Guest FAKE NEWS ALERT by David Middleton
It’s Lindsey Graham vs. Donald Trump on climate crisis
Lauren Dezenski
By Lauren Dezenski, CNN
Updated 5:18 AM ET, Sun July 14, 2019Washington (CNN) Sen. Lindsey Graham is sounding an alarm on climate change — and hoping to make it loud enough for President Donald Trump to hear.
“I would encourage the President to look long and hard at the science and find a solution. I’m tired of playing defense on the environment,” the South Carolina Republican said in a news conference on Wednesday.
Graham said acknowledging — and embracing — the climate crisis as an issue in the GOP can be a good thing, and the party is ignoring it at its own peril.
“We will win the solution debate, but the only way you’re going to win the debate is admit we’ve got a problem,” Graham said. “Let’s talk about climate change from the innovative and not the regulatory approach.”
Trump himself has consistently confused much of the science around climate change. In an interview with Piers Morgan in June, Trump said, “It used to be called global warming, that wasn’t working, then it was called climate change and now actually it is called extreme weather.”[…]
Fake News by Darth Vader
No… Lauren… You are the one who is confused…
“It used to be called global warming, that wasn’t working, then it was called climate change and now actually it is called extreme weather.” And now it’s called “the climate crisis.”
And you are lying (fake news)… Senator Graham never mentioned the “climate crisis”.
“We will win the solution debate, but the only way you’re going to win the debate is admit we’ve got a problem. Let’s talk about climate change from the innovative and not the regulatory approach.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Problem ≠ Crisis
At no point does Senator Graham refer to the “climate crisis”…
Graham has even joked about Trump’s reticence around climate change.
“Climate change is real, the science is sound and the solutions are available,” Graham said in April. “If I told Trump that [special counsel Robert] Mueller thinks climate change is a hoax, we’d be well on our way.”
Fake News by Darth Vader
To the extent anthropogenic climate change might be a problem, Senator Graham’s “solution” is very different than the Green New Dealers…
Republicans form conservation caucus to take on environment, climate change
BY REBECCA BEITSCH – 07/10/19Republicans on Wednesday launched an environment-minded conservation caucus aimed at battling the perception that their party doesn’t care about climate change.
Dubbed the Republican Roosevelt Conservation Caucus after National Park Service founder President Teddy Roosevelt, the bicameral group lists public land access, water quality and ocean pollution among its priorities.
[…]
Graham also called the Democrat’s Green New Deal plan to reduce the nation’s environmental impact “crazy economics,” adding that “innovation is going to do more to solve this problem than any government mandate.”
“We believe our friends on the other side care about the environment, but they care so much they’re going to destroy the economy in the name of saving the environment. That’s a false choice,” Graham said.
He also said Democrats have been too alarmist about climate change, adding, “You don’t have to ground all the airplanes and kill all the cows.”
[…]
Republicans, alongside Democrats, have introduced a number of bills this year that would fund research and development for battery storage, carbon capture technology and other energy needs.
But the caucus members on Wednesday stressed that traditional energy sources like coal, oil and gas would remain a part of the mix.
Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) said traditional energy sources are important for affordability.
“Somebody can’t worry about the energy efficiency of their home if they’re worried about where their next meal comes from. Somebody can’t worry about the standards or emissions of their automobile if they’re worried about going to work the next day,” he said, referring to a Trump administration proposal to freeze fuel efficiency standards for cars in an effort to make new vehicles more affordable.
“These things go hand in hand,” he added.
[…]
Graham also pushed back against President Trump‘s comments on climate change, saying the vast majority of scientists are worried about climate change and say action must be taken.
“I believe the nine out of the 10, not the one,” Graham said of scientists’ consensus. “I would encourage the president to look long and hard at the science and find the solution. I’m tired of playing defense on the environment.”
The Hill
The only thing Senator Graham has said on climate change that I seriously disagree with is the “nine out of the 10, not the one” comment. The consensus, to the extent there is one, is not 90% and there is no consensus that “action must be taken” now or with any urgency, much less economically destructive action.
Republicans Take an Important Step Back into the Environmental Debate
By KAYLA BARTSCH
July 15, 2019Conservatives ought to conserve. The newly formed Roosevelt Conservation Caucus aims to do just that.
[…]
Last Wednesday, a group of Republican senators and congressmen gathered to announce the formation of the Roosevelt Conservation Caucus (RCC), to be co-chaired by Senators Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), Cory Gardner (R., Colo.), and Steve Daines (R., Mont.). According to a press release announcing the news, the RCC will “embrace and promote constructive efforts to address environmental problems, responsibly plan for all market factors, and base policy decisions on science and quantifiable facts.”
[…]
Along with his legislative endeavors, Roosevelt wrote and spoke extensively on the importance of conservation. In a 1910 speech delivered at the dedication of the John Brown Memorial Park in Osawatomie, Kan., Roosevelt declared:
“Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.”
The Roosevelt Conservation Caucus seeks to embrace this two-pronged approach to its namesake cause, championing policies that both develop and protect the country’s natural resources. As Senator Gardner put it, the caucus aims to be “a platform that will help shine more light on Republican efforts on innovative, economically viable policies which will both improve the environment and make sure the American people continue to have the highest quality of life possible.”[…]
“Simply put, we believe in innovation when it comes to solving environmental problems, not regulation. We believe you can have a healthy environment and still fly a plane and eat a hamburger,” Graham said on Wednesday. The RCC’s goal is to harness the powers of the economy to work for the environment, rather than tearing down the economy to save the planet.
While no concrete policy proposals have yet emerged from the RCC, the press conference suggested that plans for a carbon tax, climate-resilient infrastructure, and increased funding of clean-energy research are likely to be among the initial proposals. By means distinctly less flashy than the Green New Deal, Republicans and consensus-minded Democrats have been working to formulate innovative solutions to environmental problems. Section 45Q of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 — the last omnibus to pass under the GOP-controlled House — included a significant tax credit for the implementation of carbon-capture technology. In February, the bipartisan USE IT Act was again introduced by Senator John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) to expand upon the Section 45Q tax credit and further support research into CO2 utilization and direct-air-capture research.[…]
National Review
While I don’t agree with all of the Roosevelt Conservation Caucus’ ideas, particularly a carbon tax, they aren’t “acknowledging — and embracing — the climate crisis” and their proposed solutions are diametrically opposed to the Green New Deal Cultural Revolution.
If The Hill and National Review can report this story without lying, why is it that CNN can’t?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“If The Hill and National Review can report this story without lying, why is it that CNN can’t? ”
Because CNN is like the scorpion.
I assume you are referring to the parable regarding the ‘Scorpion and the Frog’?
It might be helpful to explain the comment “like the scorpion” to those unfamiliar with the parable.
A scorpion came upon a small stream he wished to cross, but because he could not swim was stopped. Upon seeing a frog sitting nearby he asked, “Frog will you give me a ride across the stream on your back?”
The frog responded. “Absolutely not! You will sting me and I will die.”
The scorpion answered, “No, I will not. If I were to sting you I would drown as well.”
The Frog though this over and relented to give the scorpion a ride across the stream. Upon reaching the opposite bank, the scorpion climbed off the frog and stung him fatally.
As the frog lay dying, he said, “But, you said you wouldn’t, why did you sting me?”
The scorpion replied, “Because it’s in my nature to sting.”
It helps if you get the story right. The scorpion stings the frog in mid-swim and then answers the question. It’s not much of a story if he does it after there’s no risk.
Chit Not News
Carbon taxes are just another regressive tax with a virtue signalling rationale.
I just heard the podcast, “Conversations with Bill Kristol,” deal with this issue and can see why everyone is confused. Kristol and Jim Manzi pretend to be free-market types and see the futility of the regulatory approach to dealing with climate change. Yet, they get much of the ‘science’ mixed up, tread the IPCC as credible, and call for a big-government approach where they throw a lot of money to the DoE or NASA for some big project that helps us avoid the unlikely ‘worst-case scenario.’
This entire debate is ultimately about money and power. Nobody who is pushing the IPCC narratives cares about the scientific method or about rational discourse. As one of the Four Horsewomen said about something else, it’s all about the Benjamins.
Pathetic to see Graham getting in on this. This is exactly the result AOC was trying to create by here OTT GND.
I would suggest Graham gets familiar with facts on the FAKE 97% claims. It’s not just a case of rolling it back to 90%, it’s total BS.
Surely Graham has his nose close enough to the public money trough to recognise other hogs bustling get a free feed.
Plus, that is still the ad populum logical fallacy. It does not matter if 7 billion people say something is true, that does not make it true. Truth is not proven because a majority says it is true; it is proven by verifiable and repeatable information, by intense scrutiny, and now many times by resisting vicious attacks. When it comes to scientific issues like ‘climate change’, I will not believe based on what anyone says; I will only believe based on what verifiable and repeatable proof says.
When the subject is not amenable to definitive empirical experiment, the degree of consensus is useful…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/06/ninety-seven-percent-of-scientists-agree-climate-change-is-real-man-made-and-dangerous-survey-says-not/
The majority (67%) of atmospheric scientists think human activities have driven more than half of the warming over past 50 years. About half think if it continues, it will be dangerous about 41% think it can essentially be ignored. Not exactly a consensus, nor a crisis.
“The majority (67%) of atmospheric scientists think human activities have driven more than half of the warming over past 50 years.”
Based on what? Answer: Nothing but speculation.
You can pretty easily get to 30-50% based on recent observation-based climate sensitivity estimates. A case even can be made that humans are responsible for all of the warming since the mid-1970’s, based on models. I don’t think it’s a strong case… Nor would it be bad if we were responsible.
Note the degree of precision employed: ‘more than half’, ‘about half’. Not 0.53% or some other guess to the 2nd decimal place.
A side note.
David, I’ve always enjoyed your little changes to screenshots to help make your point.
I’m just a big Richard Dawson fan… Hogan’s Heroes, The Devil’s Brigade, The Running Man, Family Feud… Classics! LOL! Some day I’ll have to see if I can work the classic movie Gunga Din into one of my posts!
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46783/gunga-din
That’s a bit disingenuous. I’m not going to collect my own data and do my own experiments. I will believe whoever makes the most intelligent case.
Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it.
Right is right even if no one is doing it.
attributed to St. Augustine and GK Chestrton
“Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it.”
My sentiment exactly.
Presumably, then, Lindsey Graham would believe the 100 scientists against Einstein.
Bingo
Lindsey’s problem is that he thinks that it is his role to “compromise” as a Senator.
He has been on the wrong side of many issues with respect to a GOP platform.
He is always part of the “Gang of 8, 9 or 10” with some high profile Democrats (and of course with John McCain) supposedly meeting midway across the aisle in acts of (virtue signaling) bi-partisanship.
That attitude would be laudable if the Democrats were to ever actually go half way to the Republican side on any of those issues.
But just like poor Charlie Brown, the Democrats pull the football away just as he is a bout to kick it.
The Democrats just need a few stupid Republicans to open the door to a federal carbon tax. Low at first, then the Democrats will flog that puppy ever higher to fund big government including socialist single payer medical care.
They’ll drive prices at the gas pump to > $8/gal and triple natural gas prices. That’ll force people into EVs and all electric homes. Then their GreenSlime backers get fabulously wealthy on Renewable electricity schemes on the backs of the decimated middle class.
If I remember correctly, The graduated income tax we (almost) all suffer from was sold on the idea that it would only be (here, I’m not certain) 1% on only the top 1% of the rich … but it wasn’t passed until the “1%” were allowed such tax exempt things as “Foundations” and “Trust Funds”.
I welcome corrections.
PS Yes, I know that the first “income tax” was under Lincoln during the Civil War, but it did not continue and it was not based on different (graduated) percentages.
PPS See above, “I welcome corrections.”
Today’s income tax started in 1916 as a “temporary” small tax to help fund the ending of WWI. This is similar to a small tax that eventually was rolled back during the civil war.
— Fake News by Darth Vader
Very nice.
David, that’s a Trump quote, not a Graham quote.
I didn’t attribute it to Graham.
“I didn’t attribute it to Graham.”
Ok. The image above this line…
“And you are lying (fake news)… Senator Graham never mentioned the “climate crisis”.”
…wasn’t there when I read the article, so it appeared to be an incorrect attribution. Apologies.
Blame the CNN “journalist”… all I did was to quote her.
“It used to be called global warming, that wasn’t working, then it was called climate change and now actually it is called extreme weather.” And now it’s called “the climate crisis.”
Whoever said this, it is well-said. This calculated, sequential change in “climate change” terminology is clear evidence of a deliberate scam by the leaders of the global warming alarmist movement – it’s harder to hit a moving target.
THE COST TO SOCIETY OF RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/04/the-cost-to-society-of-radical-environmentalism/
[excerpt]
“The current usage of the term “climate change” is vague and the definition is routinely changed – it is a “non-falsifiable hypothesis”. It is therefore non-scientific nonsense.
‘A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.’ – Karl Popper
Climate has always changed. Current climate is not unusual and is beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earth is in a ~10,000 year warm period (‘interglacial’) within a ~100,000 year cycle of alternating glaciations and interglacials. A warm period is NOT a crisis. A glacial period (‘ice age’) with a 2 km thick continental glacier covering much of the world is a crisis.
The term “catastrophic human-made global warming” is a falsifiable hypothesis, and it was falsified decades ago – when fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 increased sharply after ~1940, while global temperature cooled from ~1945 to ~1977. There is no credible evidence that weather is more chaotic now – both hurricanes and tornadoes are at multi-decade low levels of activity.”
It is a crisis. This Arctic research vessel was forced to turn around due to extraordinarily thick ice.
https://electroverse.net/we-had-expected-more-melting-thick-arctic-ice-forces-norwegian-icebreaker-back/
😎
A heat wave has been forecast for about 2/3 of the US so, as we approach “The Dog Days of Summer” (a name earned because it is a recurring “event) we may see “warming” pop up in place of “change”.
It’s a seasonal thing. 😎
What? CNN lie? Fake news? Say it isn’t so…
THE PROBLEMS on climate on the policy side are TWO-PARTY POLITICS and POLITICIANS.
If we could just hit the delete button on those two, then rational human beings could look at the situation, decide on and fund a bunch of no-regrets pragmatic immediate actions, ramp up nuclear (fusion or new cookie-cutter small reactors), and get on with it.
It is sensible to begin phasing out the primitive act of “burning things” for energy and move upward and onward as a society.
That button is labeled “Elections”.
And Fission, Fusion are actually forms of fire, burning.
After all, mastery of fire defines our species.
Note the Green wish to take all fire away, Zeus’s eternal wish to torture Prometheus for helping mere mortals.
We are moving upwards to much higher energy density “fire”, and there is Helium 3 up there on the Moon’s poles.
It could be that the first Artemis Moon visitor will, fittingly, be a woman, the best answer to Greta and the mob.
bonbon ==> Gotta love a good education….
Technically, fusion is not “burning” — which is more usually defined along these lines: “Combustion is a chemical reaction that occurs between a fuel and an oxidizing agent that produces energy, usually in the form of heat and light. Combustion is considered an exergonic or exothermic chemical reaction. It is also known as burning.”
Fusion/fission do release a lot of energy as heat which is the art we take advantage of.
Also, Kip, you can think of burning as an event involving the electron shell of atoms and fusion/fission involving changes in the nucleus. This is why “cold fusion” is not likely.
No Kip – the real, real problem in all this is the psychological phenomenon of group-think (which is perhaps what you are talking about). I have just read Christopher Booker’s latest book, published by GWPF. I stopped laughing when I was halfway through it. I have become a bit of an alarmist now – because it occurred to me that perhaps it will have to become a lot, lot worse before “rational human beings [will] look at the situation ……………” as you say. And we must not forget that ALL of us little human beings have the minds to be mired in that psychological state of mind.
“I have become a bit of an alarmist now – because it occurred to me that perhaps it will have to become a lot, lot worse before “rational human beings [will] look at the situation ……………” as you say.”
You seem to be assuming it is “worse” now. There’s no evidence for that.
I was not being very clear. I meant that Christopher Booker in this excellent book (his last book, by the way) showed how group-think is able to hypnotise the climate alarmists so thoroughly that no amount of scientific, rational arguments against their theories will ever sway their illusions. By “worse” I meant that even if global temperatures were to demonstrably cool for the next 50 years, the alarmists will keep screaming that it is caused by CO2 induced climate change.
“the science is sound ” Graham said
But this: [ The only thing Senator Graham has said on climate change that I seriously disagree with is the “nine out of the 10, not the one” comment. ]
Does that mean you think the ‘science is sound’?
I think most of the actual science is sound. All of the hype is not sound. RCP8.5 ≠ science. Hockey stick reconstructions ≠ science.
If you look at the models and model scenarios that most closely match the observations, AGW is both real and inconsequential.
David M wrote:
“If you look at the models and model scenarios that most closely match the observations, AGW is both real and inconsequential.”
I agree with your major conclusion, that AGW IS INCONSEQUENTIAL – that statement is supported by all the credible evidence.
Whether AGW is real or not is another question – at this point, there is very little credible evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 even exists – it may or it may not – and that ASSUMPTION of a significant magnitude of “climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2” is the basis that supports the catastrophic global warming falsehood.
There is strong evidence that this climate sensitivity, IF IT EXISTS AT ALL IN MEASURABLE REALITY, is very small, probably much less than 1C/(2xCO2).
The theoretical existence of “climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2” is based on physics at the molecular scale, and planet Earth is a whole lot bigger than a molecule. There are known scale-up effects that overwhelm the molecular-scale theory, and may even completely negate it.
We can conclude that the climate computer models are all unscientific trash – even the ones that “most closely match the observations”, because the models all FALSELY ASSUME that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the PRIMARY driver of global temperature. This assumption is proven false by all the credible evidence, some of which is included here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
[excerpts]
“Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.
…
6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).
Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. MAY also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2. However, global temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
…
Similar [global] cooling occurred from ~1945 to 1977 as fossil fuel consumption accelerated.
…
Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming.”
____________________________
Yep.
It sure doesn’t appear to be.
Not unless we’re talking about >3,000 ppm.
Allan Macrae : [ The theoretical existence of “climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2” is based on physics at the molecular scale, and planet Earth is a whole lot bigger than a molecule. There are known scale-up effects that overwhelm the molecular-scale theory, and may even completely negate it. ]
This bears repeating, thank you!
Allan McRae
“at this point, there is very little credible evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 even exists ”
If you don’t mind I wonder if you could take a moment to explain this graph…
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf
Simon – regarding your graph:
Without access to all the raw data and calculations, as I provided in the Excel spreadsheet that accompanies my paper, I won’t comment, except to state WITH CERTAINTY:
I proved conclusively in 2008 that atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes by ~9 months in the modern data record, so Berkeley Earth is alleging that the future is causing the past, and that is highly irrational, based on precedence.
Those who allege that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary driver of dangerous global warming are seriously delusional, or knowingly corrupt.
Allan,
I mean the science is pretty well established on this point, but if you really think you are right…Write a paper…. get it peer reviewed… become famous. Or not…
Simon – I don’t know if you have been following along for any length of time but there is no way in hell any paper that questions the fundamental assumptions of warmists – regardless of validity, testability, or falsifiability – is ever going to get through the peer review process of any journal you would consider “REAL SCIENCE ™”. People have pointed out major and glaring flaws in warmist papers time and time again but those corrections never make it past the gate. The journals are gatekeepers of the narrative at this point.
I accepted AGW until about 208 when it was clear the exponential increase in CO2 was not being met with the appropriate increase in GSMT. As people scrambled for justifications, came up with just so explanations, adjusted temperatures to get rid of the problem, etc — it became clear to me that this is not science. This is construction of a narrative. Its journalism of a sort.
The narrative is just a propaganda tool to part rubes of their money and demand policy changes be enacted that oddly end up benefitting the worlds largest CO2 emitter to an extraordinary degree.
When most of the worlds CO2 and most of the worlds solar cells are coming from the same place — one has to be a little suspicious about the arrangement. This is especially true when you have Chinese nationals donating mountains of cash to Democrat and Republican candidates that all seem to push the climate crisis narrative.
But you keep your faith. I remain skeptical.
xenomoly
I am going to call you on a few of your rather outrageous points.
1. Please specify which politicians the Chinese are giving money to. Love to know. Seems to me you are believing the rather lame excuse Trump gave all those years ago that global warming was invented by the Chinese.
2. It is rather a cheap easy way out to say the peer review system is corrupt. It could just be the bar is rather high and can’t be met by the likes of Allan, who although I am sure is sincere, is really an amateur playing with the big boys. But if I am wrong maybe you have specific examples where peer review has deliberately misused to squash the skeptic arguments?
3. The adjustments are all fairly well documented. If you think they are a big lie then once again be specific… where are the falsehoods. Many have tried on this one and it seems to me all fall short. The GWPF were all excited a couple of years ago, asking for submissions on data and its validity. Nothing came of it. Seems to me this is where skeptics could really score some points…. but that is the Achilles heel for them… there just isn’t any concrete evidence to support the scientists falsifying data. Sure they get the odd thing wrong, but deliberate misrepresentation on a large scale. Naaa. Just saying.
Simon wrote:
“I mean the science is pretty well established on this point, but if you really think you are right…Write a paper…. get it peer reviewed… become famous.”
Simon, you are fully submerged in ignorance.
I published these observations in January 2008. They were well-discussed by experts on internet forums for many months, a far more rigorous process than the usual journal PAL-review, which approved the bogus Mann hockey-stick papers (MBH98 etc) and other such false global warming / climate nonsense.
My 2008 conclusions were later verified in a peer-reviewed paper by Humlum et al, published in 2013.
These facts are documented here on wattsup and elsewhere. You need to read a whole lot more and write a whole lot less – unless of course you are a paid troll, in which you will no doubt continue to write your drivel – knock yourself out.
Allan
2008? Really? That’s 11 year ago. You may well think internet forums provide the highest level of scrutiny, but I am not so sure. I hope you forgive me for being skeptical.
My reading (in 2019) tells me it is not as simple as saying one (CO2 and heat) causes the other. You will well now being an educated man that it is a lot more complex than that. Here is a youtube clip published in 2015 that offers a complete, more to date summary of the facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=dHozjOYHQdE
I have no idea what you mean by paid internet troll. I, like you, am an amateur trying to find the truth. Good luck to us both I say.
Simon you wrote: “My reading (in 2019) tells me it is not as simple as saying one (CO2 and heat) causes the other.”
You clearly are commenting without reading my paper. It is possible, even probable, that temperature drives CO2 AND CO2 drives temperature, but it is incontrovertible that temperature is dominant
Let’s end this now. It is a waste of my time.
I wrote in that paper as follows:
Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #9.
Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.
Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming.
Allan
“Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming.”
Well I guess we will just have to wait and see. In the mean time if you are wrong, we are in trouble. If you are right we can all party.
“I think most of the actual science is sound.”
Perhaps I’m not aware of the ‘actual science’. In my attempts to apply the ‘science’ to answer simple questions, I have been unable to find any ‘actual science’ to apply. It’s been my determination that the state of the ‘actual science’ you claim is ‘sound’ has no Laws, Axioms, Postulates, nor formulae to apply. I’ve concluded that we can’t derive any tools of reason from this theory because nothing is actually being directly measured. Measurements will allow us to derive tools of reason. What value does this ‘sound science’ possess if we can’t derive tools of reason to apply? Why aren’t we measuring anything of significance to advance this theory?
sound: [ having no defect as to truth, justice, wisdom, or reason ]
Lots of things are being directly measured, particularly over the past 40-50 years. Many other things are estimated or inferred from ice cores, sediment cores, etc. Estimates of climate sensitivity from direct measurements suggest a climate that is relatively insensitive to CO2. Paleo-reconstructions which honor data resolution differences, suggest that recent climate change is not particularly anomalous relative to the rest of the Late Holocene.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of peer-reviewed papers supporting this rather innocuous version of AGW. They don’t get publicized by CNN. There is no science supporting the notion that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, there is no greenhouse effect, or that anthropogenic CO2 emissions aren’t contributing to the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1800’s. The only scientific “debate” is about the magnitude of the “problem.”
The main difference between Lindsey Graham and the Republican Roosevelt Conservation Caucus vs. Alexandria Occasional-Cortex the Green New Dealers, it that it’s actually possible to have a constructive dialog with the former, but not the latter.
Thank you David Middleton for responding to my challenge and defending your position.
I remain skeptical – ‘lots of things being directly measured’ does not include the ‘Greenhouse Gas’ property of CO2 here on Earth or on Mars with 95% CO2 atmosphere, why is that? Since it hasn’t been measured, I’ve concluded that it can’t be measured, and if it can’t be measured is that sufficient “science supporting the notion that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”? (Or are all climate scientists so inept that they could measure it but choose not to?)
Thomas, I believe the Feldman et al 2015 paper does measure the greenhouse effect. It shows that as CO2 has increased the IR radiation in the frequencies that CO2 emits has also increased. That is a pretty good indication that the greenhouse effect (absorption/emission) is real.
However, the Gero/Turner 2011 paper shows that over the exact same period of time and in the same location, there’s been no increased to total IR radiation. To me this indicates the feedback is strongly negative.
Hence, I think attacking the GHE itself is not a good idea and people who say it doesn’t exist have a big problem. What we need to do is show that the atmosphere responds by reducing the water vapor GHE and increasing clouds. The net effect is insignificant.
Models have no predictive value, David. They can’t resolve the effect of CO2 on climate (if any).
Models that apparently track changes in the climate are just parameterized differently from the models that do not so track. The physical theory of the first set of models is just as inadequate as the physical theory in the second.
When you’ve got a bunch of models with different tuned parameter sets, one or another of them can get close to observations by happenstance.
But the results are just as non-predictive and physically meaningless as the results of other models that go zooming off.
David
Good review.
Why does CNN lie?
Because the Left lives a lie. But fortuantely can only handle one big lie at a time.
Can you imagine being frantic, at the same time, about climate cooling and run-a-way heating. Along with anxieties about “Ozone Holes”, “Acid Rain”, “DDT”, “Drought”, “Coastal Flooding” and the dreaded “Alar on Apples”?
Does “climate resistant infrastructure” mean less potholes in the spring?
If you compare homes built in New England to homes built in Texas… we already have “climate resistant infrastructure”.
A roof seems to be very important but apparently walls don’t work.
The climate doesn’t have a “problem”, Graham does – between his ears. But RINOs will be RINOs, I guess.
Senator Graham: There is no man-made climate change.
CO2 has changed systematically. The earth’s temperature has not.
https://youtu.be/b1cGqL9y548 at mark 16:00
doesnt CNN stand for ClintonNewsNetwork?
If only Trump would come out for the Climate Change “crisis”, only so the left would reflexively condemn it as a racist and fascist scam.
You’re very confused, or lying, one or the other.
The article by Ms. Dezenski correctly quoted Senator Graham, she did not say what you say she said, and youir own quote of her article proves it.
You are trying to mask the fact that Senator Graham is taking issue with Trump, publicly advising him to admit that there is a climate problem- Graham’s words, correctly and accurately quoted by the journalist.
The only “fake new” is your post, which consists entirely of misdirection and, well, fake lies.
Look, I happen to believe that climate change is not a problem – it is real, and it is a factor in the natural environment, and that ensuring that we continue to build a resilient infrastructure and society that easily handles whatever climate changes come our way – well, to a limit of course, as a 2 km thick ice sheet sitting on top of half of the continental United States would never be “easy” to deal with – but that is the point of Senator Graham, I believe. He is correct, the debate needs to be on what we do going forward. Denying that the climate changes is fake news. Lying about what reporters state in their articles with direct quotes is also fake news.
We have way too much fake news, both left and right. Getting the story straight is the first step in figuring out what we can and should do.
Learn how to read…
Graham never referred to it as a “climate crisis”, much less “acknowledging and embracing” it.
Then I cited two articles that accurately reported Graham’s position and differences with President Trump.
I think Duane had the same issue I did. The graphic in your comment wasn’t in the article originally, or failed to load or whatever. So it looked like the Trump quote was presented as the Graham quote.
I added the graphic when I replied to Duane… But all of it, including the headline, was quoted verbatim in the post, just as clearly as in the graphic.
Duane,
Who wrote this:
“ It’s Lindsey Graham vs. Donald Trump on climate crisis“
It’s a Climate Emergency about which no-one intends to do anything … so it’s a bit like my beer is empty emergency where you hope a friend will bring you one.
Global warming, climate change, extreme weather, climate emergency, climate crisis and now…wait for it …tadaaaa…we give you climate shocks!
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/world-hunger-is-on-the-rise-and-climate-shocks-are-partly-to-blame-un-says/ar-AAEqnrI
Time to get in the baked beans and ammo.
From that link:
“ Many of those suffering from hunger live in the developing world. ”
I can remember, in the 1950s, a missionary coming to our church and asking for donations from the children of America who could help the children of the developing world.
How long does “developing” take?
The problems mentioned by MSN having nothing to do with “a hotter planet.”
The problem with the nomenclature of “developing countries” is that they will always be playing catch-up with the rest of the “developed countries”.
BTW don’t “developed countries” continue to develop, or do they merely fade away once they are finished developing? (some appear to do just that)
Senator Graham should, as a politician, understand the term, “confounding factor”, at the very least. But more important, when was the idea of the “null hypothesis” dismissed as both judge and jury of research conclusions? It irritates me no end that post normal research skips over this basic tenant of research, loudly claiming that whatever they wish to be a catalyst can share space equally, or even singly, without needing to give the null hypothesis a knock out punch, much less mention in the introductory section.
I wonder if this has come about because just about anyone with a breathing hole can get a Ph.D. these days. These candidates spend all their time doing grunt work research tasks for their department head so hesheit can claim productivity in research, instead of having these candidates enrolled in rigorous coursework in introductory, in-depth, and multiple practicums in research methods and designs, as well as requiring multiple levels of statistical analysis classes. I’ve seen the course lists for Ph.D. candidates. Not impressed.
CNN founded by Ted Turner, a Malthusian psychopath who wants to decimate the population to 350 million people.
This is why CNN can’t do anything but lie and propagate blatant fake news to fulfil the worst Nazy agenda ever pushed by humans.
If I remember correctly, Ted’s wife at the time (Jane Fonda) said she was very proud of him for committing 1 billion dollars to the UN. (I think over 10 years.)
So if nly about 1 out of twenty are to survive? Turner has five children. Somebody should challenge him to name the four children he would eliminate, and who would get the 1 out of four chances to live.
Like drug dealers but less honest.
There should never again be a debate about “Climate Change” or “Global Warming”. The only debate concerning this relatively insignificant issue should be about whether or not “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change” exists. All others are are about angels on the head of a pin.
This is the inevitable result of ignoring aggression, of standing by in silence while the chamber’s oxygen is consumed by the aggressor. Trump has waited too long to challenge this nonsense. Now it may be too late.
A legal parallel: An undenied allegation is deemed admitted. Graham may be among the first in the Domino Effect.
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping I will eat him last.” Churchill
Was there ever a political band wagon passing by that did not get overcrowded. Jump on quick Graham, not much room left; Theresa May got the last seat.
The next empty one is still at the start line.
There are many examples from recorded history over more than 3000 years of how people have adapted to climate conditions and survived without exorbitant hair-brained schemes to change the climate of the world. I remember growing up with stories about the dykes in Holland. Dykes have saved many lives with the last serious flooding occurring in 1953 – 66 years ago! We can adapt at a small fraction of the cost of the green schemes.
AOC claims that not only will the GND solve the climate problem, but it will end racism.
It’ll kill racism, along with all of the people.
And they think only those that are “green” will survive.
A simple question: Is there any scientific proof that reducing CO2 will actually reduce temperatures ?
Nope.
IPCC = “Incredible Panel on Climate Change”
incredible, ADJECTIVE, impossible to believe.
In the Committee’s view, assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty. If the confidence scale is used in this way, conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of “very high confidence” will have little substantive value.
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/UN_IPCC_IAC-Report-Overview-Long.pdf