Written by Alex Newman
A massive coalition of environmental organizations, activists, and think-tank leaders signed a letter to President Donald Trump supporting the proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS), as well as the work of Trump climate and national security adviser Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. The campaign, which comes amid fierce establishment resistance to re-examining government “climate science,” also backs an independent scientific review of the increasingly dubious claims made in federal climate reports. Analysts say this battle will be crucial in establishing the credibility of government climate science — or the lack thereof.
The coalition letter, signed by almost 40 leading policy organizations and well over 100 prominent leaders, argues that an independent review of federal global-warming 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,” the leaders and organizations explained. Indeed, in multiple cases, federal bureaucracies have even been accused of fraudulently manipulating data and findings to support their politically backed conclusions.
“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,” the signatories wrote.
The highly unscientific nature of the claims — many of which cannot be tested or falsified — also casts doubt on the alarmist findings contained in widely ridiculed federal climate reports. “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,” explained the coalition letter to Trump supporting the PCCS, which brought together many of America’s most influential environmental and conservative-leaning public policy organizations.
Perhaps the most alarming element of the whole saga is that this supposed “science” is serving as the pretext for trillions of dollars in government spending, as well as unprecedented empowerment of governments and international bureaucracies such as the United Nations and its various agencies. The man-made global-warming hypothesis also underpins drastic policy changes that restrict individual liberty and free markets that harm everyone, and especially the world’s poorest people, for nebulous alleged benefits. As such, the science must be thoroughly reviewed, and it must be completely transparent, the coalition said.
“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,” the letter explained. “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.”
As The New American reported earlier this month, the establishment is in full freak-out mode over the proposed presidential commission on climate science. Far-left Democrats in Congress have slammed the idea as “dangerous.” A coalition of globalist “national security” professionals, mostly from the far-left Obama administration, even claimed reviewing the science would be a threat to “national security.” The establishment media has gone absolutely bonkers, endlessly demonizing Trump and Happer for failing to genuflect before their climate beliefs — the faith of a “climate” movement that leading experts such as MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen have even described as a “cult.”
The letter highlighted how bizarre this was. “We note that defenders of the climate consensus have already mounted a public campaign against the proposed commission,” the signatories wrote. “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.”
Indeed, as this magazine and many other sources have documented, the alleged “science” upon which the man-made global-warming hysteria is based is highly suspect at best. Self-styled “climate scientists” have been repeatedly exposed in unethical behavior, including hiding and manipulating data that contradicts their hypothesis. The predictions of the alarmist movement have been remarkably consistent, too — for decades, they have been wrong about virtually everything. And even former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have blown the whistle on massive fraud, only to be ignored or demonized by alarmists.
The nasty and vitriolic attacks on skeptical scientists such as Dr. Happer are also highly suspicious. “We further note that opponents of the proposed commission have already stooped to making personal attacks on Dr. Happer,” the letter to Trump continued, praising the Princeton physics professor who is almost universally respected in the scientific community. “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.”
Indeed, Happer is a leading expert in this field, and is widely respected scientist even among those who disagree with him. He also happens to disagree with the increasingly discredited hypothesis that man’s emissions of CO2 — a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — control the climate. “CO2 will be good for the Earth,” Happer told The New American magazine at a 2016 climate conference in Phoenix, Arizona, that brought together leading scientists and experts in various fields to expose the lies and alarmism. He added it was “pretty clear that we’re not going to see dangerous climate change” as a result of human CO2 emissions.
HT/truthmatters, Mark L
Bravo! It is about time!
Happer is a real scientist, unlike those who count polar bear scat and call themselves climate scientists.
Seems like an eminently decent person
Will, is a great guy! We have exchanged numerous emails on climate to MSRs…
FYI: Earlier in the “polar bears are going extinct!” charade, the polar bear scat-counters didn’t even bother to do that. Apparently, to this day, there has never bee a comprehensive polar bear census; selected sub-populations have been counted, but not all populations.
It sure smells like the Griffs of the world just made up the numbers (AKA they just flat lied).
See “Never Look a Polar Bear in the Eye” Zac Unger
The scat counters were actual some reasonable scientists.
The tour operators and MSM hucksters not so much.
You are correct Nick.
There are scat counters who meticulously collect all polar bear scat samples and dna test each feces.
That allows them to:
A) Identify the foods eaten.
a) surprise! Polar bears eat more than seals!
B) Identify each bear scat individually to specific polar bears.
a) Allowing these researchers to factually count polar bears!
aa) Surprise! They identify far more bears than the PBI crowd assume exist.
I see: I had always suspected that climate skeptics learned all about polar bears without actually going into the field and counting or researching them…
Why would you suspect that when we have an expert such as Dr. Susan J. Crockford who provides us proper scientific information on the state of the bears from her ongoing research ?
Unless of course you want to visit the poles to search for sick and underweight bears to photograph for political purpose, whilst ignoring the ever increasing numbers of healthy bears. But that would be a really sick joke, right ?
Have you gone and counted Polar Bears, Griff? If not, where do you get your Polar Bear information? I get mine from Dr. Susan Crockford.
He counted the bears at the South Pole and declared they were extinct!
Eat it!
https://www.thegwpf.org/polar-bear-numbers-could-have-quadrupled/
“Skeptic” and scientist are the same thing so, why don’t you call them scientists?
Griff, ….. for probably the 1st time in your life you suspected correctly, …. that climate skeptics don’t learn about polar bear numbers by actually going into the field and counting them, ……. they learn about polar bear numbers by actually FLYING AIRPLANES over the landscape and counting them.
More projection from the utterly ignorant g.
Derocher and Amstrup admitted that they estimated polar bear populations by feeling, not
observation.
hint: They’re alarmists.
The same alarmists who arranged a specious and very false character assassination against Dr. Crockford. Their alleged paper was debunked and destroyed thoroughly. Only the scurrilous editor of the journal in which they published ignores calls for the massively erroneous and libelous paper to be retracted.
Once again, alleged science is based on emotions, jealousy and hatred, not scientific methods or observations.
Don’t feed the troll. He’s gone and was just looking for some triggering.
“Methinks they doth protest too much.”
A bit of a rephrasing from Shakespeare
Another paraphrase from the Shakespeare’s era: Climate science works like “Deus ex machina” – Fake contraption designed to make us believe in magic, and shrouded in fog…
“What fools these mortals be.”
-Midsummer Nights Dream, Act 3, Scene 2
Or,
“it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
– Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5
As are most endeavors of man.
Open the door and let the light in.
Leonard Cohen?
Light at the end of the tunnel? Next they try to pack the committee?
RB, I see what you did there…..Bravo!!
Let’s see where this goes. I have high expectations based on the facts,
Fantastic, about time.
We need something like this in the UK to counter the dross pushed out by Lord Deben and his Climate change committee.
We need to rescind the Climate change act as well.
I went to a talk by Lord Deben a couple of weeks ago. It was like a happy clappy revivalist meeting. A young woman/girl asked one of those “it doesn’t matter to you but it’s our future” questions and the older members of the audience swooned. What is wrong with the grown-ups in the UK? They are desperate for someone to tell them what to do and what to think.
I blame he sixties generation, flower power and love conquers all. Here’s news. it doesn’t. Nor does it keep the lights on when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Natural gas does that. Or, if you ban fracking, it won’t, and people will die of cold in the winter. But they won’t be young people who own the future, it’ll just be the old and the poor and the sick, who don’t. So that’s OK then.
JF
“I blame the sixties generation”
How right you are. See here
geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/dirty-deben-does-drugs-and-potty-talk/
where Lord Deben (who is required by statute to tell the British government how many squillions they must spend on countering climate change) reveals how he bases his belief in climate catastrophe on the word of a depressive hippy who gets her drugs direct from Amazonian tribes.
It may be a bit awkward, but why not have two committees? One for each side of the debate.
That way any conflict of interest on each committee would presumably be minimized.
And the Alarmists would not feel slighted until the results became known….
And the Alarmists would not feel slighted until the results became known….
Personally, I’m becoming weary of assuaging the feelings of Stupid. Let the Ilks of They scream at the sky for all I care.
When the results become known is all that’s going to matter anyway, regardless of the interim. If those results aren’t to their liking, the screaming will ensue, and what went before will be forgotten.
I don’t think you’ll get a committee of consensus scientists. They believe it would be a waste of time – since consensus science is the real stuff, why debate it?
The consensus position is pretty well stated in IPCC’s AR5 and in the 2018 Nat’l Climate Assessment, which was written by K. Hayhoe and her cohort. They don’t really need a committee.
I hope Trump’s committee, among other things, will clear up some of the mistaken views of what the NCA actually says. Some of the Armaggedon scenarios bandied about were based on worst-case airborne CO2 concentrations that some thought were presented as conservative.
I also hope Prof. Happer will concentrate on the skeptical case for climate science and will refrain from the “more CO2 the better” comments that have made him somewhat of a lightning rod for alarmist exaggerations. He understands the behavior of CO2 as well as anybody and I hope he’ll focus on that.
This says it all.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Michael Crichton
Regards
Climate Heretic
Greg Woods March 21, 2019 at 2:54 pm
Ah, no.
What needs to be added or made available Are the I.G. of any government agencies from which Grants were issued. Also a few people from the Attorney Generals office. Umm, A judge would be in order to subpoena people under oath.
This committee is not a debate, it is an audit intended to find nonconformings ether through ineptitude or deliberate intent.
Wrong forum for a debate.
Debate was offered and refused. Too late now.
just my two cents ,,,
michael
Red Team v. Blue Team
“It may be a bit awkward, but why not have two committees? One for each side of the debate.”
if you want to depolarize, studies show you need both sides on the same panel.
and the best red teams happen when you have people who are trained at taking both sides
of the issue and arguing the best case for both sides.
What happens when you dont do this is you get a red team that picks the weakest arguments of the other side. No knock out punch
Spot on Steven. Partisanship, however difficult it may be to avoid in this situation, needs to be avoided.
Steve,
The idea for a red team is to be the bad guys. Red team/Blue team is about attack and defense, not “arguing a case.” Network World put it this way: “The idea is simple: One group of security pros–a red team–attacks something, and an opposing group–the blue team–defends it.” Of course, this wouldn’t be a security test, but it is an attack — on the ideas and conclusions of the alarmists.
Network World does sometimes recommend a mixed team, but only “To combat self-interest and homogeneity,” because “the people who built [the security system] … have an interest in protecting it.”
That describes the alarmist position to a t. Where on Earth are you going to find Team members who are”trained at taking both sides of the issue and arguing the best case for both sides”? The Team has spent the past decades denying there IS a case for the other side, much less being “trained” at defending it.
The idea of a Red Team is to attack and penetrate. If all the Blue Team has are their “weakest positions,” because they’ve never had to defend them anywhere before, but only to deny they exist, then their weakness will be quickly exposed.
As it should be.
sorry,
bet you havent been on as many red teams as me.
Lets take a simple example.
two arguments.
A) the climate scientists were wrong about the polar bears.
B) the climate scientists were wrong about c02 causing warming.
you want a weak red team response, then you attack the “weak” argument.
by WEAK I mean not CENTRAL to to the science.
if you only attack A, then the response is… ‘well we were wronmg about bears
but thats biology, and we are still right about the physics.. argument B.
The only way you get a red team to focus on the central strong arguments is with
Some kind of person on the red team who will force the issue and attack the STRONGEST
central arguments..
Now, when it comes to things like pen testing ya you look for weakness, overlooked flaws.
but for supreme victory.. if you dodge their gorillas, you lose the war.
but go ahead, focus on polar bears and color schemes of charts
“he only way you get a red team to focus on the central strong arguments is with
Some kind of person on the red team who will force the issue and attack the STRONGEST
central arguments..”
What is the Alarmists strongest argument?
I don’t see that they have anything like a strong argument. The only argument they have is the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts that distort the temperature record, and the Greenhouse Gas theory that says CO2 should add warmth to the atmosphere, but to this very day, noone can tell you how much is added, and noone can tell you that even this amount of extra warmth is not offset by negative feedbacks.
The CAGW hypothesis is pure speculation. Nothing more. The Alarmists have no strong arguments. All they have are claims and assertions.
Here’s what the Red Team should do: Every time the Blue Team makes a claim, the Red Team should require that evidence be produced to support that claim. Since the Blue Team has no evidence to supply, they are dead in the water.
You are feisty today. But do you think attacking the list of “leaders” is a strong or weak Red Team attack?
Personally, I wouldn’t want any of The Team or their kindred souls on the Red Team because they don’t have the personal integrity to be trusted to not sabotage the Red Team efforts. It’d be like having Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and Joseph Stalin on a Human Rights Committee.
Tom Abbot
Central to the claim that the warming will be catastrophic is the output of the various models. I think that it will be hard to defend the models well. If they are demolished as being quantitatively reliable, then they are left with, “Well, Arrhenius said, …” Nobody is disputing that the average global temperature has been increasing since the last LIA, and no one disputes that CO2 is capable of absorbing IR. The issue is how the very complex dynamic system responds to all the variables. The models are an attempt to understand it. If they fail, then there is no unified hypothesis about how and to what degree future warming will proceed.
So-called consensus climate scientists are dead wrong about how much warming a doubling of CO2 from ~280 ppm in C. AD 1850 to a presumed ~560 c. AD 2100 will cause.
It’s not the modeled central value of 3.0 degrees C, nor even the guessed range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. Actual observations of nature show that it’s in the range of 0.0 to 2.4 degrees C, around 1.2 degrees C, the laboratory value without feedback mechanisms in the complex climate system. The best supported value is about 1.5 degrees C globally, ie slightly positive net feedbacks.
Under some conditions, increasing CO2 has even been shown to cool the atmosphere due to negative feedbacks. IPCC assumes without evidence that feedbacks are net positive, by ignoring or downplaying non-radiative effects such as clouds and evaporative cooling.
IOW, nothing to worry about in the least. Slight warming is beneficial, as has been the fertilizing effect of more plant food in the air, which has greened the planet.
Correct Steven, but will the climate consensus folk avail themselves of an opportunity to show that they have game. They state that they won’t stoop to arguing with “climate deniers (sic)”. Heck a very large number of serious sceptics would love to see what compelling evidence has them convinced of the horrors in the offing for the planet and life on it. Hey, tell me about it now without colored teams. The track record of terrible predictions that invariably have failed at least needs to be spoken about.
Why is this freaking these guys out. Insist on being heard.
The gravy train being interrupted is what’s “freaking these guys out.”
There’s big money in writing about “the effects of climate change.”
Yes. Being honest, many will admit that in politics the appointment of a committee, or panel, or some such, is frequently just a fig leaf to rubber stamp what has already been decided behind closed doors.
There are exceptions to this, of course, but the screaming from the climetariat is likely based on this interpretation. They have a lot to lose.
I dunno.
I tell them to encourage skeptics to bring the best team and hit the strongest arguments
with all they got!. Bring the best team, bring the team that got you here.
And do the red team thing with more openness and transparency than the blue team ever
did.
You think of all people who loves agood fight on the internet that I would suggest no red team
I say bring it. bring it hard. bring the biggest baddest red team you have
and bring your best arguments and go tow to toe with the best strongest science the blue team has.
Imagine if you dont. Imagine if some lame team just recycles old memes and out of date
charts with zero care and transparency.
You got one shot to do it right.
Imagine of they leave out some great skeptical arguments? What if the red team leaves out
Willis’ greatest attacks? whats that say about the reds teams confidence in the strength of that attack? What if they totally ignore anthony’s work? whats that say?
lets take rcp 8.5. You will find some people in climate science who think it is too alarmist
can you take down all of climate science by attacking something that is not central to the consensus? nope. you need the kill shot. ankle biting will be viewed as a failure
tow to toe
This spelling comes up from time to time. Well, Mosh, you can argue it round or you can argue it flat, but son of a gun, you can’t argue it round and flat at the same time… :>)
The Wizard of Oz…. They need their green velvet curtain to protect their ‘science’.
” why not have two committees? One for each side of the debate.”
How does a non scientist or non=technician tell who’s to be believed when two opposing views are presented? Usually they rely on whomever screams the loudest or promises the most lollies..
The anti-science climatismists have had plenty of time in the limelight pushing their messages, time for an APO physicist to be allowed to speak.
otherwise we’ll just hear more of the same hysteria and nonsense from the AGW crowd that people will simply accept because they rely on and appeal to ignorance like “i did math once and added 3 + 5 and got 67 therefore math is no good and you need to stop using it and use my new system which I call Super Math Science of Math Science where apple + orange = potato .. because it works for me! … oh, so you don’t like it!? Well YOU explain then how apple + orange = potato and if you can’t then you’re wrong and we are right! ”
Sorry to the willfully ignorant, the grown ups are about to give you all a report card and doesn’t matter how hard you wished for good marks, you’ll be judged on accuracy.
I would like t knew what if anything, will be done with the number of persons in the various government agencies who this enquiry will find have been fiddling the figures.
If it is found that they were simply incompetent then they should be fired,or worse if for political reasons, i.e. the “Cause”, then clearly they should be fired.
But being government employees dismissal will be strongly resisted by the Unions involved, after all that would set a dangerous precedent .
Its good that the proposed Commission is getting support, well overdue.
MJE VK5ELL
There is no guarantee that the warming is all caused by CO2. OK, some of it probably is, but some may well be caused by other factors, natural and anthropogenic. Until we look we won’t know.
Could someone please look at those possible other causes?
For example: we fix huge quantities of nitrogen, much of which runs off into the sea. Are we altering the ocean’s ecosystem such that warming (and C light isotope signal) is enhanced?
For example: Oil pollution of the oceans is on a massive scale. Does this reduce wave action and hence salt CVN production? ? Does reduced mixing change the nutrient balance and lead to less DMS CCN production?
For example: agriculture leads to an increase in dissolved silica making its way into the ocean. This will delay the collapse of the yearly diatom bloom — less heavy isotope pull-down, hence a light C signal. Less DMS, less cloud cover, warming.
And so on. It should be simple to look at this stuff. Why is no-one doing so?
JF
Political Science says NO!!!
(Political Science needs an excuse to control Man. They thought the Excuse was Settled.)
Look, this commission can’t get into the scientific weeds; it needs to dissect the UN IPCC’s main arguments: Humidity and cloud amplification of CO2’s theoretical impacts on the atmosphere (no hot spot); the ridiculous RCP8.5; unsupported assertions of detection of man’s influencing the severity of weather events (Roger Pielke, Jr.); and the unverified and inaccurate UN IPCC climate models.
The committee has to take a shot at revealing the costs of implementing the most serious proposals, especially CO2 taxes. It must discredit those econometric models and their assumptions which are showing a high NPV cost for CO2 emissions. They actually believe they will know the technology and economy out to 100 – 300 years! Even the Nobel economic prize winner for climate economic modeling admits the worst case would be something equivalent to a short recession.
hey dave
‘ 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. ”
Looks like these guys AGREE with me.
Wisdom is supposed to dictate….not so with “climate science”. Trump, on this issue is a breath of fresh air…I hope it spreads…especially in Canada. From where I sit (Toronto, Ontario) ignorance dominates and former VP Al Gore’s scary narrative is universally accepted as being scientifically correct.
Every time, someone in my circle starts talking about “climate change” I ask them if they know what the phenomenon actually is as in how the mechanism actually works and can they describe it basic terms..at grade ten level English that a jury could understand, after all, this is science.
I’ve yet to receive one credible answer. The answers I do receive are mostly appeals to authority. I usually have to end the conversation with “well, that’s your opinion and time will tell” and then never raise the issue with the individual again. “Friendships” have to be maintained.
Ask them this sometime: “Since climate is the description for long-term weather patterns in a region, how can “climate change” drive the region’s weather?”
As I’ve taken to saying, “It’s like claiming wet sidewalks caused the rain.”
Richard Lindzen is a theoretical atmospheric physicist, not a meteorologist
So? I’m sure many will tell you that meteorologists aren’t climate scientists. Try harder next time.
1. I was correcting misinformation
2. I believe an atmospheric physist to be the closest thing there is to describe a climate scientist.
3. Settle down son & take a few deep breaths before jumping on the keyboard.
Ten or eleven years ago, I gave a speech in a college ecology class about “the Church of Global Warming,” complete with a picture downloaded from the web.
As I have said: “To be a true fanatic about climate change, you need to be too smart to believe in religion, but not smart enough to realize you already belong to one.”
I went to a talk by Lord Deben a couple of weeks ago. It was like a happy clappy revivalist meeting. A young woman/girl asked one of those “it doesn’t matter to you but it’s our future” questions and the older members of the audience swooned. What is wrong with the grown-ups in the UK? They are desperate for someone to tell them what to do and what to think.
I blame he sixties generation, flower power and love conquers all. Here’s news. it doesn’t. Nor does it keep the lights on when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Natural gas does that. Or, if you ban fracking, it won’t, and people will die of cold in the winter. But they won’t be young people who own the future, it’ll just be the old and the poor and the sick, who don’t. So that’s OK then.
JF
My answer to the ‘it’s our future’ whine is simply that YOU deal with your OWN future when you get there – just like everybody else – and stop trying to pretend you’re so damned special.
“I blame the sixties generation”
How right you are. See here
geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/dirty-deben-does-drugs-and-potty-talk/
where Lord Deben (who is required by statute to tell the British government how many squillions they must spend on countering climate change) reveals how he bases his belief in climate catastrophe on the word of a depressive hippy who gets her drugs direct from Amazonian tribes.
Trump’s Climate Science Committee has the potential to make a lot of Democrat presidential candidates look very silly and misinformed.
The Democrats are going to make CAGW an issue this time around so Trump is going to need an expert committee to counter all the distorted science the Democrats will be citing.
I think one of the first things this new committee should do is take a survey of scientists to see where they stand on CAGW. Let’s debunk the “97 percent” lie right off the bat.
We should do this because most of the Alarmists will be citing the “97 percent” lie as the basis of their beliefs. We should destroy this basis with a real survey that tells the truth.
Who gets to choose which ‘scientists’ get polled?
Be careful of bell-the-cat solutions.
Don’t poll. Get them to the table to present the most compelling case they can supported by evidence.
“Peter F. Alexander, L. A., Landscape Architect Planner ”
….this is the first name listed….sorta dulls the punch…I know it’s alphabetical…but still
“The coalition letter, signed by almost 40 leading policy organizations and well over 100 prominent leaders”
It gets better
Mark J. Block, CEO, Mother Nature’s Trading Company
Nigerian and US business partnerships and former e cigarette dude
Mark Carr.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-j-carr-49835213/
James H. Hollingsworth, M. A. ??
William B. Howard, B. S. ??
Hans U. Kurr, Simultaneous Interpreter (ret.), United Nations ??
Deroy Murdock, Contributing Editor, National Review Online ??
Dennis G. Ortega, ??
John W. Peterson, Burke, Va. ??
Allen Rogers, CEO, ALR Consulting ??
Hal Shurtleff, Director, Camp Constitution?? jesus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPdFKcVX1BQ
Ted Stout, D. C. ??
Michael C. Sununu, S. B. (MIT) ??
Nancy J. Thorner, Lake Bluff, Ill. ?
Cecil Joe Tomlinson, Senior Principal Engineer (ret.), Boeing Company ??
100, leaders? really?
The list of 100 is only a handful of ACTUAL leaders ( anthony, pat micheals, Demming) and a bunch of unknown dudes who have done no visible hard work.
FFS. If you write leaders you should only list actual leaders. A list of 10 actual leaders ( anthony is an actual leader) beats a padded list of 90 random folks and 10 actual leaders.
In other words if you are going to do head counting type stuff ( like the stupid claims of 97% consensus) then you should at least be accurate. Roy Spencer ( listed) is an actual leader. nancy J Thorner is not a leader
david Wojick (listed) is an actual leader.
Adam Wildavsky ( listed) is not.
Note, I am not making a point about the credentials ( degrees) of these nobodies added to the list.
I am not making a point about the silliness of counting heads.
I am pointing out that if you are going to have a letter signed by leaders, that they ought to be the folks who have been actual fricking leaders.. Anthony, Pat, david, etc.
I’ll note that Heller did not sign the document. but david Ortega(??) did.
Steven,
You missed these names that were actually at the top of the list:
Myron Ebell, Director, Center for Energy and Environment
Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow Competitive Enterprise Institute
Tim Huelskamp, Ph. D., President and CEO
Joseph L. Bast, Founder and Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute
Adam Brandon, President
Freedom Works
Tim Chapman, Executive Director
Heritage Action for America
Thomas Pyle
President
American Energy Alliance
Thomas Schatz, President
Citizens Against Government Waste
Craig Rucker, President
Marc Morano, Publisher, CFACT’s Climate Depot
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
Steve Milloy, Publisher
Junk Science
James L. Martin, Founder and Chairman
Saulius “Saul” Anuzis, President
60 Plus Association
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, Chairman
Kenneth Haapala, President S
cience 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
Clinton S. Laird, Advisory Council
Caesar Rodney Institute
Rob Roper, President
Ethan Allen Institute
Kory Swanson, President
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
David Wallace, President and Founder
FAIR Energy Foundation
Mark Anderson, Executive Director & Host
Karla Davenport, Co-Owner & Producer
No I didnt Miss them.
I read THIS SENTENCE
‘The coalition letter, signed by almost 40 leading policy organizations and well over 100 prominent leaders,
and then COUNTED
you listed the 40 leading POLICY organizations!
I audited the over 100 listed below to see if they were prominant leaders.
I read carefully, you just wanted to argue without thinking.
and you failed to answer my objection.
no red team starting position for you!
“Indeed, in multiple cases, federal bureaucracies have even been accused of fraudulently manipulating data and findings to support their politically backed conclusions.”
Jesus the link goes to Goddard shit.
you guys better hope that the red team has something better than Goddards crap.
He’s made fundamental errors in his “presentations” on data. Errors that anyone who actually looks at the data that is ACTUALLY used can point out in 10 seconds.
”you guys better hope that the red team has something better than Goddards crap.”
And what do you mean by ”you guys”? Don’t tell me you actually believe the co2 crap?
Jezzuz! Look out the window some time. Nothing happening.
“and surface temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has actually occurred,” the signatories wrote.”
The adjustments ALL THE DATA
REDUCE THE TREND.
Guess who knows this better than most skeptics?
Happer.
So would you call the missing ”hot spot” data? Because plenty do – or have. I don’t know if it’s important as you think that Goddard has a few errors. If it’s easy to pull the wool over the eyes of most by lying about the past, it should be just as easy to convince them of the truth about the warm past. All we need is a good platform to do it.
1. There is no missing hotspot.
2. The purported missing hotspot comes from comparing three questionable
“data” sources
A) GCM model outputs
B) spotty and inhomgenous radiosond data
C) One highly adjusted, modelled temperature product.
3. The “existence” of a hotspot aint a particularly important fingerprint argument to begin with,
Nothing much rests on it’s existence or non existence.. stratospheric cooling is the stronger
argument you ned to take down.
But lets just take the heller case . Heller argues using a dataset ( USHCN) that
NOBODY USES in the major temperature datasets and he refuses to accept the TOBS
adjustments in that dataset,arguing it is unnecessary
The SIGNATORIES OF THIS LETTER HOWEVER have published work that say TOBS adjustments are necessary!!
Here is what some of the people who signed this letter wrote:
” Missing data and
spikes have also been observed in the US data set. Changes in
technology introduced new discrepancies through instrument biases
and forced related changes in siting. In addition, over the past 100
plus years, the daily time of observation varied from location to
location and often changed over time, which has a varying effect on
calendar day highs and lows and for which appropriate adjustments
to raw data must be made.”
Craig D. Idso, a signatory to the Trump letter signed off on this
Dr. Alan Carlin , a signatory to the Trump letter, signed off on this
Dr. Harold H. Doiron, a signatory to the Trump letter, signed of on this
Dr. Richard A. Keen, a signatory to the Trump letter, signed off on this
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, a signatory to the Trump letter, signed off on this
What you should be able to see is that the proposed commitee will have a problem
A) if it accepts heller arguments unskeptically, as other skeptics have rejected them.
B) if it ignores them.
The best solution is to appoint heller to the advisory team. if they dont that tells you something
Steven,
This is why TOB adjustments make no sense to me. It’s because the explanations for them make no sense to me. The following is from a 2015 post by Zeke Hausfather in the SkepticalScience blog., explaining why TOB adjustments are important:
“The reason that it matters, however, is that depending on the time of observation you will end up occasionally double counting either high or low days more than you should. For example, say that today is unusually warm, and that the temperature drops, say, 10 degrees F tomorrow. If you observe the temperature at 5 PM and reset the instrument, the temperature at 5:01 PM might be higher than any readings during the next day, but would still end up being counted as the high of the next day.”
I see what he means, but the fact of the matter is that the temperature isn’t being taken by the calendar day, but by the 24-hour period from one reset to another. That 5:01 high isn’t a double counting it IS the high for the next 24-hour period.
The most infuriating thing about this entire affair is that the data is not suitable for the purpose for which you wish to use it, but you will use any means at your disposal to make it work in some fashion and then claim it was “necessary.”
How about this instead: act like scientists and admit the data is not suitable for the purpose to which you’d like to put it Mr. Spock was famous for his answer “Insufficient data, Captain, ” when asked for snap judgements. He didn’t say, let me take these data down to the lab and run them through a few least-squares calculations, interpolate a few data points where the readings are thin, and I’ll get back to you with over-precise results and no significant digit discipline.
‘The adjustments [to] ALL THE DATA REDUCE THE TREND …”.
==============================================
Shouting doesn’t make a statement true:
http://climate4you.com/images/GISS%20Jan1910%20and%20Jan2000.gif
That chart doesnt show you RAW SST versus Adjusted SST, does it?
Did you know that if you compare
A) RAW SST & RAW Surface air
to
B) ADJUSTED SST and ADUSTED SAT
That B… adjusted GLOBAL, shows a LOWER global trend than raw?
Nope you didnt know that.
Hint: SST is 70% of the record, and the adjustments RAISE the early temperatures in the record
REDUCING the trend
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/homogenization2015/temps_by_adj.png
Steven, the real sleight of hand has been a huge push-down of the late 30s early 40s high that, at the time, was not surpassed by the 1998 El Nino until about 2007 when Hansen’s group remedued that. Pushing that hump down also removed the steep cooling decline that had concerns about the ice-age “cometh” for 35yrs. With the “hump”, virtually all of the warming of the 20th century had occurred before 1940! Also, constrained by the satellite data for recent temperatures, the early years were pushed down to steepen the entire rise of temperatures.
You can see that if the the warming from CO2 turns out to have been grandly over-hyped going forward, this handy work will stick out as needing correction back to where it was before.
“Steven, the real sleight of hand has been a huge push-down of the late 30s early 40s high that, at the time, was not surpassed by the 1998 El Nino until about 2007 when Hansen’s group remedued that.”
Another real sleight of hand is the “push-down” of 1998, reducing it from the third most significant warm year of the 20th and 21st centuries to insignificance. And they did this right in front of all our eyes.
Fortunately, we have the satellite charts that put the lie to the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts.
Those Hockey Stick experts that bastardized 1998, ought to give us an explanation for why they did what they did. How about that, Steven? Why does your Hockey Stick look so much different than the Satellite chart with regard to 1998?
“Why does your Hockey Stick look so much different than the Satellite chart with regard to 1998?”
I’ll answer my own question.
The reason 1998 was turned into an insignificant year was because the alarmists couldn’t claim every year was getting “hotter and hotter” with the huge temperature spike of 1998 sitting there. So the Hockey Stick teams got rid of the huge spike and turned it into a little spike.
Have you noticed the alarmists haven’t been saying “hotter and hotter” for quite some time now? That would be because things are getting cooler now, not “hotter and hotter”. Another alarmist meme bites the dust.
A great little video of Happer. More power to him! I’m so happy. I must say I look forward to the jostling and squirming of the zombies (particularly the Greens and their followers here in AU) which will eventuate. I also want to see some damned accountability.
In mid 2009 I attended a lecture on Global Warming . It was given by a Geologist. It was entirely sceptical of the deleterious effect of greenhouse gases on the climate.
The address concentrated on the Geological history of the Earth and pointed out the obvious fallacies in the UN IPCC’s claims.
In May last year I attended a similar address by an English Geologist on a Cruise ship.
The same views were expressed by him as were advanced by the 2009 lecturer.
I have read every significant book on climate change from both sides of the debate.
I am firmly of the opinion that Freeman Dyson is right and that the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate has been greatly exaggerated.
I have been waiting over a decade for a proper audit of the claims of the so called mainstream.
This enquiry is long overdue.
Keep pushing Mr. President.
I don’t think you’ll get a committee of consensus scientists. They believe it would be a waste of time – since consensus science is the real stuff, why debate it?
The consensus position is pretty well stated in IPCC’s AR5 and in the 2018 Nat’l Climate Assessment, which was written by K. Hayhoe and her cohort. They don’t really need a committee.
I hope Trump’s committee, among other things, will clear up some of the mistaken views of what the NCA actually says. Some of the Armaggedon scenarios bandied about were based on worst-case airborne CO2 concentrations that some thought were presented as conservative.
I also hope Prof. Happer will concentrate on the skeptical case for climate science and will refrain from the “more CO2 the better” comments that have made him somewhat of a lightning rod for alarmist exaggerations. He understands the behavior of CO2 as well as anybody and I hope he’ll focus on that.
It is well worth looking at EM Smith’s blog (Chiefo).
EM Smith used to comment regularly on this site, but I have not seen him for a long time. He is extremely competent and knows his stuff.
He is currently reviewing the thermometer record and has posted several articles on this.
As I say it is well worth checking out.
The left will attack this effort harder than they have attacked Trump. There will be personal attacks, unsubstantiated allegations, House investigations, counter studies that are under the left’s control, and round-the-clock main-stream media attacks.
I don’t think most people understand how unhinged the left has become.
At this moment thousands of dems are searching every video, lecture, newspaper article, police records old school chums, especially old girls who knew Happer in the student days for a moment or phrase or typo that can interpreted as damning of Happer’s character to accuse him from the checklist they all carry. Yeah, they are really worried!
Finally…some adult input and participation and public exposure in the Climate debate. About dang time.
The working group that evolves from this Presidential Commission needs to find a Major League Media Spokesman to do daily battle in the press…for months on end.
That’s where the front lines of this battle lie. The MSM press will generate propaganda and exercise hostility on a level never seen before…including MSNBC’s and CNN’s 2+ year non-stop infantile and transparent ranting about Russian collusion.
I’m not sure Happer by himself is up to that job. He will have to be very visible of course, but “not right out front day to day”.
I would nominate Patrick Moore of Greenpeace fame for that job if he would have it (I’m having trouble picturing Patrick ever working with Trump).
Patrick speaks from the heart and does not stretch the truth to fortify positions. He is a true liberal in the classical sense…valuing freedom while treating the environment with the reverence due to this incredible planet we live on. He understands and considers the economic tradeoffs that reality hands us. He will not suffer liars silently. Crony Scientists and Crony Capitalists and Propagandists won’t be comfortable in his presence.
He performs extemporaneously with confidence while avoiding overstating any claims…he won’t promote or defend indefensible claims. He confronts opponents fearlessly with equanimity and decorum. His honest heartfelt concern for the environment and also for humanity (as an important and integral part of the environment) is transparent.
If you need someone to lie or exaggerate for your cause, he’s the wrong man for the job.
The far left hates him (he’s not against nuclear power)…but in this war the far left is never going to be converted. The far right might not like him, but would probably accept using him. I’m pretty far right and I like him and most of his positions. In the public debates that I’ve seen between Patrick and our Climate Change opponents, he was obviously the only adult on the stage.
Whoever gets the media spokesman’s job for the Commission could determine success or failure in this important political battle. Revealing the truth is necessary but not sufficient. Doing a good enough job SELLING the truth will have to be…and it looks like we are finally going to get a venue for the debate…I don’t think the press can ignore or hide this debate this time.
It might not be a bad idea to also have female spokespersons “WORKING THE PRESS” who have persuasion skills surpassing those of Ms. Cortez of the GND…for those of us who don’t think with the head that is on their shoulders. Ms. Cortez talents in this area is at least half of the power of the GND message…WHICH MAKES NO DAMN SENSE otherwise.
Good point Doc!
What’s up Doc? Have you put in a resume to the Secretary of the Press? Nice one.
OUT-FRACKING-STANDING! It’s about time!
This is good
” 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. “
Steven, why are you getting all worked up about this? As a card carrying “lukewarmer” I would think that you would welcome an opportunity to test the alarmist’s propositions.
I don’t see why anyone thinks this is bad, unless you’re inclined tosuppress information. We’re all tired a shallow political debates. Do these exercises and publish the results, have debates on CSPAN, good for everyone.
This business has him riled up.
Pretty sure that Mosher earns his living from this pseudo-science.
What else does he have to fall back on?
Yes, maybe he once saw the political corruption of this field and spoke up about it, but those days are long gone.
“What else does he have to fall back on?” Apparently hawking Chinese Bitcoin mining machines is out.
Nope. I make no money from Climate science. havent for years.
Volunteered from 2007 to 2013, volunteered from 2015 on.
Ask charles the moderator.
See your problem is you are not skeptical enough ! you had a theory about me how’d you test that theory
Huh
maybe you missed my other posts.
I object to only one thing.
The same thing this letter objected to
“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. ”
Some people in the administration did not want this to be an actual commission.
I object to this. I objected to thsi over at Judiths and a couple times here.
Some guys like dave fair said i was wrong to object
https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/17/week-in-review-science-edition-97/#comment-890440
https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/17/week-in-review-science-edition-97/#comment-890441
https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/17/week-in-review-science-edition-97/#comment-890447
Here is what I wrote
‘But here is what I hope for.
A Full presidential committe that operates like other presidential commissions
For example
Facts Relating to the Attack made by Japanese Armed Forces upon Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941 (Roberts Commission)
President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Warren Commission)
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (Iraq Intelligence Commission)
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission)
I would Hope that they have a broad representation from across the skeptical side of the question. That means including people like Anthony Watts, Tony Heller, Patrick Moore, Nic Lewis, Judith, all the top skeptical names we know. And it should be well funded.
You want some little report that a few guys cobble together.
i want an actual history making presidential commission.”
This letter asks FOR THE SAME THING
“” 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. “
So To recap so you guys dont misunderstand
1. I want a board that complies with FACA, one that is transparent, and open.
the same way I criticized the IPCC for being non transparent in cases I would
criticize any red team that was not transparent.
2. I want a board that makes history and the best arguments skeptics can bring to the table.
3. I want a board that brings some of the great citizen voices who have devoted years without
getting paid. I dont want a board that nibbles on the edges and limits itself to
weak arguments like RCP 8.5 is alarmist. That doesnt “red team” the strongest argument
of the SCIENCE, it targets the weak PR approach of running scare stories. Other guys
may want weak approaches that nibble at the heels of climate science, I want to see
the best red team attack the best arguments.
the last thing folks need is some weak ass red team that nibbles at the corners. If you are going to stage a great red team debate, then bring the best arguments. bring the players who got you to this game. You gunna run a red team and put anthony on the sidelines? Nic lewis on the sidelines?
Heller on the sidelines? How you gunna expect to bring down the blue team if you dont have the star players
Steven, why are you getting all worked up about this? As a card carrying “lukewarmer”
a lukewarmer in the same way a wolf is a sheep if he wears sheeps clothing. Mosh has proven by his word and deed over the past several years on this site that he’s no lukewarmer, he’s a CAGW true believer.
Robert o T
You are right the outrage will be there.
But as in the financial markets there is a market in politics.
In the financial markets every long bull market completes with compulsive and, after the top, irrational buying.
A frenzy of recklessness.
Something similar happens with political trends.
This one by control freaks that have gone dangerously radical.
One can measure excesses in financial markets.
Difficult in the political market.
But both markets seem to reaching “ending action”.
It will be interesting and the committee’s work could be released as honest criticism becomes more acceptable.
The scientific and political renaissance of the early 1600s could be an example.
As President, Trump has both the authority and the obligation to oversee, evaluate and investigate the Executive Branch and all the Departments and Agencies under his control as he sees fit.
If Trump feels a comprehensive CAGW audit is warranted, then he has the power to immediately conduct one without the need of Legislative consent, oversight or approval.
I’m sure RINOs and some people in his 2020 campaign staff are advising Trump not to start the CAGW audit prior to election, but this is very bad advice.
This is awful advice.
Trump should immediately commission an investigation and work closely with the DOJ to carpet bomb the CAGW cabal with subpoenas and FOIA requests, and sue them for contempt of court for when they refuse to turnover requested documents, which they certainly will refuse to do.
All it will take is to find a couple of cases of malfeasance, threaten them, and the offer them immunity to testify against the CAGW cabal and expose the corruption.
Once a few whistleblowers come forward, I’m sure there will be many honest scientists who will testify againt the CAGW cabal, especially those scientists that have been threatened by the CAGW establishment for expressing even moderate skepticism.
It’s time to take the gloves off and end this CAGW Hoax before $trillions are wasted on a hypothesis that has already been disconfirmed.
Once the CAGW hypothesis is found to be disconfirmed, the blowback against the Left for terrorizing the world for absolutely no reason whatsoever and already wasting $trillions will be epic and will assure Trump’s re-election.
“I’m sure RINOs and some people in his 2020 campaign staff are advising Trump not to start the CAGW audit prior to election, but this is very bad advice.
This is awful advice.”
That is bad advice.
I don’t see how Trump can avoid appointing this commission. The Democrats are going to push CAGW hard this time, before the election, and Trump is going to need to be able to rebut in detail, the Democrat assertions about CO2 and the Earth’s climate. Trump won’t be able to get by with just declaring CAGW a hoax. And, although I think Trump is knowledgeable about climate science, he is not an expert at all the details (who is?), so Trump needs some of his own scientific experts to fill in the blanks.
Take no prisoners – send in the accountants to bayonet the wounded !! 🙂 🙂
Since heat cannot be “trapped,” by what justification, other than propaganda and deliberately introducing confusion, is CO2 called a “heat trapping gas?” Anyone. No substance known to man (including CO2) when used as a barrier separating a region of high temperature from a region of low temperature will “trap” heat in the high-temperature region–i.e., prevent thermal energy from moving from the high-temperature region to the low-temperature region. Maybe the proposed “Climate Science Committee” will answer my question.
Of course there is. We’d have no heat at night otherwise. Cloudy night, warmer night, clear night cooler night. There is a green house effect, if poorly named.
“Of course there is.” As former President Clinton would say: “Is what?” If you mean there is a substance that will trap heat–i.e., as a barrier between matter at two different temperatures, prevent heat from moving from the high-temperature matter to the cold-temperature matter–the insulation industry would really like to get hold of some. Just think, (a) refrigerators would need only be powered when the door was open, (b) coffee thermos bottles would keep coffee hot indefinitely, (c) home heating bills would drop to almost zero, etc.
Your example of cloudy versus clear nights has nothing to do with “trapping” heat. The presence/absence of matter (in your case clouds) can affect the rate of heat loss of objects (in your case the earth) in the vicinity of that matter, but in no way will clouds “trap” heat in the earth.
Below is one definition of the word “trap” when used as a verb:
https://www.google.com/search?q=trap&rlz=1C1EODB_enUS545US701&oq=trap&aqs=chrome..69i57j35i39j0l4.3399j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Trap/ verb
verb: trap; 3rd person present: traps; past tense: trapped; past participle: trapped; gerund or present participle: trapping.
1. catch (an animal) in a trap.
Synonyms: confine, cut off, corner, shut in, pen in, hem in, imprison, hold captive
“a rat trapped in a barn”
a) prevent (someone) from escaping from a place.”
“twenty workers were trapped by flames”
Synonyms: snare, entrap, ensnare, lay a trap for
b) have (something, typically a part of the body) held tightly by something so that it cannot move or be freed.
“he had trapped his finger in a spring-loaded hinge”
c) induce (someone), by means of trickery or deception, to do something they would not otherwise want to do.
“I hoped to trap him into an admission”
Synonyms: trick, dupe, deceive, lure, inveigle, beguile, fool, hoodwink
d) BASEBALL, AMERICAN FOOTBALL
catch (the ball) after it has briefly touched the ground.
e) SOCCER
bring (the ball) under control with the feet or other part of the body on receiving it.
In the usage: “a greenhouse gas (CO2) traps heat,” the word “trap” is a verb. Of the five usages of “trap” as a verb, usages c), d), and e) above obviously don’t apply to heat and the earth/earth-atmosphere system. This leaves the a) and b) usages. Usage a) specifically contains the word “prevent” as in “prevent from escaping from a place.” To me the implication is clear. If CO2 “traps” heat, then CO2 prevents heat from escaping; and in the case of atmospheric CO2, this means CO2 prevents heat from leaving the earth/earth-atmosphere system. Nothing could be farther from the truth. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb radiation in sub-bands of the IR band and convert the energy in the radiation to thermal energy. But CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) also radiate energy—i.e., they convert thermal energy to radiation.
Like I said, the term “heat-trapping gas” is used to confuse not to enlighten, and therefore is a form of propaganda.
With the usual AGW talk, there is no end of misleading jargon, even in cases where the jargon was invented in good faith, it would seem. For instance, the very use of the word “greenhouse” is misleading, though apparently a “good faith” analogy in the beginning.
When it comes to “trapping” heat, I think the use of the word “trapping” is strictly nonsensical. However, it is in such common use that it is hard to say what to do about it. For instance, I’ve seen the warmth of an actual blanket (on one’s bed, say) described as working by “trapping” heat next to oneself? Things like this are almost enough to make me despair of being able to encourage most anyone at all to think in a scientific way! For one thing, it is apparent that if the heat flowing out through a blanket, were “trapped”, with the heat flow simply not getting out, a simple little blanket would then be enough for one to roast oneself in short order!
Hopeless though it may seem to try to speak accurately, I might suggest that the idea is that things like blankets (and maybe certain concentrations of gases in the atmosphere), operate by *modulating* heat flow? Whether molecular heat flow or infrared heat flow, if a layer or substance can absorb/re-emit, or offer a resistance of some sort, or ‘modulate’ or even ‘alter’ the heat flow that is going through, that is really the kind of thing we are talking about? So, in other words, that activity or modulation or resistance “on the way through” may tend to require a somewhat higher temperature to ‘drive’ the modulation or resistance effect.
By now, probably a lot of people would say “nah, modulation or resistance, it’s all too complicated, ‘trapping’ is just easier”. So, never mind, everyone, go back to your sports or your TV sitcom, or whatever, ; ) …
I prefer to say that so-called “GHGs” retard the loss of heat to space, but even that isn’t quite right.
Meanwhile, science is still learning more about supposedly settled atmospheric chemistry and physics:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/greenhouse-gas-detergent-recycles-itself-in-atmosphere-nasa-study
I don’t see why anyone thinks this is bad, unless you’re inclined tosuppress information. We’re all tired a shallow political debates. Do these exercises and publish the results, have debates on CSPAN, good for everyone.
The CAGW hoaxers will begin feeling the hot breath on the back of their necks soon.
And then let the wailing and gnashing of teeth commence, in earnest…
Time to stock up on popcorn!
}:o)
Happy days are coming ahead! Let the good economies and honest scientists roll on.
I have just returned from Melbourne Aus. Having enjoyed a week there, primarily to attend this years inaugural Grand Prix. During that week the main take away observation was, the city is over blessed with COGS.
Two days were disrupted pointlessly by COGS blocking traffic, shouting through loud hailers, endlessly repeating banal slogans, stopping the trams and generally achieving nothing. Well nothing, apart from economic decline and social disruption. The police are not allowed to voice their opinions about spending their time lining the streets while the “protesters” abuse the freedoms they wish to curtail.
For those not familiar with the acronym COGS, it stands for Constantly Offended Green Socialists.
The use of children to carry banners and provide a protective shield around the nonsense Green New Deal eco-gathering, was particularly disturbing.
Echoes of 1930’s Europe were obvious to all who witnessed it.
Great city and a fine place to host F1 by the way. See you in Federation Square for the opening party next year…hopefully.
This field will never reform itself voluntarily or by incremental change.
Lindzen has the correct approach
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen urges Trump: “Cut the funding of climate science by 80% to 90% until the field cleans up’
https://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/30/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-urges-trump-cut-the-funding-of-climate-science-by-80-to-90-until-the-field-cleans-up/
It makes sense to me. Back in the early 1990s politicians complained to the IPCC that politicos had been sold the climate change idea (by Hansen?), but the IPCC could not deliver the scientific goods; the proof. Soon after, Santer cherry-picked satellite data to publish his study. Since Santer and Mann, “The Science” keeps getting worse: the disappeared 1940s warming and Medieval Warm Periods; their reliance on climate models which don’t work; point-blank refusal to do basic science such as controlled experiments to measure surface warming due the GHG downwelling flux – supposedly causing climate change. Perhaps environmental organizations, and, even some Democrat politicians, no longer want to be associated with bad science, and bad policies? Pelosi looks at the Green New Deal and sees idiocy. Are some of them are running scared of the monsters they created?
It’s daft policies, like very expensive 100% renewables, which must sink climate alarmists. Policies so stupid they leave lefties permanently out of office. People like Pelosi know that much.
Oreskes is a 100% renewable energy supporter. Ocasio-Cortez too. Most of the far left are against nuclear power. These people hide behind the cloak of climate change. Neither of those two (Oreskes, Ocasio-Cortez) know anything about either climate science nor energy technologies. Their stance on these issues is political, and their strategy the United Front. This often ends up more like the enemy of my enemy is my friend. You wind up in bed with people you’d otherwise hate.
Pelosi knows that her moderate stance of climate realism is in the way of the extremists. They will attack her just as viciously as they do Republicans; because she’s a politicians and she’s in their way. United Front allies are your potential supporters; never your rivals! Way too many of the climate consensus are really climate extremists; many of whom know nothing of either climate nor energy technologies. A perfect recipe for another Venezuela, Cambodia, …
Mosher definitely seems to have worked up a head of steam…..tels me omething is going in the right direction.
Haha.
Yep, you know you’re over the target when you start getting flak.
Time to assemble the Red Team
Will Happer – physics
Richard Lindzen – atmospheric physics
Judith Curry – climatology
Roy Spencer – meteorology
Sherwood Idso – botany
Susan Crockford – zoology
Don Easterbrook – geology
Sallie Baliunas – astrophysics
Tony Heller – data analytics
Steve McIntyre – statistics
Dr. Strangelove
What about Nic Lewis?
Mathematician Nic would also fill the need for an oceanographer, since he found Scripps’ Keeling’s error on ocean heat.
There is no need to include any alarmist scientists as some have suggested. It would be a complete waste of time and effort. These people have had 30+ years to make their case. They have ignored or blocked skeptical scientists constantly.
Take the National Climate Assessment as an example. How many skeptical scientists’ views were included? Oh yeah, that would be 0.0.
Alarmist scientists have had their say. Now it is time the public heard the other side. I hope this isn’t just a small operation. This committee needs to do some real work which will take 10000s of man hours. They need to have the money to fund some real hard work.
– a group of 7-8 just to review NOAA work on US temperatures?
– a group to look at other data not shown by alarmists. For example, we have data collected around the world on downwelling IR which shows no increase.
– a group to look closely at CERES data and other satellite data as Willis has been doing in his spare time.
– real tests of accuracy of data from buckets on ships in the past as well as in the present. What do we really know? Let’s understand the error bands.
– hard analysis of UHI effects across the US.
I’m sure others could list 10x more ideas. The entire field of climate science needs to be shown to be ignoring inconvenient data. Real solid facts will make that obvious.
Lot’s of spectacular ideas and brainstorming enlightenment here. I hope you’re reading this one GOP.