Congress Investigates the Appointment of Legates to NOAA

As far as I can tell, reading between the lines, it seems the main reason they object is because he is icky. What a surprise, it’s from Grijalva.

Inquistion

Excerpt:

Dear Dr. Jacobs:

We are writing to raise concern about the irresponsible installation of Dr. David Legates as the new Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction. Dr. Legates’ continued denial of human-driven climate change and its devastating impacts degrades the scientific integrity and derails the mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

With the daily realities we face as a country and global community, it is shameful that such a thing as a “climate denier” still exists and extremely problematic that one be appointed to a prominent position in NOAA.

Dr. Legates has testified before our Committee downplaying or downright refuting the anthropogenic drivers of our current climate crisis. He stated: “Climate has always changed, and weather is always variable due to complex, powerful natural forces. No efforts to stabilize the climate can possibly be successful.” He went on: “…transition[ing] from fossil fuels to so called clean energy to protect us from climate change is a recipe for personal and economic disaster that will have virtually no impact on the Earth’s climate.” NOAA’s own data, compiled over the 50 years of the agency’s existence, points to exactly the opposite. Specifically, the third National Climate Assessment coauthored by NOAA stated “Global climate is changing, and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.”1 Furthermore, the increase in frequency and severity of extreme events that are exacerbated by climate change are well-documented, particularly by NOAA.
2 Nowhere is the connection between human-driven climate change and extreme climate events more clearly exemplified than the current fire and
drought conditions in the West, and the hurricanes and flooding in the Southeast and Gulf of Mexico.


Dr. Legates’ appointment is an extreme risk to the American public and an insult to the quality science and scientists at NOAA.

Full letter at link below.

130 thoughts on “Congress Investigates the Appointment of Legates to NOAA

  1. Raul M. Grijalva is Chair of the Committee on Natural Resources (A Democrat Rep from Arizona) and Jared Huffman, Chair Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife is also a Democrat Rep from California. Both signed the letter.

    I am not surprised they would sign such a letter to Dr. Neil Jacobs, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction and Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere at NOAA complaining about such an appointment. It is what Democrats do.

    I wonder how long Dr. Neil Jacobs (Acting Under Secretary at NOAA) will remain acting as Acting Under Secretary if he were to do anything about this so called ‘political appointment’ that they claim has been done. Can hardly wait for this election to be over, and I hope it is a massive landslide for DJT, and then all this nonsense can be deconstructed. Or at least sidelined and made irrelevant for at least 2-4 more years.

    • I am not sure what you mean by “It is what Democrats do” unless you mean all they do is write letters
      “to raise concern”. Which seems remarkably mild all things considered.

      • What, you mean it is ‘mild’ to smear a appointed person by contriving some way to say he is putting everyone ‘at risk’?

        Just as a purely hypothetical response, I’ll bet that all Democrats and other lefties like to roast babies for breakfast (a la the suggestion that Jonathan Swift gave for curing poverty in his classic satire “A Modest Proposal”).

        Mild, right?

        • His post was a pile of crap anyway. Two deflections/straw men in the first sentence. Three if you include the “I am not sure” lie.

          Then you nailed the second sentence.

      • “World Peace accords are a distraction from the disasters of climate caused fires”. We now also have “climate arsonists” on the loose, a term never heard or defined before. It is solely what democrats claim, so that is what they do.

        Not hard to figure this out and nothing new. In fact there is a word already defined for it. They are demogogues.

        • We had news reports of Climate Arsonists up on Grizzly Peak in Berzerkly. Going into tinder dry areas and lighting massive bonfires as well as setting off aerial fireworks is a recipe for disaster…
          So take your pick
          Climate Arsonists
          Climate Terrorists
          ????

        • On his behalf, I can. Many members of the tribe he runs with could get fired and, hopefully for cause, so they don’t get any severance payments.

          ….. but that’s buried in the other half of his cognitive dissonance.

        • “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” – Hanlon’s Razor.

          The problem is that they are following an opinion and mistaking it for science based on Consensus (a logical fallacy – Argumentum ad Verecundiam). Many of us fall prey to that fallacy. As a result, I make it a a practice to tear apart anything Eschenbach or Middleton say on this site. The best I have been able to do is (rarely) disagree with some conclusions, but both of them have such fine arguments and data that I am loathe to expose my ignorance – or desire for how I wish things were – on the issue. Still, it forces me to think. It appears that most scientists who agree with AGW simply aren’t willing to 1) study the issue, or 2) risk the wrath of their peers. I know a few of them. I ten to think of them as lazy or cowardly, but then I don’t know all the risks they face.

          Politicians on the other hand… are just plain clueless, pretty much about everything except how to get elected. That’s one of the reasons I like Trump. He’s not a politician, and no amount of pressure from his advisors will change that, or so it seems.

      • Your handle suggest your affiliation with the Izaak Walton League which promotes the following from their website:
        While our community recognizes that any comprehensive national strategy to address climate change must include reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, we also believe this strategy will need to include land and water-based solutions that harness the power of our natural systems to a) sequester carbon and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions; b) maintain and build climate resiliency – the ability for natural systems to absorb stress and maintain function in the face of external stressors imposed upon them; and c) ensure adaptive solutions such as managing natural systems for climate impacts. We support immediate actions at the federal, state, local and private levels to achieve these needed solutions.
        ALL WRONG

      • I am not sure what you mean by “It is what Democrats do” . . .

        What he means (at least) is Democrat progressives are destroyers. In this context destroyers of Dr. Legates’ reputation (i.e., the typical progressive ad hominem attack).

        . . . unless you mean all they do is write letters “to raise concern”.

        If only that were all they do the world would be a much better place, but destroyers by nature destroy both in word and deed.

        For example, in managing pandemics in their states:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/14/why-the-covid-19-epidemic-is-essentially-over-current-pcr-testing-protocols-are-pointless/#comment-3084583

        Or in managing public safety in their cities:

        https://tinyurl.com/y4247nq6

        https://tinyurl.com/y685vyrq

        Wherever there is Democrat progressive governance, there is mayhem, poverty, crime, pain, despair and death.

        It’s remarkable that any common man would vote against their own best interests by voting for a Democrat progressive liberal:

        https://justthenews.com/nation/economy/trump-touts-record-low-poverty-rate-all-us-households-including-african-american-and

        • It shows that these Democrats that chair the committees are just partisan hacks. They can’t even wait to find fault with something Dr. David Legates will do; they just smear him with being a climate denier right up front through innuendo. It is a refined method of intellectual rioting. I think it means we are winning, especially if this all they got with their criticism. If there is a sweep of the House by Republicans, (not likely) then true science might return with the participation of a real scientist, Dr. David Legates. Democrats are whiners and complainers. These guys thrown intellectual Molotov cocktails.

          “David Russell Legates is an American climatologist and professor of geography at the University of Delaware. He is the former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the same university and a former Delaware state climatologist.”

      • Walton
        I think that you need to work on your reading comprehension. They didn’t just “raise concern,” they specifically accused Legates of being in denial of “human-driven climate change” and asserted that “human-driven climate change” is responsible for “devastating impacts” and Legates’ denial “degrades the scientific integrity and derails the mission of …NOAA.” Those are pretty serious charges that are more than just raising concern!

        Interestingly, the Democrat representatives claim that Legates engaged in “refuting the anthropogenic drivers of our current climate crisis.” In my dictionary, that is tantamount to disproving or destroying the claims made by alarmists. I think that they meant something more like “rebut.” But then they are Democrats. What more can I say?
        https://www.thefreedictionary.com/refute

  2. If there is any one Congressperson on whom blame can be laid for atrocious condition of our Federal lands and the megafires sweeping the West, it’s Raul Grijalva.

    That pathetic excuse for legislator has done more to obstruct stewardship over the last 18 years than any other Congressoaf, and that’s saying something.

    He’s a hardcore Lefty, a jingoistic fool, a former Chair of the Progressive Caucus, and among the most liberal members of of Congress.

    Grijalva fancies himself an environmentalist. Obama wanted to appoint him to be Sec. Interior, but the blow back was too severe. Raul is a fake, a fraud, a tool, and wouldn’t know a pine tree from a fir tree.

    NOAA needs Legates. The people there doing the real work are at odds with their politically motivated administrators, who are largely Obama holdovers. Raul should be stonewalled and cancelled on this and every one of his ridiculous and disastrous policy pronouncements.

    • Good points.

      I would point out that megafires happen from time to time, but depending on definition, there aren’t any burning right now (>1 million acres). The August fire in California is currently the largest at about 750,000 acres. If one goes back to the early 1900’s or so, fires are much smaller today because of our abilities to suppress them.

      https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm

      • Whaaat? A “megafire” is one over 100,000 acres. Nobody but nobody has a different definition. A hundred thousand acres is 156 square miles.

        The August Complex Fire is currently estimated to be 820,000 acres and growing. That’s 18 megafires in one. It is the largest fire in state history and nearly double the size of No. 2 (the Mendocino Complex Fire of 2018). Seventeen of the 20 largest fires in CA state history have occurred since 2003, the year Raul Grijalva was elected to Congress, and all of the top 12. Five of the 10 largest fires in state history are burning right now. Thousands of homes destroyed, dozens of lives lost. The count isn’t finished.

        There are five megafires burning in Oregon right now. Most years we don’t get any over 100,000 acres. At least 8 towns have been severely damaged.

        I can’t believe anyone would cast this off as no big deal, or just another fire season, or not like the bad old days.

        That’s the kind of slap in the face we’ve been getting from Raul Grijalva for 18 years. Injury upon insult upon injury. He’s not just a pinko blowhard; he’s a real threat to life on this planet.

        • Should have been properly managing your forests instead of obeying the stupidity of leftists moron. See what it has gotten you? Are you finally going to put them out of your government and remove their stupidity from your laws and regulations?

    • “Raul is a fake, a fraud, a tool, and wouldn’t know a pine tree from a fir tree.”

      Well to be fair, what most people think is a Fir tree, such as a Douglas Fir, isn’t actually a fir tree at all. A true Fir tree would more of a Balsam tree, (such as Christmas trees) which are a true fir. Abies balsamea or balsam fir is a North American fir. Ok…I am being a nerd…but is something most people don’t know about the majestic Douglas Fir. Although to be fair, you didn’t mention Douglas.

      Firs (Abies) are a genus of 48–56 species of evergreen coniferous trees in the family Pinaceae. They are found through much of North and Central America, Europe, Asia, and North Africa, occurring in mountains over most of the range. Firs are most closely related to the genus Cedrus (cedar). Douglas firs are not true firs, being of the genus Pseudotsuga.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fir

      “Douglas fir, which has sometimes been called the Douglas tree, Oregon pine, and Douglas spruce, is not actually a true fir, a pine, or a spruce.”

      https://www.nwf.org/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Plants-and-Fungi/Douglas-Fir

  3. The letter is from the Committee on Natural Resources. Here’s the ‘investigates’ part:

    Lastly, many questions remain about the mechanics of the appointment. It has become clear that
    the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and
    Prediction is newly created, but it is unclear whether it is a Senate-confirmed position or how it
    affects the allotment of politically appointed positions within the agency. Please confirm by
    September 29th, 2020 whether Dr. Legates was hired as a political appointee, if NOAA hired him
    through a typical government hiring process, or if another hiring process was used. Please contact
    Lora Snyder, Staff Director for the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife, should you
    have any questions about this request.

    The problem with draining the swamp is that there are rules designed to protect the political impartiality of most of the jobs in government. The theory is that, if political appointments are limited, the hired employees will be impartial, because they are just ordinary Joes, not political appointees. In this case, that obviously didn’t work.

    What if all your potential employees come from the over “educated” elite which predominantly supports the Democrat party? You end up with a department where everyone is able to rationalize ignoring common sense.

    Anyway, it is possible for a climate skeptic to be hired within the normal process. If the position is new, and the people conducting the job interview are political appointees, the new hire can effectively be a political appointee without cutting into the allotment.

  4. I see they are going to try a William Happer on him. It shows what an entrenched problem the US, and therefore humanity, have to deal with. The mental disease of climate alarmism is now endemic.

  5. Dr Jacobs should write back pointing out that the letter contains the hate speech term ‘climate denier’, adding that hate speech was not appropriate in any communication but particularly reprehensible from a public servant and flat-out unacceptable in an official communication from Congress.

    Further, Grijalva and Huffman must cease and desist from using abusive language when contacting official bodies of the United States and must immediately write separate letters of apology to Dr Jacobs and Dr Legates and undertake never to use hate speech again in the future. The letter should be copied to the Department of Justice with a view to prosecution under the relevant abusive language regulation.

    • Perhaps ‘Drs.’ (my pretended elevation to invite contributions of any substantive knowledge they are able to offer in technical matters) Grijalva and Huffman are more than a particularly nasty pair of professional manipulators of the body politic as this first expression from them clearly announces. Surely they just got off to a bad start and will want to repent with an apologize to their ‘colleague’ for what is to date nothing but an attempted character assassination of someone they fear might be in a position to reveal what ‘climate change’ has actually amounted to over a full 3 decades now. It would certainly be an honorable civility to do so and I hope they can bring themselves to man up to the necessary virtue.

    • A search shows that this isn’t hate speech but a recognised dictionary definition.

      Here’s an example from a search on ‘denier definition’

      NOUN
      denier (noun) · deniers (plural noun)
      a person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.
      “a prominent denier of global warming” · “a climate change denier”

      • Small problem, griff. That term is not fit for purpose. Dr. Legates doesn’t deny the climate of this planet changes (nor do many with the notable exception of those who’ve readjusted the historic record to suppress similar past changes to make the present seem fearfully unprecedented — there are your climate deniers for you). So the finger pointing is simply disingenuous misdirection. But of course as a willing practitioner of same you knew that. I’m so glad that together we could get this cleared up!

        • The term “denier” is rooted in a derogatory use to define those who denied the Holocaust.

          And yes, it is entirely illogical to use as a term for anybody not accepting CAGW.

          Look for the Griff’s of the world to try to conflate the science of CAGW skepticism to flat earthers and any other far out beliefs.

          Because they cannot win a debate, they resort to infantile insults and false analogy. It is all they have.

      • ““a climate change denier””

        Not only it hate speech, designed to denigrate Dr Legates, (don’t pretend its anything else)

        But also a MANIFEST LIE. !

        But then, you would know what a “climate change denier” was, griffool….

        … because YOU are in totally DENIAL of climate change.

        • It’s time NASA realised there is a possibility that the earth is flat and they appointed a suitable director of space flight from the millions who believe that we live on a non global earth!

          • Time the G half-runt provided evidence that AGW by human CO2 even exists,

            So far the half-runt is a complete failure.

            Talk to Trenberth et al about the flat non-rotating Earth, half-runt.

          • One thing I’ve noticed about all climate alarmists. None of them are capable of constructing an honest argument.

          • fred250 September 17, 2020 at 5:01 am
            Time the G half-runt provided evidence that AGW by human CO2 even exists,
            ————————
            How can one argue with you when all scientific evidence you simply call FAKE SCIENCE as if that overrides the truth. AND it is no good asking you for evidence that it will all be ok for your answer is always “you said AGW – you prove it (how!!) I need show no proof of my disagreement”. And then you can simply say you’ve provided no evidence!

          • Translation: I got nothing, but I’ll get up on my high horse and pretend that I’m a morally superior being who doesn’t have to show his work.l

        • It is also time that the FCC realises that 5G mast installation is the reason we are all suffering with Covid. They should have a 5G-covid believer appointed to the approvals board.

        • And of course the FDA needs Dr. Immanuel on board for who is to say her beliefs are not valid – — cysts and endometriosis are the result of people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches, alien DNA is used in medical treatments, scientists are working on a vaccine to stop people from being religious, and of course parts of government are run by “reptilians” and other aliens.

          • So, as usual, absolutely NOTHING to say about the topic of putting a REAL scientist in charge of NOAA.

            Just juvenile petty attempts at distraction.. Pathetically not even funny.

            Being the half-runt of the litter seems to have stunted your brain development.

          • would a REAL open minded scientist sign up to this religious group?
            Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Principal Research Scientist in Climatology, University of Alabama, Huntsville,
            Dr. Joseph D’Aleo (Executive Director and Certified Meteorologist, Icecap
            Dr. David Legates (Associate Professor of Climatology, University of Delaware
            Dr. Ross McKitrick (Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada,
            Dr. Cornelis van Kooten (Professor of Economics and Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
            Dr. Kenneth W. Chilton (Founder and Emeritus Director, Institute for the Study of Economics and the Environment, Lindenwood College);
            Contibuting Writers.
            :Rev. Richard S. Courtney, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Methodist Preacher, Cornwall, UK
            G. Cornelis van Kooten, Ph.D., Professor of Economics and Research Chari in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, BC, Canada
            Advisory board
            James A. Wanliss, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Physics, Presbyterian College,

            OK so some scientists (who follow the no problem belief) do!

            This is what they have signed into.
            Can these signatories ever criticise mans environmental behaviour if they signed up to this it would be disrespecting God?

            We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
            We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
            etc
            https://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

          • Typical intolerance of the far left. If you believe anything that I don’t believe, then everything you do is invalid. Heck, we might as well ship you to a re-education camp right now.

          • Ghalfrunt, I am not that religious myself, but I don’t see anything wrong with that declaration. In no way it contradicts what is known of the effect of CO2 on climate (which is at minimum hard to detect and at maximum beneficial).

            For the rest, everybody may believe in some Creator to any extent as they wish, as long as that is not at the cost of other’s well being, life and goods.

            BTW, my stance in this is much simpler: God had to create only one special element: carbon and all the rest would follow automatically, as carbon is THE element on earth that can and does react with itself and with about every other element on earth. Ultimately making life possible that we know today…

          • Gag, I tend to agree, that those statements in the Cornwall Alliance document are as unsupportable as CO2 being the control knob for climate.

            If CO2 IS the control knob, can you explain why so-called extreme weather hasn’t gotten extremier? And why acres burned of wildfires was 10 times worse 100 years ago? The latter I realize is in part due to our increased ability to suppress them. But in suppressing them, fuel builds up. They should be allowed to burn.

          • Ghalfrunt:

            This is what they have signed into.

            And the following is what you’ve signed into, assuming you’re a believer that consensus is the defining factor when it comes to CAGW:

            “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

            https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf

            According to a consensus of scientists at the IPCC, “we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible,” and yet you believe it is not only possible, but catastrophic if nothing is done to mitigate the rise in temperature.

            How is your belief by faith any less than those at the Cornwall Alliance?

          • AGW is just a new religion, that you have signed up to

            What a pathetically POINTLESS comment and attempt to distract from the act that Legates is a REAL SCIENTIST.

            Talk to the Pope. ! Fool. !

          • “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.”

            Yes, they were incorrect on this point the statement should be……

            “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing ANY global warming.”

          • Fred, those two statements are orthogonal, and so both can be true, and either cancel the need for CAGW policy.

      • Griff: according to my 1976 edition of The Concise Oxford Dictionary, and also my 2004 international version of the American Merriam-Webster dictionary, the term ‘denier’ refers to a fineness of unit for silk, rayon, or nylon yarn. The pronunciation is ‘den-yer’.
        The Oxford version defines denial as refusal of a request or wish or a statement that something is not true or existent, a contradiction’
        The Merriam Webster dictionary defines denial as rejection of a request, a refusal to admit the truth of a statement or charge, or an assertion that something alleged is false.
        The currently fashionable term ‘denier’ is used as a smear to belittle those who hold to the view that we don’t face climatic doomsday due to human CO2 emissions.
        I spent a working career in science and technology, and never once did I hear a scientist whose views didn’t agree with another referred to as a denier – an insulting term, a product of the man-made climate change zealots, and nothing else.

        • griff is a climate collaborator or apologist.

          And his whole forum trolling is based on total and absolute climate change denial.

      • Ethnic and racial slurs are also in the dictionary. Does that mean the use of them is no longer hateful? Man, your logic is pathetic.

      • griff are you really that dumb? (rhetorical questions, I know) a similar search on various hate speech words (such any of the various racial slurs) will also turn up a recognized dictionary definitions for those words. Being in a recognized dictionary does not prove *anything* about whether a word is hate speech or not, all it can do is show you what some of the possible definitions of the word are.

          • Indeed. But I don’t think griff was advocating the removal of problematic words. s/he was just trying to use the words existence in a dictionary as a “proof” that the word was not “hate speech”, but as that’s not why words are in dictionaries, hus/her proof is no such thing. Just one more brainless fallacy. In other words par for the course for griff.

      • And again griff, since you have avoided any answer for many years…

        What do we DENY that you have solid empirical scientific proof for.

        Are you a “Goldilocks” denier….. that is basically what they are accusing Legates of denying.

        A Fairy Tale.

        • see my comment
          Ghalfrunt. September 17, 2020 at 6:37 am
          Can a scientist sign up to this statement and be lauded here
          “intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing,”

          And then commenters here complain that the humans in California are not managing their forests correctly. From the Cornwall statement whatever man does is ok – vacuum the forests or safe burn the forests, or just keep putting out the fires – its all wonderful.

          • Notice how ghoulfont can’t be bothered with refuting the actual statements, so he has to attack his interpretation of what they said.

          • Poor half-runt

            Totally incapable of arguing the actual science

            Making a complete and utter clown/fool/idiot of itself.

            Also a religious hater.. even though the AGW religion is all he has in his life.

            He really is so sadly pathetic.

            Forests have been around for BILLIONS of years, they burn occasionally to renew themselves, yet they are still here. Extremely robust.

            Try to engage that one little brain cell of yours before you comment, half-runt.

          • Not a believer in “Intelligent Design”

            Too many democrats and drones like griff and half-runt to be any intelligence involved.

      • @ griff:

        Here is the definition of arrogance:
        adjective. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official. characterized by or proceeding from arrogance, or a sense of superiority, self-importance, or entitlement: arrogant claims.

        And here is the definition of ethnocentrism:
        Ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s own way of life or culture is superior to others. “ Ethnocentrism is the view that ‘our’ ways of doing things are ordinary and better and that other approaches are in some way inferior.

        And here is the definition of Grandiose:
        Grandiose. A person with this type of delusional disorder has an over-inflated sense of worth, power, knowledge, or identity. The person might believe he or she has a great talent or has made an important discovery.

        To start an argument/discussion with a definition is the presumption that you need such a definition because your argument will not stand upon it’s own. It is easily dismissed as the discussion will not only fall flat but degrade to a circular definition war of sorts.

      • Griff, a search of the Oxford English Dictionary will also show that any hateful word you can imagine is a recognized, defined word as well. That proves nothing. Context and the way in which a term is used helps determine if it is “hate speech.” In this context, it is hate speech, not to mention that the term “climate denier” is an essentially meaningless pejorative. Of course, so-called “hate speech” is another area where lunatic fringe regressives (how’s that for some “hate speech”?) have weaseled into our lexicon with the intent of muzzling FREE speech. In these times, there are recent examples of university professors losing jobs and being “cancelled” (another stupid concept) for saying “niggardly” (a legitimate word having nothing to do with race) or speaking a Chinese phrase that sounds similar to the N word. This is mob rule by the ignorant, and the letter in question here throws accelerant on the fire.

      • I bet you could find the “n” word in most dictionaries as well.
        As we all know, using the “n” word, or even words that sound like the “n” word is sufficient to get one fired from most jobs and any university campus.

      • Hey griffy – how do you alarmists explain the Medieval Warm Period which was warmer than it is today, and was without any increase in CO2? How do you explain the Roman Warm Period which was even warmer? Or the ice core data sHowing even warmer periods? ARE YOU A DENIER???

      • ” concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.”

        Of which you can produce not one single piece of evidence.

        Not even for the most basic facet of the AGW farce.. warming by atmospheric CO2.

        And how can you deny the “truth” of an unproven concept, which is about as far up the scientific ladder that AGW has ever been able to climb.

        So your whole definition is a load of arrant nonsense and simply DOES NOT APPLY.

      • The term was made up to define climate change skeptics and scientists as the same people who deny the existence of the holocaust. It’s hate speech

      • You have just proven that the hate speech and disinfo has been propagated to the dictionaries, which are now making political anti Trump statements.

      • “someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence”

        Not applicable.

        Because the “truth” is that nature, not humanity, drives the Earth’s climate, and because “the majority of scientific or historical evidence” provides no support for human-induce climate disaster.

        There remains NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that atmospheric CO2 drives the earth’s climate. The “deniers” are those who deny that NATURE drives the Earth’s climate, just like it always has.

  6. This is how the Left roll. They attack every appointment, every decision, every policy they disagree with, and they do it every time.
    The correct response to this impertinence would be to double down and appoint another sceptical figure to another senior role.

  7. It is important to add diversity of opinion to science. Science is not meant to follow “group think”, many important scientific discoveries have come from people that questioned the current theories of the day. The last thing we want is congress meddling in science, as they are not scientists but politicians.

    • Congress has been meddling in science for a long time now, just like about everything else. I’ll have to do some digging to get actual figures, but the number of scientists working for the federal government is so high that government jobs represent a large fraction of scientist jobs within the U.S. By the very nature of placement of laboratories, the science is necessarily political.

      As a scientist, I view government employment of scientists as a welfare program because the market is distorted to create too many. I’ve seen the craziest things, like employees at NREL playing “Candyland” on an extra large “board” set up in the hallways to the Critical Race Theory seminars and training that are going on now.

      The biggest waste is probably in the area of travel. Many people in scientific institutes basically get a portion of their personal vacations paid for by taxpayers. They attach personal stays to “legitimate” institute travel so as to get airfare and some hotel accommodations paid for and often get reimbursed per diems for travel days. COVID-19 has curtailed this for the time being.

  8. Another day, another scream from swamp creatures. Good timing for the appointment because the swamp media are totally invested in swaying the presidential election.

    The recent swing back to climate change as a major election issue indicates just how bad things are for Biden and the swamp. Nothing they have tried has stuck so they fall back to an issue that their own experts have told them in the past is a loser. We are seeing desperation.

  9. What should be at the top of the agenda of Congress: Getting the US government to spend wisely and live within their means. This means to address wasteful spending, to produce a balanced budget annually and to take concrete steps to pay back their huge debt in say 20 years.

    When was a balanced budget last tabled? Some two decades ago. Why has the Fed never been audited? When a Congress wastes their time and taxpayer monies on purely political investigation after investigation but does not do the real work the President should refuse to give them a dime.

    • Michael,
      In our now-decrepit, if not defunct Constitution, Congress holds the purse strings. It is the Congress that can refuse to give the President a dime, not vice versa. The President can veto a spending bill, but cannot legitimately spend money, except on the purposes that Congress has appropriated the funds.

      • Rich,
        I knew that Congress holds the purse strings but was under the impression that a presidential veto of a spending bill was like a bank blocking access to a customer’s account. If so, could the President not leverage this to get them to redo a bill?

        Why should ordinary people have to work hard and budget carefully – these are taxpayers – not expect the same of their government? Perhaps this is why a qualified franchise where only those over 30 and working in the private sector choose the leaders – whom they recognize as honest and responsible people.

        Sadly, democracy – for many – usually means not getting the good leaders we need but the bad ones we deserve. Politicians are not discrediting Legates because he is incompetent. He is the best man for the job. For him honesty and responsibility matter but for his critics it is only about their ideology. He has integrity they sorely lack.

        • You might think that the President could have some leverage, but the tactic employed by Congress is to create an omnibus spending bill that is either passed warts-and-all, or the government is shut down. The party precipitating a government shutdown generally pays a heavy political price.

          Our republican government (small r, not Republican) is failing or has already failed, based on the analogy of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for supper.

          It’s too late now, I’m afraid, short of a military coup, to make the changes that could salvage our republic.

          Ideally all government assistance, rather than being structured as an automatic entitlement, should be a voluntary contract that requires a legally-binding agreement to forfeit the right to vote for 5 years. In that way, those who live off the taxes imposed on productive citizens could not support the re-election of politicians who set up the Robin Hood schemes. Reasonable people will vote for true safety net programs, but will not support safety hammocks.

          • Actually there is a possibility. Get Congress to approve a budget or continuing spending resolution just before a new debt cap vote is required. TRUMP! veto’s the cap extension. Then HE decides what is spent to not exceed the income.

            This method would essentially be like a line item veto. Crap programs can be closed down, including laying off ALL associated employees and terminating all outside contracts. Fund only those items specified in the constitution.

            Of course this is IF there are enough non-swamp dwellers to block a veto override.

    • Not quite.
      See https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/page/5/
      Various direct initiatives in the crisis.

      So who bailed out the banks under Bush and Obama? It sure looks like Congress, but no veto was applied.
      Result?

      Who bailed out the banks in Dublin? The Prime Minister or the Parliament? The President does not have Executive Order powers or Veto as far as I know.

      The accountants of the “balanced” mentality always avoid that question.

      • Bonbon thanks for illustrating why I said “our now-decrepit, if not defunct Constitution”

        It has been shredded by a series of Presidents in both parties.

  10. Science and policy should be handled honorably.
    Science and policy should foremost be handled in a way where where different viewpoints, data and facts are laid openly and kindly on the table for all to participate.

    In not treating science and policy with dignity and openness, you run a certain risk to make catastrophic mistakes and injury (why did I come to think of Biden now?).

    Kindergarten or angry Greta Thunberg mentality, like what Grijalva and Huffman are displaying, is not helpful to neither science, democracy or the people in general.

    Grijalva and Huffman, could you please try to cooperate, make things better and help Legates the best you can.
    You know, it goes for any small or large company: If you cannot work with your colleagues, you are better off seeking advice by a psychiatrist and if that doesn’t help, leave the firm.

  11. Human driven global warming is a complete myth as well as being completely impossible. Dr Legate should be lauded for saying so. In the UK and EU there is a blanket embargo for such utterances – thank goodness for Dr Legate being in such a key position

  12. correction – Dr Legates

    At first – thought the title referred to Papal Legates

    A good joke that when one recalls the opinions of the present Pope

  13. That letter shows how much NOAA has fallen. Derision and abuse mixed with blatant unproven statements are now openly expressed. Not even a trace of any decorum is attempted. Totaliarism on display where any discussion outside the party junk science line is not allowed.

  14. “Specifically, the third National Climate Assessment coauthored by NOAA stated”

    Who is this Noaa guy and where did they learn meteorology and climatology?

  15. The real deniers of objective reality, are the Climate Catastrophe Cultists. Even though they have tried to erase historical records by “adjustments” – they cannot erase all the other evidence that their sky is falling narrative is simply an outright lie. To wit see the following short video by Tony Heller:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G28t3Ih_rA0&feature=youtu.be

    One thing Tony excels at, is digging into multi layered and cross corroborating historical records in addition to showing the adjustments to climate data being false.

    The marxist revolutionaries have not yet been able to erase all traces of objective historical reality! (most of the useful idiots don’t even realize they are part of a marxist revolution whose goal is to destroy Western Civilization)

    Appointing Legates is a breath of fresh air in this miasma of loonie lefty ideology.

    • You’ve nailed it they’ve had correct think installed into them for the last 30yrs instead of critical think.
      They think that correct think is thinking critically, the ”experts know best why would they doubt them when they are confirming what the education system has taught them what reality is.

      Anything that goes against what they have been taught is conspiracy theory, the damage done to 3
      decades of ids or those now 40 and under is irreparable, they are a lost cause as they believe they are the best educated humans ever to exist in general, its very sad really high I.Q individuals that cannot reason, and are too smart to be fooled by conspiracy theory nonsense like their experts being part of some world wide conspiracy to dupe them….

      They just cannot grasp that the world they live in is fantasy world of loonie left ideology because to them its all real.
      The brain-washing has been so thorough so deeply ingrained they are a lost cause and their own worst enemies, and frankly they are a danger to all not just themselves.

  16. “Dr. Legates’ appointment is an extreme risk to the American public and an insult to the quality science and scientists at NOAA” and “derails the mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)”

    The authors undermine the scientific integrity of NOAA by suggesting the “people at the top” have a bearing on NOAA’s output.

    When they claim: “the increase in frequency and severity of extreme events that are exacerbated by climate change are well-documented, particularly by NOAA”, their own position reduces this to the opinion of people they agree with.

    Can’t have it both ways.

  17. As for “contrarians” in science, my graduate advisor and former boss is a truly world-class scientist (a soil physicist) with a very practical background in hands-on agriculture. His research findings on a particular topic stood alone against the entire field of geotechnical engineering practice. Once recognized, his work totally changed established practices for disposing hazardous chemical wastes in the U.S.

    Going back to ancient scriptures, there are more than a few examples of the righteous standing against heavy odds (from a human perspective), such as Elijah. If you don’t know the story, it is worth reading in I Kings 18. Or as Jesus said, “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.“ (Matthew 7:13-14)

  18. “degrades the scientific integrity and derails the mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration” So they admit NOAA’s sole purpose it to spread politically driven lies and propaganda. Okey dokey then.

  19. Dr. Legates’ appointment is an extreme risk to any of the many fraudsters and government handout junkies making their living selling lies and fear to the American public under the banner of science when, in fact, they break every rule of scientific investigation.

  20. Use of the term “denier” instantly destroys any credibility the author might have had. There is absolutely nothing of substance in this little treatise. It contains only falsehoods:
    “2 Nowhere is the connection between human-driven climate change and extreme climate events more clearly exemplified than the current fire and
    drought conditions in the West, and the hurricanes and flooding in the Southeast and Gulf of Mexico.”
    Perfectly normal weather events are not proof of anything other than the fact that weather and climate continue unabated whether or not the loony prophets of doom beat their drums.
    Some of these people might want to review history before they make such astoundingly incorrect claims.

  21. As evidence to support his condemnation of Professor Legates, grijalva includes, “He stated: ‘Climate has always changed, and weather is always variable due to complex, powerful natural forces…'”

    I would submit that any NOAA employee who does not concur with the professor’s statement has no business working there.

  22. “… it is shameful that such a thing as a “climate denier” still exists…”

    That’s a crazy thing to say. Shameful? Another way of calling someone a heretic? And of course nobody denies there is a climate.

    “a thing”?????

    My high English teacher would have flunked these authors.

  23. Furthermore, the increase in frequency and severity of extreme events that are exacerbated by climate change are well-documented, particularly by NOAA.2

    If you go to the cited link you find

    In their study of those four extremes, the authors found that heat waves are occurring more often, while cold waves have been decreasing. That shift is recognized to be in keeping with a warming climate, but decadal variations in the number of heat and cold waves in the United States do not correlate well with the observed warming during the 20th century.

    and

    Similarly, in the study of river flooding, changes can be caused by variations in atmospheric conditions, land use/land cover, and water management, yet when those changes occur in tandem, determining the relative importance of each factor as drivers of observed changes makes analysis difficult. Therefore, scientists only assess basins that have had minimal water management and land-use changes. In studying annual peak flow data, the experts find that river flooding trends on the century-scale do not show uniform changes across the country: Flood magnitudes in the Southwest have been decreasing; flood magnitudes in the Northeast and North Central have been increasing.

    and

    With respect to drought, instrumental data indicate that the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the drought in the 1950s were the most significant 20th century droughts in the United States, while tree ring data indicate that the megadroughts over the 12th century exceeded anything in the 20th century in both extent and duration. In fact, each extreme event has its own associated condition(s) that affect development. Nevertheless, as shown in the accompanying graphic, the authors indicate that they better understand the causes of changes in heat waves and cold waves than the causes of changes in floods and droughts, and the adequacy of the data for detecting and understanding the causes of changes in those four extremes is better than for some other extremes, such as hail, tornadoes, and hurricanes.

    Well documented my foot. They’ve more in common with “climate deniers”.

    • Misrepresenting the citations is a common tactic that the Climate Alarmists employ to push their lies and half-truths. The authors of the National Climate Assessment (NCA) do that with regularity. Pretty much any claim in the US govt NCA one has to wade though several layers upon layers of citation to get to the original study that shows the authors are either exaggerating what was found, telling only half the story in the citation, or just out right fabricating something not said at all.

      A good example of the govt climate hacks on NCA doing that was the hand-waving they did in the 2009 NCA. In that glossy report, led by Tom Karl, they called the missing mid-tropospheric tropical hotspot issue “largely settled”. But when I drilled down through the 2 layers of citations they used to support that claim, I found no such thing in the research or the reviews cited. Just a big fat lie. They are depending on the main stream media to no longer do their job on climate claims and actually check the references when alarmist statements are made by the the US government entities.

      • So true. I ALWAYS try to read the original article. More often than not, the Alarmists completely misrepresent the authors.

  24. Congressperson Grijalva is a buffoon and and embarrassment to Arizona. He’s in the next CD over from mine. But Tucson and So Arizona with the abundance of UA liberal loons that infest it means he’s in a solid Blue district and safe.

  25. Once again, if there are people who believe that fossil fuels represent an existential threat to humans, it is on them to serve as examples and give up ALL benefits of using fossil fuels or other CO2 emitters. That means no fuel burning cars, no power that comes from anything but wind or solar, no jet trips, no plastics, no wood cut using fossil fuels, etc. Oh, and no concrete, cement, or steel since those add to atmospheric CO2.

    Let them serve as the example for the rest of us…otherwise they can shut the H*LL UP. I have no patience for hypocrites.

    • Wind and solar? Sure – Windmills without concrete fundations, steel or plastics please. And Solar panels made from “renewable” energy only.

    • You need better arguments. I have one.

      Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. There is on average 50 times as much of it in the atmosphere as CO2. Explain how CO2 is dominant?

      I have had warmists reply to that with clap trap about how water vapor is not persistent. So. What? Do what the earth does. Integrate. Sum over time.

      We have to demystify their stupid science. This mistake is huge and they have no defense.

  26. Excerpt from the September 15, 2020 letter by Raúl M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on Natural Resources and Jared Huffman, Chair, Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife, US House of Representatives:
    “With the daily realities we face as a country and global community, it is shameful that such a thing as a “climate denier” still exists and extremely problematic that one be appointed to a prominent position in NOAA.”

    Really? Do either of these Congressmen have any scientific education? Grijalva has a BA in Sociology from University of Arizona, so… no. Jared Huffman has a BA in Political Science from University of California, Santa Barbara and a JD in Law from Boston College, so again… no.

    Dr. David Russell Legates is an American climatologist and professor of geography at the University of Delaware. He is the former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the same university and a former Delaware state climatologist. Legates is a professor of geography at the University of Delaware. He has also taught at Louisiana State University, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Virginia. He has been a Visiting Research Scientist at the National Climate Data Center. Legates received a bachelor’s degree in 1982, a master’s degree in 1985, and a Ph.D. in climatology in 1988, all from the University of Delaware.

    So what was the technical argument by Grijalva and Huffman that was intended to “cancel” David Legates appointment to NOAA? That he was a “climate denier”? Let’s be frank – neither Grijalva nor Huffman, standing on their tip toes, could reach David Legates ankle socks. These two Congressmen are as ignorant as anyone on the planet, yet they are bold enough to slander Legates, who is infinitely more educated, and I suggest infinitely more ethical, than either of them.

  27. We have known since ~forever that green energy schemes FAIL due to intermittency and diffusivity – we published that conclusion ‘way back in 2002. In the same paper we also clearly debunked the false global warming (aka climate change) crisis.

    The greater question is why so many politicians and citizens have been so stupid as to believe the global warming/green energy scam – and how could any rational person be this stupid for this long?

    I published in 2012 that there must be a hidden agenda, and now green activists are admitting that the climate scare was never really about the climate – it was always a false front for extreme-left political objectives – to end capitalism and impose a centrally-planned Marxist economy.

    So the real challenge is how to rationally govern countries where so many people are extremely stupid and gullible – imbeciles who will believe any falsehood that is repeated often enough?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *