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
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.