
Rick Manning, President
Americans for Limited Government
Craig Richardson, President
Energy and Environment Legal Institute
Phil Kerpen, President
American Commitment
Mario H. Lopez, President
Hispanic Leadership Fund
Al Regnery, Chairman
Conservative Action Project
Bill Walton, Chairman
CNP Action, Inc.
Jennifer Fielder, CEO
American Lands Council
Tom DeWeese, President
American Policy Center
Andrew Langer, President
Institute for Liberty
David T. Stevenson, Policy Director
and Clinton S. Laird, Advisory Council
Caesar Rodney Institute
Rob Roper, President
Ethan Allen Institute
Kory Swanson, President and CEO
John Locke Foundation
Paul Gessing, President
Rio Grande Foundation
Jason Hayes, Director of Environmental Policy
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Kathleen Hartnett White, Senior Fellow and Director,
Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment Life: Powered, a Project of the Texas Public Policy Foundation
Daniel Turner, Founder and Executive Director
Power the Future
John Droz, Jr., Founder
Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions
Alex Epstein, Founder
Center for Industrial Progress
Mark Mathis, President
Clear Energy Alliance
Mandy Gunasekara, Founder
Energy 45 Fund
Peter Ferrara, Chief Consultant
and David Wallace, President and Founder
FAIR Energy Foundation
Mark Anderson, Executive Director & Host
and Karla Davenport, Co-Owner & Producer
I Spy Radio
Affiliations of the individuals listed alphabetically below are given for identification purposes only. Academic affiliations have been placed in parentheses to make this doubly clear.
Peter F. Alexander, L. A., Landscape Architect Planner
J. Scott Armstrong, Ph. D., (Professor, University of Pennsylvania)
Charles R. Anderson, Ph. D., President and Principal Scientist, Anderson Materials Evaluation
Dennis T. Avery, Co-author (with S. Fred Singer) of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years
Timothy Ball, Ph. D., Author of Human Caused Global Warming
Joe Bastardi, Chief Meteorologist, Weatherbell.com, Author of The Climate Chronicles Charles G. Battig, M. S., M. D., Policy Adviser, The Heartland Institute
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph. D., Founder and National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Denis Beller, Ph. D., Lt. Col., USAF (ret.), (Research Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas)
Edwin X. Berry, Ph. D. (Physics), Climate Physics, LLC, Montana
Joseph Bevelacqua, Ph. D., CHP, RRPT, President, Bevelacqua Resources Mark J. Block, CEO, Mother Nature’s Trading Company
Karl Bohnak, Chief Meteorologist, WLUC, Marquette, Mich. Vice Admiral Edward S. Briggs, U. S. Navy (ret.)
William Butos, Ph. D., (Ferris Professor, Emeritus, Trinity College) Mark L. Campbell, (Professor, United States Naval Academy)
Alan Carlin, Ph. D., Senior Analyst (ret.), Environmental Protection Agency, CarlinEconomics.com
Mark J. Carr, Channel Design Group
Jeffrey A. Casey, Ph. D., President, Rockfield Research, Inc.
Dr. Ian Clark, P. Geo., (Professor, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Ottawa)
Dr. Imelda Connolly, Connolly Scientific Research Group Dr. Michael Connolly, Connolly Scientific Research Group
Dr. Ronan Connolly, Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES)
Donn Dears, B. S., (Engineering), Senior Executive, General Electric Company (ret.), Author of Clexit for a Brighter Future
Paul deWitt, M. A., U. S. Navy (ret.)
David Deming, Ph. D. (Geophysics), (Professor of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma)
James D. Derbonné, Aerospace Engineer for Mercury, Apollo, Space Shuttle, and Space Station Programs, NASA (ret.)
Harold H. Doiron, Ph. D. (Mechanical Engineering), Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, Engineer, NASA (ret.)
Becky Norton Dunlop, Former Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Former Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources
George S. Dunlop, Former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
John Dale Dunn, M. D., J. D., Policy Adviser, The Heartland Institute
Robert W. Endlich, M. S. (Meteorology), Principal, Cruces Atmospheric Sciences Forum, Lt. Col., USAF (ret.)
Vincent J. Esposito, Sc. D., former Westinghouse Vice President, (Adjunct Professor, University of Pittsburgh)
Bruce M. Everett, Ph. D.
Peter Felker, Ph. D., Los Angeles, California
Neil L. Frank, Ph. D., former Director, National Hurricane Center
Patrick Frank, Ph. D., (SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University) Gordon J. Fulks, Ph. D. (Physics—University of Chicago)
Terry Gannon, Ph. D., Climateintro.com
Grace Germany, NASA (ret.)
Ivar Giaever, Ph. D., Nobel Prize Winner in Physics 1973
Leo Goldstein, M. Sc., President, Science for Humans and Freedom Institute Laurence I. Gould, Ph. D., (Professor of Physics, University of Hartford) Prof. Dr. Hermann Harde, (Helmut-Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany) Larry Hart, Hartco Strategies
Howard Hayden, Ph. D., (Professor Emeritus of Physics University of Connecticut) Thomas Hayward, Admiral, U. S. Navy (ret.)
Dennis Hedke, Consulting Geophysicist, Hedke-Saenger Geoscience, Ltd.
Tom Hennigan, (Associate Professor of Organism Biology and Ecology, Truett McConnell University)
James H. Hollingsworth, M. A. Mark L. Hopkins, BSEE, J. D, MLB William B. Howard, B. S.
Christopher C. Hull, Ph. D., Senior Fellow, Americans for Intelligence Reform Jon P. Kahler, M. S., Retired Meteorologist
Richard A. Keen, Ph. D., (Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Colorado)
Hugh Kendrick, Ph. D., P. E., Former Director, Plans and Analysis, Nuclear Reactor Research, U. S. Department of Energy
Sheryl Kaufman, Corporate Chief Economist (ret.), Phillips Petroleum Company Madhav Khandekar, Ph. D., Scientist (ret.), Environment Canada
William L. Kovacs, J. D., Former Senior Vice President for Environment, Technology, and Regulatory Affairs at a major trade association
Hans U. Kurr, Simultaneous Interpreter (ret.), United Nations
Gary Kyle, (Professor of Physics Emeritus, New Mexico State University) David R. Legates, Ph. D., (Professor, University of Delaware)
Jay Lehr, Ph. D., Science Director, The Heartland Institute Jonathan A. Lesser, Ph. D., President, Continental Economics, Inc.
Floy Lilley, J. D., Special Projects, Mises Institute Anthony R. Lupo, (Professor, Columbia, Missouri)
Robert Lyman, Energy Economist, ENTRANS Policy Research Group Matthew Malkan, Ph. D., Los Angeles, California
Martin J. Mangino, Ph. D., (Virginia Commonwealth University)
R. Timothy McCrum, J. D., Member of the DC and Supreme Court Bars, Washington,
D. C.
Michael McKenna, Former Trump Transition head for Department of Energy, FERC, and NRC
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph. D., Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Dennis M. Mitchell, CPA (ret.), Qualified Environmental Professional Deroy Murdock, Contributing Editor, National Review Online
Miles J. Novy, M. D., (Emeritus Professor and Senior Scientist, Oregon Health Sciences University)
Dennis G. Ortega,
James M. Peacock, Aerospace Engineer (ret.) for Apollo, Sky Lab, and Space Shuttle Programs, NASA, U. S. Air Force Research and Development
Charles W. Pennington, M. S., MBA, Vice President, NAC International (ret.) Charles A. Perry, Ph. D., Climatologist
John W. Peterson, Burke, Va.
Brian Pratt, Ph. D., (University of Saskatchewan)
A. G. Randol III, Ph. D., Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment
Allen Rogers, CEO, ALR Consulting
Bernard Rosenbaum, Senior Engineer (ret.), Propulsion and Power Division, NASA Johnson Space Center
James H. Rust, Policy Adviser, The Heartland Institute, (Professor of Nuclear Engineering (ret.), Georgia Tech)
Gary D. Sharp, Ph. D., Scientific Director, Center for Climate and Ocean Resources Study
Hal Shurtleff, Director, Camp Constitution
Willie Soon, Ph. D., Solar and Atmospheric Physicist
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. (Meteorology), (University of Alabama Huntsville)
Charles N. Steele, Ph. D., (Herman and Suzanne Dettwiler Chair in Economics, Hillsdale College)
J. Eldon Steelman, Ph. D. (Electrical Engineering) Ted Stout, D. C.
Szymon Suckewer, Ph. D., D. Sc. (Habilitation), (Professor Emeritus, Princeton University)
Michael C. Sununu, S. B. (MIT)
Daniel Sutter, (Professor of Economics, Troy University)
Brendon Swedlow, Ph. D, J. D., (Associate Professor, Northern Illinois University) Thomas Tanton, Energy and Environment Legal Institute
Mitchell Taylor, Ph. D., (Adjunct Professor, Lakehead University), Former Member of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group
Nancy J. Thorner, Lake Bluff, Ill.
David H. Tofsted, Ph. D. (Electrical Engineering), former Senior Research Physicist,
U. S. Army Research Laboratory, White Sands Missile Range
Cecil Joe Tomlinson, Senior Principal Engineer (ret.), Boeing Company
Brian Gregory Valentine, D. Eng., U. S. Department of Energy, (University of Maryland)
Donald R. van der Vaart, Ph. D. (Trinity College, Cambridge), P. E., J. D., Former Secretary, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Phil Volker, President, ERF/WMG Companies, Inc.
Lance Wallace, Ph. D. (Astrophysics), EPA Office of Research and Development (ret.) Anthony Watts, Meteorologist and Publisher, Watts Up With That?
Steven Weismantel, Connecticut Climate Realists Chuck F. Wiese, Meteorologist, Weatherwise, Inc.
Adam Wildavsky, S. B. (MIT), Senior Software Engineer (ret.), Google David Wojick, Ph. D.
George T. Wolff, Ph. D., Principal Scientist, Air Improvement Resources, Inc.
Thomas H. Wysmuller, Meteorologist, NASA (ret.), Founding Member of the Right Climate Stuff Team
Benjamin Zycher, Ph. D., Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
It’s about time. Skeptics have a sympathetic ear in the White House and should take advantage of it.
Agreed, if a bit late.
I would put it as:
“US national security finally has a sympathetic ear in the White House, and not Iran’s or Russia’s.”
And isn’t it ironic that the press characterizes this as exactly the opposite.
It would be very interesting to measure the additional email traffic being generated amongst the Climategate ‘conspirators’ when this open letter to Trump becomes public.
About time this action occurred….I say better late than never, while remaining optimistic it will have the desired outcome on Climate Science.
I am less certain it will be enough to influence the masses of people on the CAGW train, but it is a start.
Right now, the only person the letter has to influence is DJT.
For a balanced view the commission should include M.Mann and G.Schmidt…
Bwahahahaha. Oh you’re serious. M. Mann and G. Schmidt is the best you could come up with to represent your side? Bwahahahahahaha.
“Right now, the only person the letter has to influence is DJT”
How about Donna Brazile then?
The epitome of dissension!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5xw1j-4w7E
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Roger, I think you meant that as a reply to George Daddis, not to me.
I think that would be excellent. But I guarantee you, if invited they would not participate.
We know G. Schmidt wouldn’t. He refused to be on camera at the same time as a skeptic. Again, that’s the best Leif could come up with to represent his side? seriously?
And even if they did agree to participate, they would soon resign with excuses in an attempt to discredit the commision.
Leif, I agree. They have studiously avoided debate in the past. This would be an excellent chance for them to showcase what they have.
Leif wrote: “For a balanced view the commission should include… the exact same people’s work and conclusions that will be reviewed.
I strongly disagree Leif.
For exactly the same reason you are not allowed to referee/review your own manuscript submission to a journal.
Good point Joel. As it’s the IPCCs work, among others, that would be under review having someone who was involved in that work (and tries to lay claim to the nobel that was given to the IPCC for that work as his own) would be very much like having the author of a manuscript being a peer reviewer of said manuscript.
Besides, I’m sure the New York Times and WAPO will post a full-page op-ed of their dissenting opinions.
Given their dismissive behavior, their views might more accurately be characterized as unbalanced.
Leif,
So you want Mann and Schmidt to review their own work? That wouldn’t make the panel very “independent”, would it?
The experts invited to the commission would be reviewing the own works too…
The Commission should examine pros and cons, one should think.
We already have plenty of “reports” from the likes of the IPCC giving one side of the story already, time for the rest of the story to come to light. But I do agree there is a place for the likes of Mann and Schimdt – on the witness stand, under oath, answering questions.
so, why do you object?
Everybody in the commission should (must) do that, if somebody must.
Except, of course, that is not the way science works.
Under oath, you tell what you think you know.
As Mark Twain say: “it is not what you know that gets you in trouble, but what you know that ain’t so”.
Oath does help here.
NOT help here, of course
You right that oath does not help with liars like Mann (he lied on his court filings about being a nobel prize winner. If he’ll lie to a court over something so easily checked, what won’t he lie about?)
If the FBI can investigate Boeing regarding their involvement in certification of Boeing aircraft with the FAA, what credible argument can be made against investigating the self-certification that the NSF, NOAA, EPA, and NASA have been doing of their own work?
GETTTA clue, …… Gary, …… the devious, dastardly, dishonest self-certification that the NSF, NOAA, EPA, and NASA have been doing of their own work …… does not subject hundreds-of-thousands of airline passengers to being killed each and every year via airplane crashes.
Sammy, calm down. I’m asking a question of principle regarding the Presidents Climate Security Commission proposal, not exonerating Boeing.
So, you are in favor of a Presidential Commission certifying a Boeing design????
Samuel, take a deep breath and try to respond coherently. I fail to see how the conclusion you jump to stem from anything Gary said. All Gary has said is if one case of self-certification can be investigate there’s no credible reason against investigating other cases of self-certification. The point being that self-certification should be investigated, whether it’s Boeing or if it’s the NSF,NOAA,EPA and NASA. Do you consider investigation of self-certification to be a bad thing? if not then I fail to see what your beef with Gary on this is all about.
“For a balanced view the commission should include M.Mann and G.Schmidt…”
Leif, you forgot the sarc tag.
Leif, I started researching global warming ~35 years ago as a geology grad student. I was truly concerned that we were using our atmosphere as a sewer without knowing or caring about the repercussions. But when I read Michael Mann’s papers, I was dumbstruck by the quality (or lack thereof) of his research. His credo seemed to be “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS. And every paper of his that I have read was full of the latter and none of the former. Later I started reading Real Science and asking logical questions, only to have my questions censored and be told repeatedly by Gavin Schmidt that I was too stupid to understand climate science. By this point, I was a registered professional geologist, and while not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I knew I was not too stupid to understand good science. And when the Climategate emails were released, I came to the realization that Mann and Schmidt are just Witch Doctors of the Church of Climate Change.
You’re absolutely right, they should be on the commission. Force them to debate the science. I would look forward to it!
Force them to debate the science.
While they should be on the witness stand, under oath, answering the hard questions, Making them actually have to debate the science (without walking off the stage when the other side speaks) would be a good alternative.
Well, that’s torture, you know.
The Commission’s findings will involve National Security issues…as well as the integrity of science. So, by analogy…if Mann and Schmidt are invited, we should also reach out to Vladimir Putin.
If they all show up…slap the cuffs on them.
Though, giving it further though, the commission should include M.Mann and G. Schmidt – not as part of the commission but brought to the stand and sworn to tell the truth…..(granted M.Mann might have a wee bit of trouble with that last part give that he’s willing to lie on court documents).
Unfortunately, they don’t meet the requirements of having a sincere interest in science, and in telling the truth.
In all fairness, I believe that Mann and Schmidt have had sufficient pedestals for their points of view – and particularly in the case of Mann, have abused it.
And would ‘their side’ be so accommodating? I think we can safely say, ‘not’.
I may be a minority here, but I like and respect Leif, and listen to his opinion – and of course, none of this is up to me, but at this point, I’m not inclined to be generous, after my own extended hand has been repeatedly bitten.
I propose Rep Hank Johnson (D, GA) to advocate a balanced view of Guam, which is otherwise quite unbalanced…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q
He can speak of “Tipping Points”, too!
Leif, wh is the Ideal Gas Law part of Star formation theory, but is “Silliness” here above Earth and all other planets over 0.1 Bar atmosphere? Brett
How do we add our signatures?
Yes indeed. This is of global interest and a global petition supporting this commission would be a good idea.
Hallelujah! Its about time…actually long overdue.
One of the first orders of inquiry IMO should be a comparison of the NOAA-ESRL CO2 records with the data from OCO-2 spectrophotometric satellite observations.
By now, the OCO-2 data team must have enough CO2 data to show us where the sinks and sources of CO2 are and match that up with the MLO record and other surface readings. OCO-2 monthly gallery products have not been produced by NASA since mid-2007. (Note: While the large level-2 dataset is available for download, the data file sizes (terabytes) and complexity in geospatial assembly makes this an endeavor that only a well funded technical team with significant computing-IT resources can handle.)
The point being:
1) verify the MLO readings that serves as the gold standard for the CO2 instrumental record.
2) demonstrate where the anthropogenic sources are located and their relative fluxes compared to the natural flux.
3) Understand why NASA has stopped making the monthly OCO-2 gallery product available.
From this OCO-2 determination, understand more clearly what the US CO2 source and sink contributions are to the global fluxes. We simply cannot use estimates emissions from energy usage records, but actual data to show what the CO2 fluxes are from the areas under US control versus the rest of the world, especially where the UNFCCC COP process sets no practical emission limits like China.
If this is about understanding anthropogenic sources of climate change in regards to national security, then we have to acknowledge we cannot control China’s CO2 nor does the IPCC COP set any limits on it for at least another dozen years. If any reductions we can make are meaningless to the CO2 global flux with China continuing to accelerate fossil fuel burning,we are simply harming our national security via weakening our economy to chase unobtainable temperature goals by 2050, much less 2100.
Finally, I’d note that atmospheric spectrophotometry is exactly within Dr Happer’s recognized expertise skill set. Thus this could be a clear route for Dr Happer to silence critics who try to assert he is not technically suited to evaluate the Climate Change industry’s technical foundations. And the CO2 surface records comparison with OCO-2’s satellite record would go straight to the heart of the alarmists’ arguments, that their repeated demands for prompt climate action on the US control of it CO2 emissions relative to the rest of the world.
Correction in the first paragraph:
I wrote “since mid-2007”.
I meant “mid-2017”
OCO-2 went up in 2014. We are approaching the 5th year anniversary for OCO-2 producing data.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
For climate science to be good science, we must use empirical data, and not ‘data’ generated by climate models.
Calling the output of climate models ‘data’ is an outright lie!
Fantastic! Sent via email? I hope a register mail was sent as well. Copies to news services should be sent as well.
commission should include M.Mann and G.Schmidt
….
How about Gore and DiCaprio? And Bernie Sanders and AOC?
While those names have about as much credibility (not much, to be honest) as the ones Leif named, at least the ones he named work in the scientific field rather than being actors and politicians, so have some veneer of being credible (Though, let’s be frank, refusing to so much as be on the same stage as those with opposing viewpoints or lying about being a nobel prize winner in court filings doesn’t do much for a person’s credibility)
I wonder, if it ever happens, when such information and the subsequent debates will pass through the media and political filter in France (and elsewhere). :-\
Thank God for that. I am waiting for the day the sheeple finally wake up and get very very angry, and so they should.
To quote Michael Mann…
…it’s not helping the cause…” — Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 30, 2008
Any commission that does not include
the world’s greatest authority on
climate change, and every thing elks,
Ms. Alexandria Occasionally Coherent,
is not a commission I would listen to !
But seriously now:
President Trump has good instincts on
climate change, but his knowledge
of climate science is near zero.
I wish he would learn a little,
but he’s not much of a “learner”.
Therefore, Trump can not be
a spokesman to point out
even the most obvious differences
between real science
and climate change junk science.
So a commission could be a good idea.
But the purpose of the commission,
based on the letter that was signed
by many impressive people,
is a big problem.
The “Commission” will fail
unless their goal is feasible.
The goal stated in the letter is not feasible
if it includes refuting the fictional
Fourth National Climate Assessment,
completed recently.
They can not evaluate any climate assessments
or predictions done in the past decade or two.
Predictions of climate doom IN THE FUTURE
can not be proven wrong, beyond a reasonable doubt,
without waiting for 10 or 20 years !
Predictions are impossible,
to falsify when they are made.
How about a 100-year prediction?
Can you wait ten years and point out
the actual temperatures do not match
the first ten years of the prediction,
so the entire 100-year prediction
MUST be wrong ?
People won’t buy that.
The primary Climate Change Hoax
is that the future climate CAN be predicted.
We get a new prediction of climate doom every year
( to distract us from all the past wrong predictions ! )
In fact, every prediction of environmental doom
has been wrong, starting with DDT in the 1960’s !
100% wrong predictions
— only “experts” could be that wrong !
The “Commission” must evaluate climate predictions
from the past, and point out how wrong they have been,
over the decades, because the theory they are based on
( as documented in the 1979 Charney Report )
is wrong !
They could start in the late 1950’s
with Roger Revelle’s scaremongering.
Or start in 1988, when the IPCC was launched.
Or perhaps start in 1979 when UAH satellite
temperature data begin, and compare the actuals
with climate model wrong wild guesses.
We have over 60 years of wrong climate predictions,
to prove that the underlying “science” is wrong,
yet is still being used for more wrong predictions today.
My climate science blog:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Ms. Alexandria Occasionally Coherent,
you are too generous by granting the possibility she’s occasionally coherent.
Let’s be optimistic :
They could also start comparing IPCC’s junk-science with sound science based on observations :
– Kondratyev-1969 or Manabe & Möller 1961 on the radiative effect of CO2 and H2O vapor on the atmosphere heat balance.
– Modest 2003 – Radiative heat transfer (and why Stefan – Boltzmann law can’t be applied neither to the atmosphere – which can only radiate heat thanks to “greenhouse” gases – nor to the Earth’s surface – which can’t radiate more than it absorbed minus what it lost by convection and evaporation).
They would then conclude that the “greenhouse” gases theory is a total failure.
Correction :
the Earth’s surface – which can’t lose more heat by radiation than the heat it absorbed (from the sun) minus what it lost by convection and evaporation
I just got a nice email from the White House thanking me for my support. Actually this is the 2nd email, since they also sent an original acknowledgment receipt email. This was to do with the proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security that was hosted here a few weeks ago, suggesting we all send an email to the White House supporting this. While it is a form bulk email, it is nice to know that the White House must read their mail, cause if I had sent a nasty critical letter, I doubt I would have got this reply. I would bet that the President and Oval Office will be adopting this Commission on Climate Security. Yeah!!!
“Thank you for your kind letter and generous words of encouragement. Your unwavering faith and support sustain and inspire me in my efforts to strengthen and protect our Nation.
Since my first day in office, I have taken actions to keep Americans safe and restore the rule of law. Americans are living in communities that are safer, stronger, and more secure.
My Administration is making real change in Washington and creating a land of freedom and opportunity. Our Nation’s economy is experiencing tremendous growth. Our country is roaring back more quickly than anyone could have predicted. From coast to coast, there is a renewed spirit of optimism, and the American Dream has never been more attainable.
Thank you again for your steadfast support. As President, I will continue to fight for and uphold the American values that you and I both cherish.
Sincerely,
Donald Trump
I hope that the Commission can also examine the computer models used by the likes of the UN IPCC and others. If they are found to be wildly inaccurate, then that should be publicised as its at the heart of the problem in that such predictions come “Facts” are accepted by politicians and then lots of the taxpayer s money gets spent.
I would hope that the Commission also examines the CO2 molecule and states if indeed we can tell the difference between a gas produced by humans burning fuel in a power station to that same gas produced by a forest fire.
Because the whole of the Green scare campagna appears to be basted on the climate damage caused by us naughty humans. So if there is no chemical difference then that should be the end of this Green nonsense.
And we should refuse to accept their ploy of calculating the human caused CO2 from how much coal and oil etc is burned. Because that means that if as I suspect vast amounts of CO2 are being released from the Oceans, thenwhat we produce is so small as to be of no consequences in the overall scheme of things.
MJE VK5ELL