Peter Boyer seems to think Myron Ebell owes him an apology, but it’s the other way around. And Boyer ought say sorry to his readers.
“Science Communication” is a pretty dismal, immature profession. It’s so bad that an award-winning science communicator can talk about “blunt denial” even while denying basic tenets of logic and appearing to have done almost no research on the global warming debate. If he was ever taught the basics of reasoning, like “correlation is not causation” or “all models are wrong but some are useful,” he’s long forgotten them. What’s an Order of Australia worth these days? Apparently not much.
If he had the open mind he talks about, he might have bothered to read the skeptical sites before he wrote an article. We’d have provided all the evidence an open mind could need to know that Myron Ebell is right on the money. So here Peter, with all due respect, is the red pill — the stuff the UNSW profs of climate crisis won’t tell you even if you dared to ask them.
Talking Point: Keeping an open mind in climate of blunt denial
Peter Boyer
Asked in 2012 what he would do if he found he was wrong about climate change, [Myron] Ebell said he would say sorry and try to undo policies he had supported. Since then we have had the two warmest years on record, with 2016 all but certain to be the third in a row.
Seriously, is that it? Two record El Nino years in 130 is “evidence” that something has warmed us in the last 130 years? But all forms of warming cause, er, warming. Two warm years tell us nothing about the cause. Keep an open mind — and think about the nearest monster nuclear reactor, eight minutes away as the photon flies, that is 300,000 times bigger than Earth. Did you know that all the government funded climate models assume that the solar magnetic field, the changing UV spectrum, cosmic rays, and the solar wind have zero effect on our climate, and definitely don’t change our cloud cover, yet solar activity was at a record high in the later half of the 20th century, and that it is a not a bad predictor of global temperature on Earth? Read here about the seven ways the sun could affect cloud cover on Earth. At least one climate modeler knows how to do proper Fourier transforms, create real models, and gross and obvious architecture errors. Not that he can get a government grant for that.
Moreover solar activity correlates with everything from jet streams in the Atlantic, to floods in Europe, groundwater recharge rates in China, Asian and Australian rainfall, wind and rain in Chile, etc. etc. etc.. Solar activity correlates with the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, but Co2 does not. Co2 has been essentially constant since the last ice age, ten thousand years ago, yet the world has warmed and cooled a couple of degrees several times since then.
But how can extra CO2 not make much difference?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it does absorb infra-red radiation. If Earth had no water, extra CO2 might warm us, but the heat trapped by CO2 likely just reroutes out through water vapor molecules. We are The Water Planet. The extra energy just finds another way to escape to space, probably through humidity in the upper troposphere. That’s why adding CO2 doesn’t matter — except to hungry people who like more food, and Greens who like more greenery.
We are carbon life forms, so what is not to like about carbon? Burn oil to feed the world, but don’t burn oil to make the planet warmer — it doesn’t work.
Not only is correlation not causation, but the correlation is lousy anyway
The rate of warming on Earth, according to climate guru Phil Jones in the UK East Anglia CRU, was just the same in the 1870s as it was at its peak in the last forty years. All that coal that was burnt after World War II and there is nothing to show for it. Thirty percent of all human emissions have had no effect at all on the climate. The warming started around 1700, and it has just kept going (see 120 proxies and 6,000 boreholes). CO2 is irrelevant.
Hadley Global Temperature Graph with Phil Jones trends annotated on top.
Just another 20 warm peaks the current models can’t explain.
Here’s just one study, of a thousand I could name: Rosenthal et al found that the waters around Indonesia were a bit warmer 1,000 years ago and an eye-popping two whole degrees warmer 8,000 years ago. Another group found it was also two degrees warmer near Peru. Somehow the Great Barrier Reef survived. We are panicking over the statistically insignificant ocean warming today of a whole fifth of a degree over fifty years, but all indications suggest it was just as warm 1000 years ago, and zero, none, not one of the fantastico Global Coupled Atmospheric and Oceanic Models can tell you why that was. Thirty billion dollars in climate research has given us International Grade Ignorance. Failure this complete in any modern science is a rare thing.
There has been 65 million years of climate variations and current expert models can’t explain 64,999,950 years of it (and I’m being generous about the last 50).
Skeptics won the science debate years ago:
Over those four years the science supporting a climate crisis has only strengthened, underlined in a research paper about unmitigated emissions — the scenario envisaged by Ebell and Trump — published the day after the election in the journal Science Advances.
The evidence in favour of skeptics was already definitive before 2012 and each year things get better for us. Skeptics won the science debate years ago, but no one seems to know that — thanks to lazy science writers with closed minds, and to gutless professors who won’t debate skeptics in public because they know what will happen. By 2003 the ice core data showed that CO2 levels lagged behind temperature by hundreds of years, and even climate scientists stopped arguing with that (they just started pretending it didn’t matter). By 2006 the top group in the the US climate science program published graphs [iii] showing that the main feedback in climate models — which has more effect that CO2 does in the climate models — was utterly completely wrong, and twenty eight million radiosondes showed that the central assumption about water vapor was a pathetically bad guess that washed out totally when tested: yellow is not red, there is no missing hot spot, and no amount of fidgideling the results, or faking the color scale on graphs would make it so. The only climate model that predicts the current warm period correctly with no hot spot uses solar factors to explain the Earth’s temperature, not CO2. Bummer eh? I have a tutorial for science writers about the ocean heat content here. I will bet you have never asked your favourite scientists those questions. If you would like some help with hot spot questions, just ask. I’m all yours.
Yellow is not red. Observations don’t fit the predictions. Twenty eight million radiosondes disagree with twenty eight million climate models.
The US-German study found the impact of greenhouse gases on temperature grows as Earth’s surface warms. Its modelling showed “business as usual” emissions warming the planet between 4.78C and 7.36C — far above previous calculations of a 4.8C maximum.
So that model you cite is even more wrong than 98% of all the other models which predicted less warming and still failed the “pause” test. “Congrats”.
The “better” models Boyer doesn’t cite are still tragic failures: they not only fail on global scales, but on regional, local, short term[1] [2], polar[3], and upper tropospheric scales[4] [5]too. They fail on humidity[6], rainfall[7], drought[8] and they fail on clouds[9].
Give me five variables, one model and a million dollars, and I can predict any number from 10 down to 10 up. What would you like? Just don’t ask me about model validation (and definitely don’t ask the modelers at UNSW about it). Climate scientists stopped mentioning the word “validation” decades ago.
Do tell, is that evidence that matters or ideology?
None of the above matters to Ebell. It is not scientific evidence that moves him, but ideology. There has been no apology from him, but plenty of spin.
Exactly. Does any of the above matter to Peter Boyer? Is his view based on evidence or ideology?
Yet Trump might not prove the ogre many of us envisage. His motivators are neither evidence nor ideology, but the art of the deal. We are used to thinking of pre-election statements as promises to be kept or broken, but Trump treats them as bargaining positions. Perhaps climate is another one.
Maybe all political establishments need a Trump shock now and again, as a reminder not to take power for granted. Maybe this political novice with a short attention span and a distrust of all things intellectual will prove an antidote to the toxic ideologies that have dogged us so long.
The reckless appointment of Ebell to the Trump team need not be the whole story.
Ebell could be the best thing to happen to environmental science in 50 years. As a skeptical scientist, I’m thrilled. Unskeptical scientists aren’t so happy, but who wants to be an Oxymoron for the Climate?
At least Boyer is right about Hillary’s best moment — this was it:
Hillary Clinton’s best moment was her election-night advice to keep an open mind on Trump, and that is what I intend to do. Because right now the alternative is too awful to contemplate.
Peter Boyer began his journalism career at the Mercury in the 1960s. In 2014 he was awarded an Order of Australia Medal for services to science communication.
Dear Peter, you’ve been in this game long enough to spot groupthink and government strangled science. Open your mind, and look at the evidence.
Science is in a rut, a hole, and being abused and exploited by a trillion dollar industry, and we need real science communicators to help shake it out. You will however, lose lots of friends with ideologues, not get any awards, face exile, namecalling, threats to be sacked, evicted, blackballed, terminated, punished, vilified and generally get bullied, not to mention government funded fun aimed at blowing up your kids (as a joke), as well as songs and plays about killing people like you, and in some cases, talk of a RICO investigation. So I’ll understand if you don’t want to play, but you don’t have to feed the fake crisis with unresearched pop psychology. Thanks.
REFERENCES — for another 100 or so see here.
[1] Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]
[2] Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis, N. & Christofides, A.(2008) On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrol. Sci. J. 53(4), 671–684. changes [PDF]
[3] Previdi, M. and Polvani, L. M. (2014), Climate system response to stratospheric ozone depletion and recovery. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc.. doi: 10.1002/qj.233
[4] Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 [PDF]
[5] Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011 [PDF] [Discussion]
[6] Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]
[7] See 1 Anagnostopolous 2010
[8] Sheffield, Wood & Roderick (2012) Little change in global drought over the past 60 years, Letter Nature, vol 491, 437
[9] Miller, M., Ghate, V., Zahn, R., (2012) The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel 1 and its Controls: A Perspective from 2 Observations and Global Climate Models. in press Journal of Climate [abstract] [PDF]
____ (Sorry about the numbering shift. Anyone want to pay for an editor to help me?)
[i] IPCC, Assessment Report 4, (2007), Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14 [PDF] Page 631 (Explains why Water vapor matters).
[ii] NOAA Satellite and Information Service, Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive, Data Coverage. June 8th 2010. [Link]
[iii] Karl et al (2006), Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2006 Report, Chapter 1, 1958-1999. Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP, Chapter 1, p 25, based on Santer et al. 2000; [PDF]
[iv] Karl et al (2006) Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2006 Report, Chapter 5, part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116 [PDF]
[v] Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. (2007). A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007. [Abstract] [PDF]
[vi] Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E Taylor, T. M Wigley,. L. Lanzante, J. R. Solomon, M. Free, P. J Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood and F. J. Wentz (2008), Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology, 28: 1703–1722. doi: 10.1002/joc.1756 [Abstract] [PDF]
[vii] McKitrick, R., S. McIntyre, and C. Herman, (2010), Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series. Atmospheric Science Letters, 11: 270–277. DOI: 10.1002/asl.290. Data/code archive. [Discussion on JoNova] [PDF]
[viii] McKitrick, R., McIntyre, S., and Herman, C. (2011) Corrigendum to Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series, Atmospheric Science Letters, Vol. 11, Issue 4, 270–277. DOI: 10.1002/asl.360. [Abstract] [See McKitricks page on model testing].
[ix] Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 [PDF]
[xi] McKitrick, R. and Vogelsang, T. J. (2011), Multivariate trend comparisons between autocorrelated climate series with general trend regressors, Department of Economics, University of Guelph. [PDF]
[xii] Stockwell, David R. B. and Cox, A. (2009), Structural break models of climatic regime-shifts: claims and forecasts, Cornell University Library, arXiv10907.1650 [PDF]
Still not enough? See the NIPCC report with maybe four thousand more references.
Peter Boyer started as journalist in the 1960’s so he is obviously as good a scientist as those other renowned climate scientists Leonardo Di Caprio, Naomi Klein, Timothy Flannery and Vivienne Westwood. Oh, for heavans sake, Peter Boyer, please go and have a lengthy open-minded discussion with a true climate scientist like William Kinninmonth the former head of the Bureau of Meteorology. He’ll put you right about whether Myron Eberle knows what he is talking about.
Alternatively, Peter Boyer, take a course in the geological history of the earth.
433
Alternatively, Peter Boyer, take a course in the geological history of the earth
Oh noes, we geologists object to that, far too tedious. We debate in public 🙂
342
John,
You name but one person that would back up the Myron, the renowned scientist , hardly a honest outlook is it ?.
330
‘Cos science isn’t about who has the bigger pile of “experts” (if it was, skeptics would win). As to “honesty”, Frank wants us to discuss whether it’s dishonest for a real person to name a real scientist and suggest a chat. Does Frank mistake that for an “argument” or “evidence”? Ha ha. Frank, are you an autobot? There is no universe where your comment is even coherent in a meaningful way.
And no we are not going to let you hijack this thread at the top with a construction that could be a random word generator sentence. So note to other commenters, if you want to discuss “Frank”, please only at the bottom of the thread, OK?
Frank, can you ask around and get someone to send us better trolls?
453
We hafta’ deal a mortal blow to
the Medieval Warming Era!
– Jonathan Overpeck.
https://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/
282
There could be a problem moving Pevensey Castle back to the sea, since the sea won’t come back to Pevensey. Sadly, “peck” will have to live with the facts of 1066…and all that.
80
‘Live with the facts?’
How un-cli-sci is that?
60
“the sea won’t come back to Pevensey”
Ah.. but the forest may come to Dunsinane
Given enough CO2
73
Predictshuns! Lol!
40
Nice reference from “this slim tome” 1066 and All That mosomoso now that history is at an end (so presumably settled science too) 😉
30
Great work Jo. . .
Another broadside from yourself has just blown Peter Boyer clean out of the water!
GeoffW
293
Peter Boyo .Never ”erd of ‘Im .Then again I’m not Taf.What a preposterous twit.Once again it indicates the grovelling,non inquisitive nature of the modern.
122
What medieval warming period ? The temps have only changed recently , the sky is falling , the sky is falling , my grant money is under threat , Peter needs a padded room .
292
with links to Independent & more:
17 Nov: Daily Caller: Andrew Follett: NASA Climate Scientists Threatens To Resign If Trump Cuts Funding
NASA’s top climate scientist urged President-elect Donald Trump to keep paying for global warming programs, but threatened to resign if Trump censored his science.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told the Independent he and other government scientists are “not going to stand” for any funding cuts or other interference in their work.
“The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this,” Schmidt, told The Independent Thursday. “It’s something we’re going to have to deal with sooner or later, and it’s better sooner rather than later. We don’t have a choice if we’re going to deal with it.”
NASA’s budget includes more than $2 billion for its Earth Science Mission Directorate, which works to improve climate modeling, weather prediction and natural hazard mitigation. NASA’s other functions, such as astrophysics and space technology, are only getting a mere $781.5 and $826.7 million, respectively, in the budget proposal.
Spending on the directorate has increased by 63 percent over the last eight years, making it the largest and fastest growing budget of any NASA science program. Over the same time period, the general NASA budget grew only by 10.6 percent — just enough to account for inflation…
The organization is also responsible for global warming models proven to be inaccurate when checked against actual temperature observations…
Industry analysts suspect that Trump will likely modestly increase NASA’s overall budget while slashing many of the environmental science programs originally instituted by President Barack Obama…READ ALL
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/17/nasas-top-climate-scientist-wants-trump-to-keep-funding-global-warming-science/
191
Gavin fail to notice that he does not own the Agency where he works.
The US Government pays for that arm of NASA, President Trump’s administration decided how much money and staffing levels of the Agency, so Gavin as a mere civil servant thinks he can dictate conditions of his employment.
Umm,
I can foresee Trump administration ensuring Gavin goes on extended ‘Gardening leave’ to help relieve his obvious stress related outbursts before allowing him to retire on medical grounds.
252
Lets try again…
Gavin failed to notice that he does not own the Agency where he works.
The US Government does and, President Trump’s administration will decided its budget and staffing levels.
So Gavin, as a mere civil servant, thinks he can dictate conditions of his employment, to the guy who on ‘The Apprentice’ was known for his fateful catch phrase, “You’re fired!”
Umm,
I can foresee Trump administration ensuring Gavin goes on extended ‘Gardening leave’ to help relieve his obvious stress related outbursts before allowing him to retire on medical grounds.
121
Gavin knows perfectly well. He’s just making a virtue of necessity.
91
I think Trump has been practising for his meeting with Gavin Schmidt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75SEy1qu71I
60
Gavin was Hansen’s propaganda minister and either he rose to the top by the Peter Principle, or the messaging is far more important than the science behind the message.
101
OMG, who will save the world if they resign!
291
Put them out on the streets where they belong!
20
They should start to think, the likely response from Trump is “you’re fired”.
181
That would be appropriate. It would be even more appropriate, “You have lied to the public that gave you funds in return for reliable information. Therefore, you are relieved of government employment.”
211
In other news, telemarketers have begun telling people if they don’t buy the product now, they won’t be getting any more phone calls with more chances to buy..
190
On reflection (well, maybe it’s self evident), Gavin isn’t too smart. There’s a good chance President Elect Trump won’t even be made aware of Gavin’s ultimatum. But suppose Trump is made aware. Independent of the message, having a low-to-mid level bureaucrat issue an ultimatum to Donald Trump is, IMO, likely to illicit a negative response. I can’t see Mr. Trump taking kindly to underlings telling him what he can and cannot do.
I have a suggestion (unlike Gavin, not an ultimatum just a suggestion) for Mr. Trump. I suggest he demand NASA place on the internet (a) an organized, easy-to-access file containing all data (raw and processed), and (b) details of all algorithms used to convert raw data into processed data.
60
I meant “elicit”, not illicit–but maybe both work.
40
“The Lie Swarm”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/11/the-lie-swarm.html
and link
111
Well said Jo.
81
I think it must be difficult to stay skeptical as a science reporter when dross like this “Paris climate summit: Earth may warm by 6°C – even with a deal” from the once renown New Scientist regularly turns up on your desk.
But a large amount of sane logical thinking would lead anyone to say that such reports are not science but propaganda. Just looking at the past few million years of life and climate on the planet, shows that such ‘clime reports’ are just odoriferous piles of pre-fissilized coprolite.
Thankfully there are blogs like Jo’s here.
Blogs that hits hard with sanity against the ongoing dysfunctional science establishment and their climate madness.
232
New Scientist is a rag for the politically correct and establishments views on science. I used to read it years ago in the physics dept. Its highly biased to ‘mainstream views’ on science unless you support the ‘concensus’ you wont get published.
20
Boyer says of Trump: ‘Maybe this political novice with a short attention span and a distrust of all things intellectual will prove an antidote to the toxic ideologies that have dogged us so long.’
Donald doesn’t have a short attention span and is intuitively bright, and when he tells the world CO2 doesn’t cause global warming the green/left cadre will finally have someone decent to combat. The president elect enjoys a good fight and the Klimatariat are no match for him.
With global cooling set to begin next year I think Trump will serve out his two terms and leave office a hero of the people.
262
just listened to Morano from Morocco, who got tossed out of COP22 and had all his materials confiscated by UN police. will try to find a link:
17 Nov: ClimateDepot: Marc Morano: NASA Lead ‘Global Warming’ Scientist Threatens To Resign If Trump Cuts Funding
(Links to Daily Caller)
More reaction from Tony Heller of Real Climate Science: ‘NASA’s Gavin Schmidt has been producing meaningless temperature data sets in support of President Obama’s attempt to seize control of the energy supply, and now promises to resign when his work is independently analyzed by the Trump Administration.’…
comment: Schmidt threatens to leave? Really? Like does he really think that Trump wants him to stick around?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/17/nasa-lead-global-warming-scientist-threatens-to-resign-if-trump-cuts-funding/
17 Nov: ClimateDepot: Hottest Year?! NOAA claimed ‘record heat’ in numerous locations that don’t have any actual thermometers (links to RealClimateScience)
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/17/hottest-year-noaa-claimed-record-heat-in-numerous-locations-that-dont-have-any-actual-thermometers/
17 Nov: ClimateDepot: Bill O’Reilly (Fox News) says Trump ‘should accept UN Paris treaty on climate to buy some goodwill overseas’ (LINK)
O’Reilly: ‘It doesn’t really amount to much, let it go.’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/17/bill-oreilly-says-trump-should-accept-un-paris-treaty-on-climate-to-buy-some-goodwill-overseas/
152
“Hottest Year?! NOAA claimed ‘record heat’ in numerous locations that don’t have any actual thermometers”
Good lets get the message out everywhere!
Let all of those freezing in Europe, Russia, Asia, and North America hear such junk. Let Trump’s administration decide, as the big freeze moves in, what’s the worth of NOAA & NASA when saying this.
142
500+ comments:
16 Nov: WUWT: Eric Worrall: Gavin Schmidt warns Donald Trump not to interfere with the NASA Climate Division
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/16/gavin-schmidt-warns-donald-trump-not-to-interfere-with-the-nasa-climate-division/
82
16 Nov: ClimateDepot: Marc Morano: UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After Trump Event – SHREDDED UN Climate Treaty at Summit
PIC: All that remained after the UN and Morrocan security forces hauled off Morano. Shredded paper.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/16/un-armed-security-shuts-down-skeptics-after-trump-event-shredded-un-climate-treaty-at-summit/
17 Nov: E&E News: Jean Chemnick: ADVOCACY: U.N. evicts skeptics for shredding Paris Agreement
MARRAKECH, Morocco — Three climate skeptics with credentials from a prominent Washington, D.C., think tank were evicted from the United Nations climate summit here yesterday after they shredded a copy of the Paris Agreement in the middle of the conference venue…
LOL: (Please subscribe to ClimateWire to read the full story)
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/11/17/stories/1060045887
101
audio from Morocco is poor, but perservere:
17 Nov: YouTube 20mins12secs: UN Police Rob Journalist in Morocco
Alex Jones interviews Marc Morano
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFSMpO745LY
Infowars predicted Trump would win the election – so it must be fake:
17 Nov: Infowars: Paul Joseph Watson: QuantCast Blacklists Infowars as “Fake News” Free Speech Purge Accelerates
Establishment media – kings of fake news – appoint themselves moral authority over identifying “fake news”
Quantcast has blacklisted Infowars from its top trafficked websites as the establishment’s attempt to silence opposing voices by declaring conservative outlets “fake news” accelerates.
After routinely appearing in the list of top 200 websites in the world, at one stage being ranked the 168th biggest website on the planet, Infowars has now been de-listed and “hidden” alongside porn websites, fake news websites and other legally questionable content…
Quantcast’s decision to blacklist Infowars coincides with a huge new establishment media narrative that is attempting to have Google, Facebook and others drown out conservative voices by denouncing any unauthorized views as “fake news”.
This is particularly ironic, given that the mainstream media itself has earned the title of “fake news” throughout the entire election cycle, posting stories such as these;…READ ALL
http://www.infowars.com/quantcast-blacklists-infowars-as-fake-news-free-speech-purge-accelerates/
I’ve been posting stuff today on the orchestrated MSM call for censorship on jo’s “And you thought the US election was over” thread, including Obama’s contribution from Germany with Merkel. Obama also made clear he would not be calling for an end to the anti-Trump protests:
17 Nov: CNET: Ty Pendlebury: President Obama slams fake news for eroding democracy
Obama warns that people must learn the difference between serious arguments and propaganda on social media
Fake news has the power to damage or even destroy democracy, President Barack Obama warned Thursday in a joint press conference in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel…
“My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time,” Paul Horner told The Washington Post. “I think Trump is in the White House because of me.”
https://www.cnet.com/news/president-obama-hits-out-at-facebook-for-eroding-democracy/
this push for censorship was predicted by Matt Drudge last year when he visited Austin & was interviewed by Alex Jones.
the fight has only just begun.
91
From el gordo’s post
“Boyer says of Trump: ‘Maybe this political novice with a short attention span and a distrust of all things intellectual will prove an antidote to the toxic ideologies that have dogged us so long.”
This is the type of line Greg Sheridan gave on Sky the other night. They all live / work in a bubble and repeat the same stuff by altering a few words here and there. There is no original thought or research. They clearly don’t want accept the data that says 75-80% of the public no longer trust or believe the MSM. At least in the US they are talking about it –whether they actually accept it or will do anything is another matter.
I think Trump has to pick on something quite significant in terms of profile, which will be a major change and which is relatively easy and quick to do. Then very early next year get in and do it just show everyone he means business.
Guys like Schmidt basically need to be put in their place –they are public servants paid by the tax paying public to do a job. They are nothing special.
71
Graham Lloyd was a fearless environment editor, fighting for the truth of climate change, but he seems to have been got at and produced a piece of rubbish. Naturally the Oz readers then turned on Lloyd and I havn’t seen him since.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/08/03/pitchforks-graeme-lloyd/
Donald Trump understands the meaning of good advice and will seek it out, then try to achieve a positive outcome. His strengths and liabilities are yet unknown, but we should have a clearer picture six months from now, after the honeymoon.
41
“Off Topic” heads-up: Have we seen the last, annual, anti-climatic COP-show?
Is the Game Over? (links to GWPF)
Links to blog entry by Conservative MSP Ian Duncan.
Is that the Red Pill at 5 past midnight? (Cartoons by Josh)
81
Why does every climate change graph look like someone sneezed when they were drawing it and shot their pen up the page?
Do climate scientists have allergies?
91
Most seem to give measurement a wide berth; but that’s metrophobia, a psychological disorder, not an allergy.
When drawing their charts, they do seem to avoid the cool colours like blues of any shade. So there might be an allergy to the pigments in those.
101
“Skeptics won the science debate years ago” but the warmists won the propaganda war via a compliant MSM.
Well tackled Jo, from the coalface of general opinion on Climate Change™ there is increasing scepticism and awareness out there, the references to the scientific method is surprising and heartening, people are listening.
171
The warmists won an early propaganda battle, but in doing so they have lost the first information war in the age of the Internet. They have lost the first information war in the age of permanent record. No amount of propaganda can change the laws of radiative physics or fluid dynamics, therefore warmists losing the CO2 = warming argument is only a matter of time. They have tried to escape to “climate change”, “global weirding”, “extreme weather” and “ocean acidification”. None of it has worked. Their original claims that CO2 could cause global warming are locked into the permanent record of the Internet. So too are the names of every pseudo scientist, politician, journalist and activist who ever supported this sorry hoax or vilified sceptics.
“Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.” – Donald Trump
Now think about what sceptics winning means. Picture a Venn diagram with circles around each major group of SJWs, grievance farmers, activists and PC enforcers attacking science, reason, freedom and democracy. There is one circle that circles them all – belief in gorebull warbling. Win the war against the AGW hoax, and we purge almost all of western secular democracy’s parasites.
Trump was losing a battle trying to play by the lame scream meeja’s rules. He found a new way to win. He turned and attacked them full on and won the war. What’s a new way for sceptics? For a start, stop referring to CO2 as a “greenhouse gas”. Stop hoping for a soft landing, ie: “warming but far less than we thought”. Luke-warmers are trapped playing in the warmists sandpit. For sceptics to win, we need to bring the good news – radiative gases cause atmospheric and surface cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
120
Who or what is Peter Boyer?
Al Gore apostle who writes in the Tasmanian Mercury. WOW !!!
ROFLMAO !!
Why would anybody even bother reading his rantings… A NON-ENTITY except in his own mind.
164
You can scoff, but the Tasmanian press did warn the Tsar!
50
And Gavin has warned his new president elect…Mr. Trump.
What’s your point?
30
The good thing about award-winning science communicators is that they are too brutishly inarticulate to fool a starving pigeon. Science communicators are the best thing ever to come along for the skeptic movement.
Give ’em more awards, I say. Maybe one of those Oslo Peace Emmies you get when they don’t want to give you a proper Nobel?
72
“one of four Al Gore-trained Climate Project “
Brain-washed propaganda hilarity.. here we come. 🙂
Seriously.. why would he think that is a good thing to advertise. !!!!
64
What is it with ‘science communicators’? Brian (NASA) Cox, Robyn (100 metres) Williams, Tim (angry summer) Flannery and now Peter Boyer? They are so unskeptical you wonder if it was a condition of the job? Argument from authority, coincidence equals causality and everyone knows?
As for the hottest year argument, it is facetious. This record is achieved by 0.01C and they could equally say that the temperature has not moved for years. Yes it is consistently slightly hotter than the 1980s when the world switched from thermometers but within the margin of error of the move, so possibly not hotter at all and certainly not warming.
The total lack of skepticism is the key. A scientist is a skeptic. A scientist does not work from faith. A scientist wants proof that man causes the increase in CO2 and then that CO2 causes warming. There is no proof of either. In fact both are disproved but NASA did put a man oin the moon. So 50 years later they must be weather experts.
121
Say, what is it with science commun-icators ?
Science communication versus science methodology
… hypothesis, (guess) ‘n test. ‘If-it-disagrees -with-experience-it’s-wrong!’ h/t Feynman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
62
Kennedy put a man on the Moon. Obama put a man in the Ladies toilet.
140
OT, but Josh nails it YET AGAIN
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/cop22_wheresmymoney_scr.jpg
94
“reroutes out through water vapour molecules. ”
Not just thorough water vapour, Jo.
All molecules can gain energy by conduction/collision.
That means 99.96% of the atmosphere that can contribute to the convective cooling conduit.
175
That’s it Andy. ALL.
Even if CO2 can selectively absorb more ground origin IR than other molecules in a parcel of the atmosphere it is a very temporary thing.
Gas molecules in close proximity must equilibrate, this means that no one particular gas can “hold” energy that has it in a higher energy state than nearby molecules of any gas. Collisions, collision, collision; then equilibrium.
Any parcel of atmosphere that is more energised than a neighbouring parcel will expand and have lower density than its’ surrounds.
It will rise by convection and the process will repeat.
Will might say that there is no special absorption of ground IR and that all heating is by collision with hot surfaces ie all gases in the air.
Whatever, CO2 didn’t do it.
KK
123
But KK you aren’t allowing for the CO2 depositing the heat in a Swiss bank account, an action not unknown among various African recipients of the loot.
133
Yep.
It’s a weird weird world we try to survive in. For humans, the most dangerous gas of all is Oxygen.
By comparison CO2 is harmless but essential.
53
KK,
Try quaffing some gaseous silane SiH4! This stuff will kill a dead rock, more!!
31
KK,
As you compress any compressible fluid its temperature increases. “ENTHALPY”. This is of course an accumulation of power (energy) stored as an increase in pressure and capable of doing work as gas mass flow in the direction of lower potential pressure (shop air impact wrenches), even after the air returns to ambient temperature. Even at the same temperature the gas molecules at higher pressure (higher density) have lesser mean free path between collisions (reversal of momentum), thus higher Newtonian KE even at the same statistical mean squared molecular speed.
Try to conceptualize what that may mean in a planetary atmosphere where pressure, density, and temperature all increase with decreasing altitude, statically maintained by the compressive force of that planet’s gravitational field. Where\how, in detail, is the power stored in the mass of that planet’s atmosphere? Does the composition of that atmosphere affect that in any way?
These details are dealt with every day by aeronautical engineers. Such things are never even considered by academic meteorology, climatology, or atmospheric physics! Those academics do actually belong in some ‘institution’!
All the best! -will-
81
How does the earth surface heat the lowest level of the atmosphere (say the first 1 or 2 metres)?
Thermal convection models insist that the sun heats the surface and the surface heats the adjacent layer of air.
Radiative gases may assist warming of the lowest air layer and hence help to promote convective cooling of the surface.
20
Andy, absolutely any molecule can pick up kinetic energy via a collision, but the energy stays in the system being swapped from one molecule to another until one of them emits a photon on a one way trip to space. That’s why water molecules matter up high in the troposphere. It’s only up there that half the photons might get “beyond the atmosphere”.
Even water molecules don’t send energy to space from down low where the atmosphere is thicker and the photons they emit don’t get far before hitting another greenhouse gas molecule.
To lose energy permanently, those photons have to head off on the long journey past alpha centuri…
41
Jo Nova November 20, 2016 at 3:07 am
“Even water molecules don’t send energy to space from down low where the atmosphere is thicker and the photons they emit don’t get far before hitting another greenhouse gas molecule.”
Joanne,
Remember, The initial generation of all thermal radiative EM flux, at each frequency, and in each direction, is strictly limited by any opposing “radiance” (EM field strength)!! This little puppy has been hidden away since the time of Carl Sagan! Maxwell’s field theory, is hard to understand, difficult to teach, and impossible to master! i.e. new things keep popping up every micro-second! Wack-a-mole, cannot keep up! R. Feynman was quite good, as he always had a way to change the ‘plot’, for the next Saturday serial episode of quantum electro-dynamics, where the “Hero Quantum” must somehow survive, last weeks catastrophe!
“To lose energy permanently, those photons have to head off on the long journey past alpha centuri…”
Don’t take that to the bank either! When this fantasy “Universe” stops expanding and starts contracting much of that ‘crap’ may come back and stick to your beak! I plan on being elsewhere\when!
All the best! -will-
21
2,200+ comments:
17 Nov: Breitbart: Charlie Spiering: Obama and Angela Merkel Blame Internet and Social Media for Disrupting Globalism
President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are blaming the internet for disrupting the forces of globalism, suggesting that technology is making it more difficult to unite people behind a common purpose…
She compared the internet to the invention of the printing press, citing the consequences it had on industrialized countries.
“It took a while until societies learned how to find the right kind of policies to contain this and to manage and steer this,” she said…
Obama blamed social media for creating a climate where facts didn’t matter, asserting that facts were the basis of democracy…
“If we can’t discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems,” he warned…
In October, he pointed out that it was time to move the internet beyond the “Wild Wild West” stage and proposed “truthiness tests” for media companies online…READ ALL
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/17/obama-angela-merkel-blame-internet-social-media-disrupting-globalism/
60
You can just imagine what kind of ‘truths’ will emerge with ‘truthiness’ tests of the kind Obama and Merkel might envisage.
60
1000? Maybe just have a simple file we can download so we can see and evaluate these studies for ourselves
33
What a frail little leaf you are.
Now the internet must be censored by those who “know best” so it becomes a safe space, replete with trigger warnings.
Why is Govt mandated propaganda preferable to scepticism – on any topic ?
Merkel may be partially correct in that the free flow of information (or even disinformation), unimpeded by the censorship of political correctness, is threatening the open border nonsense being shrilled from Brussels. Brexit really got up her pug little nose; now the Trump Mack truck brazenly careers right through the middle. Oh dear !
102
The writing is now on the wall,
For the warmists who built it so tall,
To keep skeptics away,
Not foreseeing the day,
Of a Trump win who wouldn’t play ball.
240
What is becoming increasingly obvious is that the whack jobs of the climate alarmist industry did not and never have had a “Plan B” if “Plan A” or what might remotely be classed as “Plan A” if we bent the truth and reality far enough, turned the proverbial tits up.
The whole of this Climate Catastrophe Cult has been formed around the belief that it cannot, will not and will never allow itself to be openly and seriously doubted let alone questioned in any conceivable way.
For science and politics and bureaucracy and academia and the MSM in particular were all on its side and were completely supportive of any and every every vicious strong armed action the Climate change cultists could exert and did exert on any doubters, questioners and skeptics who dared to raise points that doubted the scientific truth of the oncoming climate change catastrophe unless “somebody did something”.
Any doubts, doubters and questioners were to be destroyed forthwith and for near on two decades they have been put to the politically correct Climate Change sword whenever the opportunity arose..
But Climate alarmist Scepticsm’ as has been said of Christianity, is like a nail.
The harder you hit it, the deeper it goes.
And that is what has happened with the Skepticsm surrounding the whole of the Climate Alarmist Cult.
There never was a “Plan A” let alone a “Plan B” or “C” for the believers in the CAGW / Climate change meme.
There didn’t even need a “Plan A” as they were infallible in their belief and understanding, the science said so is what the scientifically illiterate believers in the nefarious and yet to be seen and yet to be clearly defined anthropogenicly created “Climate Change” fanatically believed.
It was all so clear and so definite that nothing, nobody could deflect the belief or the science in the oncoming Climate Catastrophe.
But then there was Trump and those semi-literate, simian type “Deplorables” in the “flyover country” who failed to vote as instructed and who had the utter gall to elect that despicable skeptic Trump as the “President Elect” of the most powerful and wealthiest nation on the planet.
And suddenly in only hours what had been a long held and foregone conclusion with no conceivable alternative outcomes for near on 30 years became ashes in the mouths of the believers.
For Hilary had been a dead cert to be elected.
The polls, almost every single one of them said so.
The fact of Hilary’s election was one that was almost beyond challenge.
And by that the Climate Change Cultists were completely assured by that their agenda was on its completely unchallenged way towards being implemented on a world wide basis, both to restructure global society in the way it should be structured as the experts proposed.
And to “Save the Planet” for which they would get the glory forever in the annals of history in the millenniums ahead.
Plus of course ensuring that those VERY lucrative grants for climate science and for regular attendance at international climate conferences plus local national conferences and to counter any stupid skeptics who were bold enough to put their heads up and to firmly remind any politicals who dared to deviate even slightly from the politically correct Climate Change line, those grants and funding had to be fully protected from any interference so that they just kept coming right on down the tube. ]
There is NO “Plan B”
There never was a “Plan B”.
Their cause was of such importance and so overwhelming in its impact and importance and its sheer overwhelming scientific correctness that nobody ever needed or would ever need a “Plan B” as nothing could ever seriously challenge the scientific truth and the modelled catastrophic consequences of the human caused “Climate Change”.
And now, the political firestorm, the Trumpism of the Deplorables making is bearing down on the believers and there is cover, no alternatives for the now clearly seen to be a rickety, flimsy, rotten and stinking to its very core, the great structure of climate change ideology and cultism, the destruction of which will leave so little that even the skeptics might find it hard to dance on its grave .
Thats of course if like everybody else, they can even be bothered.
163
ROM. As we speak I am having “taps” placed on the soles of my shoes. Even if nothing is left of the climate cult, I’ll dance on its grave.
102
I have a different way of presenting my displeasure at the location of some climate cult grave!
31
From elsewhere! Perhaps belongs in Weekend Un-roundheaded!
Nino says: 17 Nov 16 at 6:16 pm
“In what way can Trump’s election be called a triumph for democracy? That by telling enough lies and making enough outrageous provocations can get you elected hardly seems a triumph for the system.”
The Donald, like any skilled ‘salesman’, closed the sale by letting each individual decide what is best based on individual knowledge and feeling; not on brainwashing and alleged group support. The Donald made not one error in ‘his’ quest to WIN ‘the US presidential election 2016!’
“Also, Curry says of the election:
(“impetus for the objectives and values of heterodox academy.org, challenging the overwhelming Democratic orientation of university faculty members”)”
“What do you think this means? Surely not that political orientation might be a condition for faculty appointments?”
The arrogant academia attempt to feel safe within the clan of academia.org! What is much more obvious is the overwhelming determination of academia members to retain the right to remain ignorant\never-learn, thus be complicit! Sir Humphery Appleby claims this has a ‘certain dignity’!
TinyCO2 says: 17 Nov 16 at 6:50 pm
“Triumph for democracy? no, it’s not that. It’s a slap in the face for those who have lied with more subtlety but lied just the same.”
IT is obvious that Trump is for ‘only’ Trump; be that for the individual or family, never some external imposed political concept! What can be more ‘democratic’? If ‘make America Great Again’ is good for, Trump we all benefit! Democracy is not “the flock”, it is the chickens individually! If the flock rules such is but mob rule, and the skinny guy has no feathers at all.
All the best! -will-
102
“What’s good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA!” (The great Al Capp, when General Motors was the world’s biggest company).
And: “Surely not that political orientation might be a condition for faculty appointments?”
Anybody remember Whitlam? Or more recently the CSIRO?
70
Yes, the population at large has been treated in a very cavalier fashion.
30
The one comment I have always found useful in making people think about “global warming” instead of just accepting it is;
How will increasing carbon dioxide from 0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere change the behaviour of the approx 1.5% of water vapour in the atmosphere (does not include condensed water in clouds) especially when water vapour IR absorption is significantly greater than Carbon Dioxide over a greater range of frequencies.
141
enthalpy November 18, 2016 at 11:51 pm
Nice choice of ‘name’! Care to expound on that ‘word’?
There is no evidence that changing Earth’s atmospheric CO2 does ’cause’ anything! By the same reasoning, there is no evidence that changing atmospheric CO2 does not ’cause’ something!
This is to be expected on some planet with 7,300,000,000 top predators, with 97% of those, likely incompetent [snip]!
All the best! -will-
71
🙂
Almost all of our baby squirrels are idiots! I try to get to some, before Kitten ‘Shadow’ eats them! Earthlings not so much!
Oh Woha are we!
12
Hi Will
Thanks for noticing
I am an inorganic chemist with experience in synthetic chemistry, steel making, specialty chemicals, water treatment, steam systems, and disinfection technologies. And, in each of these areas enthalpy always comes into play, as I am sure it does for our climate as well.
10
enthalpy November 20, 2016 at 10:56 am
“Hi Will Thanks for noticing”
(“Nice choice of ‘name’! Care to expound on that ‘word’?”)
I am retired EE ‘sparky’, with experience in ‘mostly fail to measure’ some spontaneous thermal EMR flux in the stupid ‘uphill’ direction. 🙂
“I am an inorganic chemist with experience in synthetic chemistry, steel making, specialty chemicals, water treatment, steam systems, and disinfection technologies. And, in each of these areas enthalpy always comes into play, as I am sure it does for our climate as well.”
I appreciate the concept of ‘enthalpy’, but fail to understand the detail. Entropy is easy. That is the power ‘lost’ in the conversion to ‘work’ or ‘action’, (structure). Just what is ‘enthalpy’, in a way that I can explain that to my kitten, who loves to catch\eat baby squirrels. Momma squirrels are getting really pissed!
All the best! -will-
11
enthalpy.
“How will increasing carbon dioxide from 0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere change the behaviour of the approx 1.5% of water vapour in the atmosphere”
The scientific fact is it DOES affect the average amount of water vapor – go look it up on a climate website or in Wikipedia.
I can explain the mechanism if anyone is interested. The short answer is water vapor does not stay long in the atmosphere unless something else is already warming the atmosphere.
431
Sillly Harry Twinotter, babbling unobserved nonsense.
There is no scientific ‘fact’, all you’ve quoted is one of Wikipedia’s many errors of making a hypothesis sound like reality.
“I can explain the mechanism if anyone is interested. The short answer is water vapor does not stay long in the atmosphere unless something else is already warming the atmosphere”
No you can not because there is no mechanism — there is a theory, that is all you have.
281
One ‘scientific fact’ that I know is for sure:
A DHC-6 is in peril when the pilot has his head in the clouds.
71
I am still waiting for a A DHC-6T. 🙂 The Fairchild Heli-Porter; I gladly jump into any day or night. “Wher’z we go’n; Watz we dooin? In front of the tail wheel is the steel bar known as the Cambodian Cow catcher! Until you experience the incandesant birds nest, exiting the side exhaust; then Ev the pilot carefully backing that tail-dragger out of a hangar. You have not lived!!
21
Harry Twinotter November 19, 2016 at 2:19 am
“enthalpy.
(“How will increasing carbon dioxide from 0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere change the behaviour of the approx 1.5% of water vapour in the atmosphere”)
“The scientific fact is it DOES affect the average amount of water vapor – go look it up on a climate website or in Wikipedia.”
Total Wm ‘Stoat’ Connelly wiki-nonsense! No science whatsoever. The 200-400ppmv atmospheric CO2 cannot and does not affect the quantity of water vapor or H2O colloid at any location within this Earth’s troposphere. Please revile any physical evidence of such!
“I can explain the mechanism if anyone is interested. The short answer is water vapor does not stay long in the atmosphere unless something else is already warming the atmosphere.”
Do you even have a definition for your use of your word ‘warming’? You claim precipitation, yet this atmosphere continually suspends 6 times the H2O mass than is allowable as water ‘vapor’.
Much nonsense, no science!!!
232
Will.
Oh brother – so all those climate scientists are wrong then, and you have outsmarted them! You must be a very clever and important fellow.
422
Harry CO2 does not cause global warming, the pause in temperature is significant, so the Klimatariat and associated minions are simply wrong.
94
Be careful, Harry.
Someone might bully you …
“If someone calls a free speech violation, just remind them of the borderline psychotic bullying that goes over at Jo Nova, WUWT and Climate Etc, usually ignored or encouraged by the moderators (they like to join in sometimes).”
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/11/new-comment-policy-no-more-nonsense.html
. . .
At least you can make your ‘off-comments’ here.
63
‘The reason for the new policy is that it’s clear that too many people have lost the ability to tell fact from fiction and I’m not going to assist in this regard.’
** chuckle **
53
Waiting for Twotter to produce some evidence to back up his useless opinion.
I have absolutely NO DOUBT that Will is significantly more intelligent than most of the so-called “climate scientists™”.
And absolutely CERTAIN that he would leave you ground into dust.
“so all those climate scientists are wrong then”
FINALLY, you are starting to realise that fact… WELL DONE!!!
125
Oh look. The bully-mods are out for another spin. I hope you are being paid enough.
(Another fact free,off topic comment.Is this all you can do?) CTS
[Paid mods? Where do you suppose I’d get money for that — Bit of your own fossil funded conspiracy thinking going on there?
Though they definitely deserve to be paid to put up with someone so unreasonably, impolite and repetitive as you. – Jo]
18
Kiss your CAGW racket goodbye on Jan 20…..the beginning of the end of thy global scam and medieval religion!
Have you got over your USA Hitlery well deserved defeat yet?
In spite of the global Media Presstitutes, Big Banks,the Marxist Conglomerates(UN and EU), El presidente O’Bummer,the CAGW true b’lvers(your gang),the so called think tanks(groupthinkers),and the loaded pollsters,….’The Donald’ has prevailed….against overwhelming odds!
He, himself with his own money has shown up the so called experts….experts in lying, incompetentce,stupidity,arrogance,collusion,corruption,superiority complex,CONsensuses(namely the 97%,but in reality 0.3% fiasco),bloated governments and so on……all a very accurate description of Leftoids(losers).
If the loss is too unbearable then there is always ‘Gender Fluidity’ and ‘Play-Doh’ for consollation…..hahaha!
11
But, But, But 100% of the 0.3% of papers that identified CO2 as a threat said that global warming was real. Get with the program…
11
“Oh brother – so all those climate scientists are wrong then”
Yep. They were all drivelling idiots that believed that the surface of our planet would be 33K cooler without radiative gases in our atmosphere. Do they have a single repeatable empirical experiment to back their inane claims? No! All they have is propagandists like Harry to shriek “correlation equals causation”, over and over.
PS. Twin Otter? Give it a rest sock puppet. The idea that a warmist has the capability of obtaining a pilots licence, let alone owning and operating an De Havilland Otter using LL avgas, is laughable. What have I got? Twin engine, constant speed, retract, piston and turbine. What have you got? Your mom’s basement is the rest of your “life”.
52
Konrad November 19, 2016 at 8:26 pm
Blah da da da
(“Oh brother – so all those climate scientists are wrong then”)
Yep. They were all drivelling idiots that believed that the surface of our planet would be 33K cooler without radiative gases in our atmosphere. Do they have a single repeatable empirical experiment to back their inane claims?
Konrad,
How come you get here, to use such terms as “driveling idiots” without moderation?
Are yous’ payin for red thumbz, again?
12
And also remind them that the sun’s rays have come through a few hundred kilometers of upper atmosphere before it reaches the lower troposphere, where we live. That upper atmosphere has filtered the majority of frequencies that react with CO2 before it gets down to us because up there is where CO2 has done the job.
See https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/ and in particular look at the diagram marked ‘Stratosphere radiation by species’ . The dotted line indicates the tropopause (higher than normal clouds). The large yellow area above that indicating the CO2 activity (CO2 infrared active frequencies) of the upper atmosphere cooling the air at that height. Note below that yellow patch and the dotted line, is a hole in the tropospheric radiation spectra. That hole is at CO2 IR active frequencies. That yellow patch is the only place that CO2 has a major effect on climate — where it cools the upper atmosphere!
Or at least that is the way I interpret that graphic. Please read the whole piece from E.M.Smith (aka ChiefIO) as he is so good at getting the point across.
92
tom0mason November 19, 2016 at 2:54 am
“See https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/ and in particular look at the diagram marked ‘Stratosphere radiation by species’ .”
Tom,
Fairly old article, but perhaps more pertinent today than then. Few if any errors, and carefully points out the pathetic lack of physical awareness on the part of government funded arrogant academics! Their defense of own ignorance must be intentional. Why I do not know, as they will find funding cut down or off anyhow! 40 years of computerized nonsense, with nothing to show but, Corrupted historical records! Is there statute of limitations on this type of deliberate continuing malfeasance?
“Please read the whole piece from E.M.Smith (aka ChiefIO) as he is so good at getting the point across.”
I wholeheartedly agree, and many here are willing to help with the difficult parts. Please ask about some of the comments.
All the best! -will-
21
Thanks Will,
I know that ChiefIO piece is fairly old but I chose it because it is a good springboard to launch from! A good place to start checking deeper, through the morass of consensus nonscience and hyperbole, to find some real truth.
I’ve also just put a link (below) to Malaga Bay’s digging into what he’s found out about our upper atmosphere.
I also find Malaga Bay’s look at those climate/civilization/astronomy cycles fascinating.
https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/solar-system-holocene-lawler-events/
10
You may also wish to look HERE for a very wide-ranging look at the composition of our upper atmosphere.
20
“Skeptics won the science debate years ago:”
But who’s debating? The alarmists have dramatically increased their investment in promotion of their lies. That investment has been paying off for them in Australia. Thankfully in the US it seems that it has not achieved control at the ballot box.
101
“Skeptics won the science debate years ago:”
In which alternative universe did this occur ?
418
The one in which you are unable to come up with one single rational response.
193
You mean other than pointing out that your ‘evidence’ gets constantly shot down by the scientific community and all you can respond with is poor excuses and ultimately the equivalent to the C word ?.
427
Thanks Frank. I realize you are pathologically unable to accept that science works by “observations” of the planet rather than by lists of credentials and opinions. I’m sorry for you. There is nothing I can do about your disability. But thanks for commenting so people can see that “this is as pathetic as it gets” and you have nothing rational and no argument at all about the evidence I posted.
324
Thanks Jo for not addressing my succinct observation.
The consensus exists due to the ‘observations’, its called the scientific method ,that which the scientific community operates under and the reason why you are rejected, stuck here in thumbsey land.
520
Yeah yeah, that’s why you can’t name a single observation that goes your way right…
It’s tough being a sheep born to follow the herd eh?
255
“The consensus exists due to the ‘observations’, its called the scientific method ,that which the scientific community operates under ”
Actually, the scientific method confines itself to a paradigm of assumed reality (normal science), which is why we get groupthink, as Kuhn explains:
“Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend most all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. Normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments. As a puzzle-solving activity, normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.” (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962, 5)
104
Frank,
On the one hand, its encouraging that you know the scientific method exists, but on the other, you seem unaware of how it works. The whole point of climate skepticism is to move climate science away from conforming to a narrative and back to the scientific method. What you think of as the scientific method is identifying trends. However, this assumes that CO2 is driving the trend and its this assumption that the scientific method must be applied to.
Allow me to enlighten you with an actual example. The scientific method is primarily about testing hypotheses and if any one test fails, then you’re done and must adjust your hypothesis. It only takes one failed test to falsify a hypothesis while the confirmation of a hypothesis as immutable truth can not occur until testing has been exhausted and all tests have confirmed the hypothesis. Even so, it’s not out of the question for a ‘settled’ hypothesis to be falsified when new information arises.
Lets boils down the difference between skeptics and alarmists to the magnitude of the climate sensitivity. If the two camps can agree on a range of sensitivity, then the controversy goes away. The problem today is that there’s absolute no overlap between the ‘consensus’ value of 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2 and the values skeptics theorize and measure of somewhere between 0.2 and 0.3 C per W/m^2. This irreconcilable difference is why the field is so bifurcated.
Lets apply a simple test to the consensus nominal sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2. Temperature and power are non linear, but as a consequence of COE, superposition must apply in the energy domain and emissions must be linearly related to forcing. For example, if 1 joule can do X amount of work, 2 joules will do twice the amount of work and making the surface warmer than it would be otherwise takes work.
Increasing the surface temperature by 0.8C from its current average of about 288K increases surface emissions by about 4.3 W/m^2, thus the consensus claim is that 1 W/m^2 of forcing results in 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions.
We know that the 1/T^3 dependency of temperature on the sensitivity of an emitting body (black or gray) is immutable, thus sensitivity must decrease as the temperature increases. This is consistent with the fact that each incremental degree of warmth takes more work to sustain than the last one.
The consensus requires the 1/T^3 dependency to disappear. To test this, multiply the 4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions said to arise from 1 W/m^2 of forcing and apply this to all 240 W/m^2 of accumulated solar forcing. The resulting surface emissions would be 4.3*240 = 1032 W/m^2 which corresponds to a temperature of nearly 100C.
If you can’t see how this test and any of its permutations falsifies a high sensitivity, then there is no hope that you will ever understand the scientific truth.
82
Jo Nova November 19, 2016 at 6:44 pm
“Yeah yeah, that’s why you can’t name a single observation that goes your way right… It’s tough being a sheep born to follow the herd eh?”
Joanne,
Observations that agree with\confirm fantasy are never part of the scientific method. In this CAGW BS we have the academic fantasy that hard to measurable thermal radiative EM flux W/m² is identical\equivalent to easy to measure ‘thermal radiance’ W/m²sr.
SEE that little sr in the denominator? This changes the meaning from ‘power transfer’, to potential for power transfer in a singular direction; a vector quantity! (field strength)!
The asinine claim by CAGW advocates That because of measured ‘radiance’; must result in radiative flux, being spontaneously generated in opposing directions. Yet the generation of such radiative flux has never, anywhere, been detected, observed, or\nor measured! All is but a play on words with intent to deceive! This is so bad that now most is self deception and deception of your own offsprouts!! THEY WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU!
Joanne, this is what I mean by the word IDIOT. (sentience unable to care for itself)! A Bagel!
All the best! -will-
22
co2isnotevil November 20, 2016 at 4:44 am
“Lets apply a simple test to the consensus nominal sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2. Temperature and power are non linear, but as a consequence of COE, superposition must apply in the energy domain and emissions must be linearly related to forcing. For example, if 1 joule can do X amount of work, 2 joules will do twice the amount of work and making the surface warmer than it would be otherwise takes work. Increasing the surface temperature by 0.8C from its current average of about 288K increases surface emissions by about 4.3 W/m^2, thus the consensus claim is that 1 W/m^2 of forcing results in 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions.”
What sloppy irrational [BS]! There is no such thing as forcings. Nor is there any required surface EMR emissions, incremental or not. All you have is religious fantasy. No science whatsoever!
—
Will, can we tone it down thanks? – J
03
Will,
“There is no such thing as forcings.”
You seem to be confused and its not surprising given all the misinformation out there.
The energy arriving from the Sun is a forcing factor, in fact its the only forcing factor. CO2 isn’t a forcing factor, however; it does affect how the system responds to forcing. When the IPCC says doubling CO2 is 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing, what they really mean (although they certainly don’t make this clear and perhaps don’t even know that this is what they mean) is that doubling CO2 is equivalent to 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental forcing (after albedo) from the Sun.
There are definitely required surface emissions consequential to its temperature. This is dictated by the immutable Stafan-Boltzmann Law which applies to all emitting bodies, black or gray. No religion here, its just deterministic physics.
Be careful about saying everything about consensus climate science is wrong. They get enough right to make what they have wrong seem plausible. They then turn around and call skeptics deniers because a small segment of skeptics disputes everything they say based on principle alone. I’m the kind of skeptic driven by science alone.
In the final analysis, the main thing the consensus has wrong is the sensitivity and 3.7 W/m^2 of equivalent ‘forcing’ from the Sun has about a 1C effect on the surface temperature and not a 3C effect. Everything else that they have wrong stems from assuming this erroneous sensitivity represents reality.
Keep in mind that the 3.7 W/m^2 equivalent value is also subject to debate and its likely to be about half as large. This is because while 3.7 W/m^2 accurately reflects the instantaneous decrease in emissions at TOA if CO2 is doubled, it fails to account for the fact that unlike incident solar energy, all of which affects the surface, about half of the photons emitted by the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere end up exiting out into space.
21
Will, can we tone it down thanks? – J
I will try again jo!
co2isnotevil November 21, 2016 at 3:20 am
(Will,“There is no such thing as forcings.”)
“You seem to be confused and its not surprising given all the misinformation out there.”
Indeed and you are spreading it as far and wide as you can!
“The energy arriving from the Sun is a forcing factor, in fact its the only forcing factor.”
No it is not! Our primary is a variable star with the poorly measured EMR insolation but some part of total power transfer to\from This Earth!
“CO2 isn’t a forcing factor, however; it does affect how the system responds to forcing. When the IPCC says doubling CO2 is 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing, what they really mean (although they certainly don’t make this clear and perhaps don’t even know that this is what they mean) is that doubling CO2 is equivalent to 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental forcing (after albedo) from the Sun.”
Again total religious BS! increasing atmospheric CO2 levels above 180ppmv have not and cannot be demonstrated to affect the temperature of Earth’s surface.
“There are definitely required surface emissions consequential to its temperature. This is dictated by the immutable Stafan-Boltzmann Law which applies to all emitting bodies, black or gray. No religion here, its just deterministic physics.”
More Climate Catastrophe BS! I have been attempting to measure Earth’s surface spontaneous thermal EMR exitance for over 40 years! There is only about 10% of what is claimed to be emitted by your Climate Clowns.
There exists no such “immutable Stafan-Boltzmann Law”! There exist a S-B equation that indicates the maximum one way spontaneous thermal EM flux between flat or sightly convex material surfaces at two different absolute temperatures. The minimum resultant flux remains strictly at zero!!!
Total EMR exitance from the volume of some tenuous atmosphere, may or may not be subject to similar limitations
“Be careful about saying everything about consensus climate science is wrong. They get enough right to make what they have wrong seem plausible. They then turn around and call skeptics deniers because a small segment of skeptics disputes everything they say based on principle alone. I’m the kind of skeptic driven by science alone.”
Please indicate\explain where, when, and how your academic Climate Clowns have employed any methodology of science whatsoever!
“In the final analysis, the main thing the consensus has wrong is the sensitivity and 3.7 W/m^2 of equivalent ‘forcing’ from the Sun has about a 1C effect on the surface temperature and not a 3C effect. Everything else that they have wrong stems from assuming this erroneous sensitivity represents reality. Keep in mind that the 3.7 W/m^2 equivalent value is also subject to debate and its likely to be about half as large. This is because while 3.7 W/m^2 accurately reflects the instantaneous decrease in emissions at TOA if CO2 is doubled, it fails to account for the fact that unlike incident solar energy, all of which affects the surface, about half of the photons emitted by the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere end up exiting out into space.”
More total fantasy. No science whatsoever! Please, can you explain what you think a photon might be? Both A. Einstein and R. Feynman, admitted ‘not a clue’!
02
Will,
You need to back off from the idea that everything the consensus claims is false. As I pointed out, the main thing they have wrong is the sensitivity and all the other errors stem from this. Your objections are completely wrong and seem driven by frustration and anger with the climate science consensus (which I’m definitely not a part of), so I don’t see the point in trying to dissuade you, especially since nothing I’ve said supports any of the conclusions of the IPCC as you seem to think it does.
None the less, I’ll try to explain photons for you.
A photon is a quantum of energy proportional to its frequency times the Planck constant. It’s manifested by a propagating electromagnetic resonance in space-time whose characteristic impedance is 1/a times the impedance of free space, where a is the fine structure constant (Zo/a is about 52K ohms). You can arrive at this by modeling the photon as an LC resonant circuit whose stored energy is constrained by the Planck constant and whose charge is constrained by the unit charge.
Interestingly enough, the required C is the fine structure constant (a) times the capacitance of the free space it occupies and the required L is 1/a times the inductance of that free space based on the amount of space quantified by its wavelength. Since L and C are properties of geometry and space, photons conform to Maxwell’s equations only by warping the geometry in the vicinity of the photon since that’s the only way that the required L and C can arise. Half must be warped to be more curved than the space time it’s traveling through manifesting the L (the photons future) while the other half must be warped to be less curved and in an equal and opposite manner manifesting the C (the photons past), except that the past and future across a wavelength and period exist simultaneously. In effect, a photon exists simultaneously across space and time proportional to it wavelength and period, which as it propagates through 4-d space-time is projected into it as a time varying EM field passing through a point. The photon propagates as the uncurved region of its space-time existence ‘falls’ into the curved region which you may recognize as the theoretical way that a warp drive might operate.
The fact that a photon exists across a region of time and space proportional to its period and wavelength, rather than as a point in space-time, is the origin for the effects seen in the double slit experiment, is why photons seem to act as both a particle and a wave and is the origin of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
The impedance of a photon exactly matches the impedance of an electron which is why photons can be so easily absorbed and emitted by electron shells and is also why the fine structure constant is so prominent in the equations describing how the absorption and emissions of photons changes the state of an electron shell. To understand why state transitions are quantized, you need to understand the implications of Schroedinger’s wave equation.
11
co2isnotevil November 22, 2016 at 11:02 am
“Will,You need to back off from the idea that everything the consensus claims is false. As I pointed out, the main thing they have wrong is the sensitivity and all the other errors stem from this. Your objections are completely wrong and seem driven by frustration and anger with the climate science consensus (which I’m definitely not a part of), so I don’t see the point in trying to dissuade you, especially since nothing I’ve said supports any of the conclusions of the IPCC as you seem to think it does.”
Why oh why, do you think you can command me to do your bidding? What are you trying to sell?
You continually spout the phrases of the IPCC Climate Clowns and all self-appointed lukewarmers such as J. Cury, R Spencer, and A. Watt! Please point out an occurrence in meteorology textbooks: that has a sentence, paragraph, chapter, that has any ‘science’ involved! It is all selling BS to the proletariat at the request of the bourgeoisie! Your ‘radiative forcings’, and your “immutable Stafan-Boltzmann Law” are but corruption of ‘science’ at the highest levels!
“None the less, I’ll try to explain photons for you.”
Thank you! I shall treat your explanation as the blatant criminal obscene corruption of science, that such ignorant blithering deserves……
If you were ever out among the solid state, chemists, physicists, engineers, trying to understand the confluence of EMR and matter, you would realize that none of your obscenity has any physical meaning! As a mere concept,fantasy, such may or may not assist understanding of this IS!
All the best!
21
It looks to me like Frank is trying to earn his gang ‘patch’. At the present rate his performance may sadly not be sufficient, in which case in seems likely he may be trolling about for a bit longer.
106
A gang of 5 year olds
SCARY !!
77
Frank @ #30,1,1,1.
It’s your “scientific community”, not ours, that is adjusting/homogenising/fiddling the numbers.
11
Frank,
The skeptics won the science over 100 years ago when basic radiation physics was first developed. The fact that this science precedes the formation of the IPCC by a century is no reason to deny it only because it’s not part of the climate science literature. The climate alarmists have won the propaganda war, only because the message of gloom and doom inspires fear and as a result, both left politics and the media have latched on to the wrong side of the science. You think they won the science only because the self serving consensus around IPCC reports tells you so and of course, the IPCC requires a significant anthropogenic effect to justify their existence. Fear not, this is only temporary. Validated science will eventually win over a conflict of interest after which the idea of CAGW will become as quaint as an Earth Centric Universe.
134
They won the science because of the observed facts deary, take off the foil hat.
517
“They won the science because of the observed facts deary, take off the foil hat.”
Hey, Frank, an opinion is not an ‘observed fact.’
Just thought you should know.
142
…is that before, or after it goes through the rainbow unicorn approved climate model?
32
Crank,
“They won the science because of the observed facts deary, take off the foil hat.”
Cite one observed fact that was predicted by any scientific law, hypothesis or conjecture and that supports the absurdly high sensitivity claimed by the IPCC.
Jo has cited many that do the exact opposite and she has just scratched the surface.
Can you explain how the next W/m^2 of ‘forcing’ is amplified into 4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions, while the last one only contributed about 1.6 W/m^2 to the total surface emissions?
1.6 W/m^2 is still greater than the 1 W/m^2 that caused it and the extra 0.6 W/m^2 is the complete extent of all extra warming above and beyond what the incident power can do on its own. All feedback, positive, negative, known and unknown is embodied by this 0.6 W/m^2 increase. Claiming that this is a 3.3 W/m^2 increase not only denies the underlying physics and math, it’s so absurd that it’s unbelievable that anyone can be so deluded into accepting it.
82
I’d be a little less enthusiastic co2isnotevil. In my view, the alarmists have not ‘won’ any ‘war’, least of all a propaganda war. Their relentless bludgeoning of society abetted by a low wattage Fourth Estate, the real societal traitors of the moment, has notably failed to cement public opinion let alone interest. The only folk along for the gallop are the politicians with eco-globalist leanings and a penchant for having their delicate ego’s stroked to a climax by adulation from the international stage.
The science in general and the hypothesis of CAGW in particular as we all very well know, is utterly dead in the water and always has been. But it’s a but like a WEEKEND AT BERNIES. It has required monumental and targeted political effort from the corrupt UN at all levels to expedite any ‘progress’, which is illusory and wafer thin. The funding stream has consequentially been relentless and incontestable. But all this political noise could be entirely eradicated by a single US administration that decides to pull the financial plug on the “Green Fund” or better still, simply cease funding the stinking eco-Marxist edifice that is the UN.
In the near future with the ascension of the Trump administration and MAGA I virtually guarantee that real science will find it considerably easier to have a hearing on a rational and intellectual playing field that has been freed from supernumerary referees, streakers, fowls, deflated balls, pall review, team funding and sundry impedimenta, including the the most absurd of them all, post modern precautionary science. As this becomes so, the argument and evidence to extinguish the societal putrid green chancre and heal its festering sores with genuine progress and prosperity will flourish and become a new, invigorating reality.
61
Perhaps it would be better to say that the alarmists are running away with the propaganda battle. But like I said, its only a transient condition. Propaganda can only prop up lies temporarily. The truth, especially a scientific truth, will always win in the end, but if history is any guide, an effective, faith based propaganda strategy can postpone the revelation of truth for centuries and its already been decades.
It will be more difficult for the Trump administration to turn this around than you think. Sure, executive action, rational legislation and open dialog can fix a lot, but power will inevitable shift again in the future and all gains will have been lost unless and until the science is actually settled in the eyes of the world at large. Owing to the highly successful propaganda campaign from the alarmists, this will be the most difficult part of fixing climate science.
42
Maybe. For my money, it will either be time for the libtards to move onto the next threat junket or the imagination of humanity will have been captured by far greater matters related to prosperity and future development. Imagine we’re on Mars. Imagine the successful incarnation of ITER and its various smaller variants. Imagine the full actualisation of personalised medicine. The splendid list goes on.
The sane will recognise that CO2 was always vital for plant life and therefore all life on earth, and that labeling it as a ‘pollutant’ was arguably one of the single most darkly deliberate and destructive manifestations of 20th Century politics and its bedfellow, politicised ‘science’.
Declared a ‘pollutant’ by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on Dec 7, 2009, she resigned in Dec 2012. She now works for Apple as VP ‘Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives’, which rather speaks volumes about Apple’s view of the World and its perceived role.
How Carbon Dioxide Became a ‘Pollutant’
31
“Imagine we’re on Mars.”
Not unless we fix the science. There are still some idiots out there who think we can terraform Mars by adding more CO2 to its atmosphere. Little do they realize that on a per cubic meter basis, Mars already has far more CO2 in its atmosphere than we have on Earth.
The Martian atmosphere needs to get thick enough to support liquid water on the surface. Any gas will do, but the CO2 GHG effect has little headroom left to make it much warmer.
On the other side of the spectrum, if not for the heavy clouds blanketing Venus, its atmosphere would have a significant transparent window between the surface and space despite 90 Atmospheres of CO2 and its surface would be far, far cooler then it is today.
32
Manfred November 19, 2016 at 5:46 pm
“In the near future with the ascension of the Trump administration and MAGA I virtually guarantee that real science will find it considerably easier to have a hearing on a rational and intellectual playing field that has been freed from supernumerary referees, streakers, fowls, deflated balls, pall review, team funding and sundry impedimenta, including the the most absurd of them all, post modern precautionary science. As this becomes so, the argument and evidence to extinguish the societal putrid green chancre and heal its festering sores with genuine progress and prosperity will flourish and become a new, invigorating reality.”
What extraordinary incompetent drivel! Why post if you have absolutely nothing to offer?
11
Frank the EMPTY ONE returns
With more EMPTY !!
85
That’s a lot of empty!
34
The only thing in Fronk’s mind is anti-space.
Emptier than empty.
(You need to stop posting this type of comment,piling it on in this way distracts from the topic at hand) CTS
46
Frank your statement is ambiguous. Did you mean that you believe skeptics have an inferior or incorrect scientific appreciation of climate (subsequent posts suggest this interpretation) or were you refering to the battle to win hearts and minds (as well as political and other support) about climate issues? If you were stating the latter, then I must agree with you, if the former, then we have very different beliefs.
62
This one and every one except in your fantasy one.
01
This is a wonderful post. Who else puts so many footnotes in a blog??
One quibble, is El Nino really “warming”? Or, is it just heat moving closer to the places we measure it. I would encourage using “surface temps” instead.
91
DonG,
As I see it, El Nino/La Nina are one of many pairs of quasi-stable states related to the distribution of surface energy. During the El Nino phase, the ratio of warm surface to cold surface waters increases, while in the La Nina phase, the opposite occurs. The ‘average’ temperature changes owing to the fact that this ratio changes. This is what’s driving natural variability, where a relatively wide range of average surface temperatures are transiently stable with the incoming radiation from the Sun owing to varying ratios of hot to cold across the surface of the planet. In LTE, this variability is moot since if there is too much hot, extra cold will manifest in the future to offset it and visa versa, yet the consensus measures this and is misled into thinking that natural variability is manifesting trends that are caused by CO2.
12
Best piece of work that Peter Boyer ever did. Unfortunately – for the world – the media didn’t like it and made it go away.
PBS – Frontline presentation of “The Fixers,” by Peter Boyer. Hint – it’s about Bill Clinton.
Here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fixers/
Unfortunately they took the video down when Hillary started running for President in 2008. The opening scene is Bill Clinton in Hawaii – with the Lums. The transcript is here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fixers/etc/script.html
Clinton should have gone to jail with the rest of them: https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2001/January/017crm.htm
82
How interesting Gary. Thanks.
62
WOW! Boyer is speeding through the stages of grief! You see his anger (I want my wants when I want them!), and then negotiation (Donald may be ok, if we can just “deal” with him).
Over the next 2 months, watch for a lot more of the negotiation stage. I have no idea what Donald will do, but his plans for the country are ambitious and he has to get the money from somewhere.
112
You can tell the democrats in the US are angry by the size of the Lie Swarm. The democrats haven’t been this angry since the Republicans took their slaves away.
191
This is a quote from GWPF
“President Barack Obama’s signing of the agreement in September was not sufficient. Under the U.S. Constitution the authority to ratify treaties lies with the Senate. Until the Senate votes, the United States remains outside of the Paris agreement.
The White House’s position that Paris is simply an executive agreement and not a treaty has been a matter of political convenience, especially given the level of Republican opposition in the Senate.
Any reasonable person would find that the State Department’s guidance on determining if an agreement needs Senate approval strongly indicates that Paris is, by definition, a treaty. Both Hillary Clinton’s campaign and environmentalists have treated it as such.
The other major economies of the world, including the European Union and Japan, have also viewed Paris as a “binding” treaty, one that requires the approval of their legislatures before it can take effect.”
I cannot recall the our Parliament giving Turnbull & Bishop authority to sign the Paris agreement so hopefully the next Government, lead by a REAL conservative, can undo the harm done.
http://www.thegwpf.com/rep-kevin-cramer-reckless-international-climate-politics-may-kill-un-climate-treaty/
91
I’m hoping that the voices of more sceptical scientists will be given the opportunity to be heard once Donald Trump takes the proverbial reins.
The doomsayers have dominated the media for far too long. Perhaps we might even see a good public debate from both sides.
113
Carbon500.
If you can find any “skeptical” scientists. Maybe a couple of old ones, or ones past their tenure. “Skeptical” scientists are in the minority and are a dying breed.
222
Harry, you said —
“If you can find any “skeptical” scientists. Maybe a couple of old ones, or ones past their tenure. “Skeptical” scientists are in the minority and are a dying breed.”
How little you understand. Even if the current batch of lackluster hold sway in the scientific community it is not for ever. For currently too many so called scientist think that belief in a theory is all that is needed. It is not.
It matters not how many believe this or that in science, in science the truth will eventually get out. And any scientist who declares he is not a skeptic is not much of a scientist, he is just a compliant scientific technician plodding on behind a mirage of science.
Science is not about numbers of scientists concurred together over how something works or doesn’t work. It is about publishing findings about observation of nature. Findings that can be replicated, verified and methods validated, and through logic and deduction fits within our ever-changing model of what is nature.
Science, and (your much loved) science ‘facts’ are not fixed points but mere staging posts in an ongoing process. A process which will never end for we can never know or understand everything.
163
If they aren’t sceptical, and asking questions.. they are NOT SCIENTISTS
Poor Twotter, you have just shown you have absolutely ZERO idea what science is really all about !
Be we knew that already, from you many clown-like posts full of EMPTY DRIVEL. 🙂
127
Harry Twinotter: part of your problem is that you have seemingly made no effort to read alternative views. So, if you’re at all interested, here’s one sceptical scientist with outstanding credentials. Straight from the internet:
‘Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama’s State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society “for developing a global, precise record of earth’s temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate.” In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has served on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees.
Dr. Christy received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois (1984, 1987). Prior to this career path he had graduated from the California State University in Fresno (B.A. Mathematics, 1973, Distinguished Alumnus 2007)
This is a man who has spent a professional lifetime measuring atmospheric temperatures on the surface, as well as by balloons and satellites.
Now obtain and read his testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on 8th Decemeber 2015. He compares climate models with reality and much more. He shows graphically how much the models overestimate the effect of CO2, and also concludes that the way greenhouse gases affect climate fails simple evaluation tests, and that the effect of reducing emissions will be negligible. He also comments that official information about climate science is largely controlled by agencies via funding choices for research and by the carefully selected (ie biased) authorship of reports such as the EPA Endangerment Finding and the National Climate Assessment.
Another scientist: Nils-Axel Morner has had something like 500 research papers published over about 40 years of research on the subject of sea level. He states in his booklet ‘The Greatest Lie Ever Told’ that ‘In human history, we have built up a common way of handling scientific questions which is based upon three fundamental steps: observation – interpretation – conclusion. The IPCC has introduced a new way of handling a serious question, with a totally different basis – modelling to prove the scenario, and lobbying to endorse the scenario. It also includes the choice of loyal persons instead of relevant experts. How long will the IPCC/global warming illusion fool us? By returning to basic science laid down by ‘observation- interpretation-conclusion its days will be numbered.’
You comment that sceptical scientists might include a couple of old ones, or ones past their tenure. This is clearly intended as an insult – how dare you make such a stupid comment? The older scientists have the experience of years of hard work and study behind them, and should be taken notice of for their views. Believe me, when I was studying for my PhD, I was very appreciative of my project supervisor and departmental professor’s input. It was a privilege to work with such knowledgeable scientists.
How arrogant of you to suggest that such people are not relevant to the global warming question.
83
Carbon500
“Harry Twinotter: part of your problem is that you have seemingly made no effort to read alternative views.”
Don’t you just love people who make assumptions?
Yes, science advances one funeral at a time as Max Planck said.
(Allowed this ugly comment to show that Harry has nothing good to say about people who are highly regarded in their field) CTS
59
Harry,
“science advances one funeral at a time”
I can’t wait for CAGW to die and those of you on the wrong side have your wake commiserating about your collective failure. At that time science will advance tremendously as the shackles of conforming to a narrative are removed enabling the scientific method to return.
To see a preview of how this will play out, look at how US Democrats are wailing in self pity because the voters rejected their progressive narratives, one of which is CAGW. It’s only a matter of time before CAGW is relegated to history as an unprecedented failure of science.
84
An outstanding post, comments and links, thank you Jo.
93
Congrats Jo,
Again, all this slam dunk evidence is wasted here , just submit it for peer review like a good scientist .
922
And thus does Frank wipe out 200 peer reviewed references by demanding that peer reviewed references get peer reviewed again. You live in the land of nonsense Frank.
337
Jo, So you have turned the consensus around ?, a green thumb for you !
In the usual cherry picking style you have disregarded the vast majority of evidence to the contrary.
727
The “evidence” of 97% support for climate change as provided by John Cook?
244
Frank,
Consensus? Consensus!
Who cares a rat’s ass about the consensus and their beliefs! Real science and scientists do not need it. If a consensus is all you have you have nothing. Nothing but the trailing vaporous echos of mythical rumors.
Science will catch-up once the politics, and politician moves on to a different field. That will happen as soon as they realize what it truly happening. Science is about the actuality!
I repeat (from above @ http://joannenova.com.au/2016/11/award-winning-peter-boyer-attacks-myron-ebell-but-who-has-an-open-mind-and-who-is-in-denial/#comment-1859011)
“Science is not about numbers of scientists concurred together over how something works or doesn’t work. It is about publishing findings about observation of nature. Findings that can be replicated, verified and methods validated, and through logic and deduction that fits within our ever-changing model of what is nature.
Science, and science ‘facts’ are not fixed points but mere staging posts in an ongoing process. A process which will never end for we can never know or understand everything.”
153
Tomo,
If the consensus were to swing to you , you’d be crowing it from the rooftops.
Double standards.
820
No Frank, we’ve know for years that skeptics outrank and outnumber believers but we’ve never “crowed” it because it’s a fallacy, and has been a fallacy known since Aristotle.
You are only 2300 years behind…
244
So what are the numbers again, Jo?
And perhaps a list of their ‘rank’?
(Where are YOUR thoughtful contrary comments, that forces people to listen,not seen so far in this thread,what is keeping you from lifting your quality of comments?) CTS
23
We’re already had that conversation here many times Ross.Consensus? What consensus?
The 99.99% pure climate consensus – how to ignore thousands of skeptical scientists
Half of climate scientists don’t even agree with the IPCC
Joanne Nova
April 3, 2016 at 2:28 pm · Edit
As usual, Frank makes big statements with zero to back it up. We’ve provided lists and surveys of scientists showing skeptics outnumber believers in every way. Skeptics have real Nobel Prizes in Physics (not “peace” ones) and they have real achievements (eg three walked on the Moon). In climate science skeptics were the ones who worked out how to use satellites to estimate temperatures. Believers have models that don’t work, and predictions that failed. Skeptics not only outnumber believers, they arguably outrank them too.
The only reason that experts in electron tunnelling say were not able to “understand” and comment on climate science is because it is a religion, not a science.
52
No numbers, no ranks. Got it.
36
No evidence. no arguments. Got it. You have nothing.
82
No evidence. No arguments. Got it.
62
Absolutely NO!
I utterly dislike crowds.
63
I am very suspicious of public acclimation, usually it is ill-informed and misdirected by others.
74
Frank,
“If the consensus were to swing to you , you’d be crowing it from the rooftops.
Double standards.”
I understand why you say such a thing because you do not understand what the philosophy of science is for or about.
However you have, by these comments and others, assumed that you know how others think as you judge other to think like you. I’m sorry but majority of commenters here do not attest to your low standards.
TM
63
Now tom. Read your post again and think…have I contradicted myself?
(I think you have)
38
Ross November 20, 2016 at 12:27 am
“Now tom. Read your post again and think…have I contradicted myself? (I think you have)”
Do you claim to be Ross, Frank, or other? In every case you have blatantly contradicted anything you have written!
60
Contradicted myself? How so, Will?
By not being frank?
14
If the consensus converts anyone, they are incompetent and should not be discussing the subject. Either the science will “convert” you or not. The consensus is anti-science.
00
Never let it be said that Fronk has EVER contributed one tiny skerrick of evidence to back up his baseless rhetoric.
156
Perhaps the agglutination of many skerricks shall prevail!
32
Poor Fronk..
More people will read it here than would if it were in journals.
You have yet to produce one tiny bit of this so-called evidence.
We are waiting !!!
and waiting
and waiting…
yawn !!!
136
.
That green arc on the Gisp2 ice core graph precicely follows the obliquity of the earth’s axis.
Why? Because the two orbital motions that govern ice ages are precession and obliquity. And since eccentricity is at a minimum at present, precession is also at a minimum, and therefore obliquity dominates. So the decline in temperatures since the Holocene maximum some 8,000 years ago has been predominantly caused by the decline in obliquity. This is interesting, because my calculations indicate that a new ice age will form in just 500 or 1000 years time.
This is based upon my previous peer-review paper on ice aces:
Modulation of Ice Ages via precession, dust and albedo
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
So what triggers new ice ages?
The answer is that the present climate is predisposed towards cooler conditions, given half a chance. So as insolation from precession and obliquity decline, as they are at present, there comes a tipping point which precipitates an ice age. This is initiated by a cold snap, caused by the other minor cycles you see on this graph. It only takes a cold snap of 20 to 50 years to greatly increase the permanent NH snow-line, which greatly increases the NH albedo, and greatly cools the NH. And then the ice age will progress no matter what the climate or orbital influences do. Albedo always trumps orbital insolation and greenhouse feedbacks. Always.
This implies that ice age ice sheets extend and build, rather than build and extend. They don’t start in the north and move south. Instead they spread thinly all the way into Canada (and the west Asia-European equivalent) in a century or so. But very, very thinly. And then they build from this thin layer, just a few meters thick, into great mountains of ice. Note that there are never any ice sheets in east Asia, as it is too dusty. Albedo is king remember. Dust can kill any ice sheet in a few hundred years.
But according to historic data, we stand at the insolation levels that mark the initiation of a new ice age. All it will take is another Little Ice Age, and we could end up with the perma-snowline rapidly moving south, and the initiation of a new ice age. And the lack of orbital forcing at present (no Great Winter for 50 kyr or more) will not prevent this new ice age, because ‘Albedo is King’.
(And Co2 does bugger all).
Ralph
151
.
Some of you might like to start a discussion on Reddit. This Reddit posting has generated 1,200 views of the paper, but nobody is commenting.
I know the reason – other scientists are afraid of this paper. They don’t want to engage, because it conflicts with what they think they know, so they steer a wide berth.
How Ice Ages Are Modulated.
Presently number 3 on the Hot List.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EverythingScience/?count=76&before=t3_5aymka
Ralph
121
Abstract:
Doesn’t this almost guarantee that it will be ignored as an inconvenient truth, at least for the time being? Not long to go. MAGA. It will soon become unfashionable to be on the wrong and losing side.
30
ralfellis,
Thanks for the link. Interesting…
30
The other interesting point is that Australia will move north much faster in the coming mini ice age.
“The Australian continent is chasing the point where the Earth is heaviest,” she told Australian Geographic.
‘An increase in ice, snow and rainfall during winter in the Northern Hemisphere makes Europe much heavier. As a result, the northwestern corner of Australia sinks towards Europe, while the southeastern corner elevates.’
Dunn/News
42
Ralf
The LIA has been interpreted by Bond as the cold part of a D-O cycle, what do you think?
Its just that we have this 1470 year cycle and need to verify a few unknowns.
31
Gordo…
D-O events are still an unknown. And they are warming events, not cooling events.
However, it has been established that all D-O events are stronly linked to combustion products. Since my paper has established that albedo is the strongest of all the feedback systems, a logical scenario is that D-O warming events are caused by massive continental forest fires.
This would explain the random nature of D-Os, and why they are a few thousand years apart – it would take that long to build up a good enough fuel load. The soot from these fires would settle on the northern ice sheets, and cause a rapid reduction in albedo, and rapid melting. However, since this was only a single event, the ice sheets can wash off the soot and return to cooling. An essential part of the dust-interglacial theory is that there are 10,000 years-worth of dust on the ice, which concentrates and exacerbates the albedo reductions and warming.
Ralph
20
The cold side of a warm D-O Event is a slow cool come down, but just for the record I don’t think the LIA is connected to a D-O Event.
In regard to the continental bushfires I’ll need more evidence, in the meantime the seesaw looks good.
‘Ice core evidence from Antarctic cores suggests that the Dansgaard–Oeschger events are related to the so-called Antarctic Isotope Maxima by means of a coupling of the climate of the two hemispheres, the Bi-polar Seesaw.’ wiki
10
>>Dansgaard bushfires
Try this paper, it is interesting.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n9/full/ngeo2495.html
Here is the graph demonstrating a connection between D-Os and fires.
The bottom purple plot represents fire products:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n9/images_article/ngeo2495-f2.jpg
Ralph
10
You both maybe interest to read this https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/solar-system-holocene-lawler-events/ and the referenced link to Tallbloke in the comments.
00
An interesting analysis. You would then have to postulate a mechanism by which the rotation of the Heliopause would effect terrestrial climate – perhaps through cosmic rays, once more.
Regards the notation of our calendars, as mentioned in this article. The millennial year was not zeroed 2016 years ago because of the birth of a king, it was zeroed because the precessional sign of Aries (the Great Month of Aries) turned into Pisces in AD 0 or AD 10 (the Great Month of Pisces). So we are actually in year 2026 of the Great Month of Pisces. And we are now at the “Dawn of the Age of Aquarius”. (This is standard astronomy, not hocus-pocus hippy astrology.)
This is why this ‘special’ king was born as a Lamb of God (Aries) but became a Fisher of Men (Pisces). This royal family have been keeping this astrological tradition for millennia. This is why Egyptian pharaoh of the last month (Alexander the Great, Ptolemy III) were identified with the ram (Aries), while our present popes are identified with a fish (the Fisher Ring).
However, these Great Month transitions are based upon standard precession, rather than ‘seasonal’ precession, and so are not directly linked to Milankovitch cycles.
Ralph
01
There’s a huge amount of work in that paper Ralf.
The sort of thing not easily read on my mobile but still interesting and rewarding to work through.
Thanks
31
.
Pleasure. I just hope it stimulates academic discussion (some 8,500 people have downloaded it so far). However, the responses I had from some of the reviewers were not encouraging. Some of them had their bias-blinkers on, and said I was not a suitable person to be writing science papers (I work in industry, not academia).
Another dissapointment was the lack of knowledge displayed by some of these ‘expert reviewers’.
One said that since atmospheric concentrations of Co2 do not change with altitude, high altitude plants cannot be starved of C02. (And so my paper was wrong.). Yes, a scientist who did not know the difference between a concentration and a partial pressure. I did suggest that he-she goes to the top of Mt Everest, and see if they are starved of oxygen….
Another reviewer said that the rotation axis of the Earth moved around the north pole every few thousand years, while the pole remained stationary. (And so my paper was wrong.). Yes, I kid you not. His explanation was akin to that of a six year old.
This is modern academia for you, and the peer review process.
Ralph
Ralph
10
.
This is what two of the ‘expert reviewers’ said.
Quote:
“At any point in the 22 kyr precessional cycle, the Earth’s rotational axis is oriented at some angle to the line from the south pole to the north pole. At one extreme, the axis is tilted from south toward north when the Earth is closest to the Sun and the axis is tilted from north to south when the Earth is farthest from the Sun. At this point, the summers and winters are least severe in the Northern Hemisphere(current state). “
Rotational axis not coincident with the North Pole??
This was a nuclear physicist.
What do they teach these people?
Quote:
“This hypothesis relies on a strong effect of reduced CO2 on vegetation at altitude. I strongly suspect that the calculations showing a 120 ppm drop in CO2 at 4,000m altitude in the tropics and 65 ppm drop at 2,000m in the extra-tropics are completely wrong. Observations of CO2 with altitude show tiny variations (less that 5 ppmv, e.g. Olsen & Randerson, 2004, figure 3). So this calculation in table 4 (which cannot be verified because it is not shown) is very likely wrong. This means that the emergence of deserts at sub-190 ppmv is not realistic because it is based on flawed calculations. This undermines much of the rest of the manuscript.”
Yeah, the concentration of CO2 (and of O2) does not change with altitude.
But the partial pressure does.
The concentration of O2 at 9,000 m on Everest is still 21%.
But you will sure be short of oxygen.
Where do they get these people from?
Ralph
10
Hi Ralph
I haven’t read it all yet but as mentioned before, it is a well set out paper.
The points about albedo and desertification, in concert with precession and other factors of orbItal mechanics certainly present an interesting scenario.
My wife and I stopped over in Dubai for a night when travelling to Europe, mid 2015.
They would have a very clear understanding of the term “dust” that coastal people like myself would be totally unaware of.
I guess that the theory wil in the end, depend on the location of dust in the geologic record.
Must ask my geologist friend if he can help with some background material.
🙂
KK
00
Ralf the LIA began in a regional sort of way, depending on the behavior of the oscillations, but when the snow accumulates in winter and fails to melt in summer then we know the end is nigh.
‘Snow cover advance across Eurasia continued consistently above normal for the entire month of October. Also because much of the advance has occurred at latitudes south of 60°N, the snow advance index is also well above normal. Above normal snow cover extent, especially south of 60°N, favors a strengthened Siberian high, cold temperatures across northern Eurasia and a weakened polar vortex/negative AO this upcoming winter followed by cold temperatures across the continents of the NH.’
Dr Judah Cohen (AER)
30
.
Gordo
>>when the snow accumulates in winter and fails to melt
>>in summer then we know the end is nigh.
Indeed, you have it in one.
When and where was that quote from?
Ralph
10
Suggest you bookmark it.
https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation
10
…and check out Greenland’s increasing mass balance.
http://www.thegwpf.com/greenland-blowing-away-all-records-for-ice-growth/
10
Ralph,
Another influence of obliquity is that when the Earth is most tilted, both the tropics and polar regions get larger and the temperate zone between them, where cold equalizes hot, gets smaller at twice the rate either the poles or tropics expand. This increases evaporation owing to more tropics even as the average temperature at the equator decreases. The result is lower global temperatures accompanied with more precipitation allowing the snow pack to expand. The opposite happens when the Earth is least tilted and the planet gets warmer, as it is now.
Another influence of the precession of perihelion is the asymmetry between hemispheres. There are 2 important differences. One is the ratio of land to water is significantly different between hemispheres and the other is that the N pole is water surrounded by land, while the S pole is land surrounded by water. Both of these effects amplify the asymmetry because land and water behave quite differently. For example, the snow belt in the N is land while in the S is ocean, so snow has a lot more surface area to build up on the N, while in the S, most of the land that can accumulate snow is already covered in ice and snow (Antarctica).
10
.
I mention the hemispheric asymmetry of insolation in the paper. Ice ages are only modulated by NH insolation changes, because of this asymmetry.
Not sure about your obliquity explanation though. Obliquity does indeed operate in both hemispheres simultaneously (on millennial timescales). However, obliquity steals insolation from the tropics and donates it to the higher latitudes. So I am not sure about the claim that the tropics expand during high obliquity cycles.
Cheers,
Ralph
10
Ralph,
The latitudes that define the tropics are tilt degrees on either side of the equator, while the latitudes that define the polar circles are tilt degrees away from each pole. By definition, the size of these regions varies with the axial tilt. Each degree change in tilt (about 2.5 degrees total) migrates the tropical and polar latitude boundaries by about 110 miles shrinking the mid latitudes by about 220 miles.
The insolation ‘stolen’ from the tropics is just distributed over a wider band of tropical latitudes and at the same time, the lack of insolation at the poles is spread out over a wider band of polar latitudes. Since the polar regions (cold) are closer to the tropical regions (hot) and both are larger, more storm energy exists and more finds its way to the cooler regions of the planet where snow has a greater chance to accumulate and turn to ice.
I’ve been observing and skiing Alpine glaciers for decades and the most significant factor driving their ebb and flow are not how hot the summer is, but how much snow fell during previous winter.
10
.
Not entirely so.
The entire bands of tropical, temperate, and polar regions shift north (during the anual summer). While the equator is cooler than usual, because it has less summer insolation.
Since the polar regions are warmer, due to this northern shift, it is highly likely that the polar-tropical difference remains substantially constant. The only caveat being that the winters will be harsher, leading to more winter snows to melt in the spring. So the temperature differential in the spring will be greater.
R
10
“The entire bands of tropical, temperate, and polar regions shift north (during the anual summer)”
While you can consider that tropics shift N (S in the S hemisphere), polar regions shift in the opposite direction, squeezing the middle. When at maximum tilt, the poles will be colder in the summer, not warmer, since the Sun is at a lower angle to the horizon. The absolute temp at the poles will not get colder in the winter, as the amount of time the Sun is below the horizon is already long enough to reach a steady state cold condition. More of the planet will be without winter Sun, thus the planet as a whole gets cooler.
It’s also more accurate to say the tropics expand from the equator, rather than migrate N. The center of the tropics is still at the equator.
We do see a very high correlation between maximum tilt and a colder climate in the ice cores and every time maximum tilt is reached, we see a local minimum in the temperature. We see some temporal deviations in the ice core record as we go further back in time, but this most likely has more to do with much less accurate temporal positioning as we go back further in time. It’s relatively good going back about 120K years, but as the yearly layering fades from view, the temporal positioning of samples starts to get more and more uncertain.
10
Was able to follow that CO2.
00
‘Trump and Ebell are not outliers. According to a study by sociologists Aaron M. McCright and Riley Dunlap, based on an analysis of Gallup surveys of public opinion between 2000 and 2010, 32% of adults in America deny that there is a scientific consensus on climate change.
‘There’s a clear political divide on the issue in the US: According to a 2016 survey by Pew Research, only 15% of conservative Republican Americans agreed with the statement “the Earth is warming mostly due to human activity,”compared with 79% of liberal Democrats.’
Quartz
92
Spot on, Jo! Well done.
61
James Delingpole
“Britain has now officially ratified the COP21 Paris climate agreement.
The good news is that this will make no difference to anyone or anything because the agreement is toothless and non-binding. The bad news – as you can tell from some of the ministerial comments – is that it serves to remind us that Britain’s climate and energy policy is still in thrall to the environmentalist lunacy which wiser heads like Donald Trump are trying to write out of history.”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/18/britains-stupid-climate-policy-needs-donald-trump-treatment/
82
For those who want a glimpse of what is coming down the track with Trump, this an absolute must read.
An interview with Bannon –I can see why he is so high up the chain
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-18/steve-bannon-interviewed-issue-now-about-americans-looking-not-get-f%E2%80%94ed-over
62
I wonder what will transpire when it becomes more widely realized that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why. (click my name for explanation)
Much of the warming, now countering global cooling, is from rising water vapor. The rising water vapor is nearly all from irrigation. Pumped irrigation is causing the water table to decline rapidly world wide. What happens when fresh water becomes scarce?
71
OT
If anyone thinks 18C is bad, look at the EU directive to Great Britain via the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) – thankfully, the Brexit passed so they can ignore this garbage.
European Union Orders British Press NOT to Report when Terrorists are Muslims
—–
[Sigh. Thankyou Analytik. Thanks to 18C though, don’t take my approval of this comment to mean we can discuss “ethnic” groups on this site. :- |
— Jo]
60
Gee, Jo, that is some post! Absolutely one of your best. I am going to sit outside in the shade of my pergola this afternoon and go through some (all) of your links. What a fantastic trove of information and just in time for me to get prepped for Christmas lunch with my daughter’s in-laws – a bunch of nice people but died in wool lefties soaked in global warming belief. What fun I will have!
110
PP, I truly admire the strength of your constitution and your gastrointestinal fortitude. Surely you can persuade and dissuade them otherwise?
10
How accurate were the measurements of the oceans, 50 years ago? And how widespread were these measurements? As the present network of measurements (which, as far as I can determine, do seem to lack routine calibration) is just about adequate to gather the data required to determine that sort of statistic, now, how can that claim be believed?
11
I made a nice comment about this great posting of Jo’s and it has vanished. What did I say that was wrong?
20
Whoops, it has just come back. Sorry!
30
Joanne’s site seems to be under attack. Not by WordPress, Russia, China, or NSA. Perhaps this is just the sloppy result of the incompetent Clinton\Obummer Drug cartel! 🙂
12
CIA should not be a concern when it comes to Trump’s energy agenda:
Wikipedia: Mike Pompeo
Pompeo rejects many concepts about global warming.[27] In 2013, he said, “There are scientists who think lots of different things about climate change. There’s some who think we’re warming, there’s some who think we’re cooling, there’s some who think that the last 16 years have shown a pretty stable climate environment.”[27] Pompeo has referred to President Obama’s environment and climate change plans as “damaging” and “radical”.[28] Pompeo opposes the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and supports eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas registry program.[29] He has said that Obama’s Clean Power Plan does not provide “any measurable environmental benefit.”[28] He signed the Americans for Prosperity’s No Climate Tax pledge.[30] He has called for the elimination of wind power production tax credits, calling them an “enormous government handout”.[31]…
On November 18, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump announced that he will nominate Pompeo to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo
17 Nov: ThomsonReutersFoundation: Megan Rowling: UN talks tangle over cash to ease climate pain for poor
The Marrakesh climate talks may not deliver the substantial boost in international funding poorer countries need to cope with worsening floods, droughts, storms and rising seas brought by climate change, negotiators and development agencies fear…
There was also disagreement over how strong a commitment rich countries were prepared to make on funding for developing nations to adapt to a warmer planet in the coming years…
Some developed nations do not want to take an immediate decision to secure the Adaptation Fund’s future under the Paris Agreement, which took effect on Nov. 4.
They point to a proliferation of climate funds, and the legal questions that would have to be addressed to transfer where the fund sits, given the Kyoto Protocol runs until 2020.
The United States has not contributed to the Adaptation Fund up to now because it did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol…
There was some good news in Marrakesh Thursday as the fund topped an $80 million goal to raise funds from donors, with contributions from Germany, Sweden, Italy and two Belgian regions…
But they say tens of billions of dollars are already needed for adaptation each year – and that figure could rise to between $140 billion and $300 billion annually in 2030, according to the U.N. Environment Programme.
“This adaptation finance gap was unfinished business back in Paris, and the Marrakesh talks seem to be just kicking it down the road once more,” said Jan Kowalzig of Oxfam Germany…
According to a recent “roadmap” from wealthy nations outlining how they will mobilise the annual $100 billion in overall climate funding they have promised by 2020, the amount allocated specifically for adaptation in 2013 and 2014 was almost $10 billion per year, or around 16 percent of the total…
Xie Zhenhua, China’s special representative for climate change, told journalists on Thursday that developed countries should honor their commitments on climate finance.
“If we have mutual trust… we will be able to solve this problem,” he said. “If we cannot solve it at this (meeting), we can find solutions in the next few sessions.”…
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-accord-adaptation-idUSKBN13C1ID
30
Ross posted zerohedge link about Steven Bannon interview by Michael Wolff for Hollywood Reporter. the entire article is a MUST-READ.
includes:
In late summer when I went up to see Steve Bannon, then recently named CEO of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, in his office at Trump Tower in New York, he outlined a preposterous-sounding scenario. Trump, he said, would do surprisingly well among women, Hispanics and African-Americans, in addition to working men, and hence take Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan — and therefore the election. On Nov. 15, when I went back to Trump Tower, Bannon, promoted by the president-elect to chief strategist for the incoming administration, and by the media as the official symbol of all things hateful and virulent about the coming Trump presidency, said, as matter-of-factly as when he first sketched it out for me, “I told you so.”…
“The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what’s wrong with this country,” he continues. “It’s just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f—ing idea what’s going on. If The New York Times didn’t exist, CNN and MSNBC would be a test pattern. The Huffington Post and everything else is predicated on The New York Times. It’s a closed circle of information from which Hillary Clinton got all her information — and her confidence. That was our opening.”…
also essential reading:
16 Nov: BusinessInsider: Rob Garver: Why Wall Street should be worried about Steve Bannon
(This story was originally published by The Fiscal Times)
On Tuesday, BuzzFeed News released a transcript of remarks Bannon delivered to the Christian conservative Human Dignity Institute in 2014. In a lengthy discourse on the causes and aftereffects of the 2008 financial crisis Bannon, himself a former managing partner at Goldman Sachs, blamed the financial crisis and subsequent recession on the “greed” of his fellow bankers and expressed anger at the fact that no bank executives faced criminal prosecution.
“Think about it — not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis,” Bannon said. “And in fact, it gets worse. No bonuses and none of their equity was taken. So part of the prime drivers of the wealth that they took in the 15 years leading up to the crisis was not hit at all, and I think that’s one of the fuels of this populist revolt that we’re seeing as the tea party.”
He continued, “[T]he underpinning of this populist revolt is the financial crisis of 2008. That revolt, the way that it was dealt with, the way that the people who ran the banks and ran the hedge funds have never really been held accountable for what they did, has fueled much of the anger in the tea party movement in the United States.” …
Bannon criticized steps taken at the outset of the financial crisis to prevent widespread failures in the financial services industry, arguing that the burden of paying for the bailout was on taxpayers while the benefits flowed to “crony capitalists.”…
***But it was his promise — made nearly a year before Trump declared his candidacy and almost two years before Bannon became CEO of his campaign — that will likely cause the most concern in Wall Street boardrooms.
“And they’ve never been held accountable today,” Bannon said. “Trust me — they are going to be held accountable.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-should-be-worried-about-steve-bannon-2016-11?IR=T
50
when the Fake News MSM goes on and on about every appointment to the Cabinet by Trump, making up & agonising over phony stories about phony appointments 24/7, remember:
14 Oct: Zerohedge: Tyler Durden: “The Most Important WikiLeak” – How Wall Street Built The Obama Cabinet
Perhaps the most startling discovery of the WikiLeaks dumps so far didn’t come from the most recent emails surrounding the various Hillary scandals, though there are many great ones, but from 2008 when John Podesta served as co-chair of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team. The email came from Michael Froman, a former Citibank executive, who single-handedly built the entire cabinet of what was supposed to be the “main street” President.
The email in question was even sent from Froman’s Citibank email address (rookie!) …
As New Republic points out, the Froman appointments ended up being almost entirely right…
“The Cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money” (New Republic)…
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wikileak-how-wall-street-built-obama-cabinet
20
telling: there’s been almost no MSM coverage of COP22:
18 Nov: TheRebel: Sheila Gunn Reid: Final thoughts on UN Climate Conference: Fear and mourning in Marrakech after Trump victory
It’s our last day in the fake village created for the UN climate conference in Marrakech, fuelled by fossil fuels and hypocrisy. After a week in the desert, I still don’t know what they’ve accomplished but for the first time, it seems the climate bullies are on the run…
VIDEO: Watch as I give my final thoughts on our week here, in what felt like a funeral in the desert for climate change evangelists…
http://www.therebel.media/final_thoughts_on_un_climate_conference_fear_and_mourning_in_marrakech_after_trump_victory
18 Nov: Infowars: Paul Joseph Watson: The Mainstream Media’s “Fake News” Narrative is Already Beginning to Collapse
Quantcast restores Infowars, blacklist of “fake news websites” removed
Yesterday we reported on how Quantcast had apparently de-listed Infowars.com at the same time that the mainstream media was circulating a list of “fake news websites” that included big conservative news outlets such as Infowars and Breitbart.
Infowars has now been re-instated on Quantcast’s list of top websites and has skyrocketed up to number 126 on the list…
In addition, the list of so-called “fake news websites” created by a biased extreme leftist social justice warrior professor has now been removed from where it was hosted on Google Docs.
The author of the list, Melissa Zimdars, claims that it is being “transferred to and expanded on in a more permanent, dynamic, and collaborative home.” This claim is false. The list has been wiped due to the overwhelming number of complaints received from people pointing out that she had included completely legitimate news sources (the vast majority conservative) on the blacklist…
Twitter and other social media websites are now being saturated with the counter-narrative that the main purveyor of “fake news” is the mainstream media itself…
http://www.infowars.com/the-mainstream-medias-fake-news-narrative-is-already-beginning-to-collapse/
50
NYT needs two “journos” to write this brief, 6-paragraph, ***cherry-pickin’ puff piece?
18 Nov: NYT: Elon Musk Faces Epic Juggling Act After Tesla-SolarCity Deal
By KEVIN ALLISON and ANTONY CURRIE
Tesla Motors’ eager shareholders have made Elon Musk too cool to fail. Their decision to back the Silicon Valley billionaire’s quixotic $2.6 billion bid for SolarCity, a solar-panel company run by his cousin, sets up an epic 2017 juggling act. A lot could go wrong as Mr. Musk tries to integrate the two companies without compromising on Tesla’s ambitious production targets. Indulgent investors, though, are likely to give him a pass…
***Tesla may have surprised investors by turning a narrow — and rare — profit in the third quarter…
Even if the wheels start to come off, he will probably be able to persuade the faithful to keep him in place and to hand over more cash. That may make Mr. Musk’s all-electric vision a self-fulfilling prophecy, no matter the cost.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/business/dealbook/elon-musk-faces-epic-juggling-act-after-tesla-solarcity-deal.html?_r=0
17 Nov: WSJ: Cassandra Sweet: Donald Trump and Subsidies: New Wrinkle for Elon Musk’s Tesla-SolarCity Plans
As shareholders vote on merger, outlook is clouded by potential changes to tax credits and rebates for green power
Tesla for example recently reported that it eked out a third quarter profit of $22 million, thanks in part to receiving $139 million from zero-emission vehicle credits it obtained and sold to other auto manufacturers…
Tesla lost $889 million in 2015 and $294 million the previous year. The company’s $22 million third-quarter profit compared with a loss of $230 million a year earlier. Still, analysts polled by FactSet are expecting the company to post another loss for all of this year.
SolarCity lost $769 million in 2015, after losing $375 million the year before. Analysts expect the company to post another net loss for this year…
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-and-subsidies-new-wrinkle-for-elon-musks-tesla-solarcity-plans-1479394802
30
No doubt this will be spun by the BBC as a great move, in yet another an other Tesla advertorial special piece that the BBC is rightly infamous for broadcasting.
If Elon Musk was in a bathroom and farted loudly the BBC would be right there telling the world how sweetly fragrant is the world of Elon.
Of course this has nothing to do with the BBC pension fund involvement in Elon Musk’s companies — perish the thought that they would stoop so low.
81
Coincidence is not causation needs to be applied earlier than whether increased CO2 causes heating. Disappointingly almost all sceptics start with the admission, explicit or implicit that mankind has been outputting CO2 and so has increased the world’s CO2. Everyone seems to see that as self evidence, granted, obvious. Where is the evidence of this? If this is not true and there is no proof that it is, the hypothesis stops instantly.
CO2 existed in the atmosphere before industrialization. Who set those levels? Who caused the 50% increase since 1900? Does anyone actually know? Again, where is there and proof other than coincidence?
The story is that everything was in balance in the ecosystem so additional CO2 in the air stays there and for a long time. Even when the IPCC admits that 98%, 50x as much CO2 is simply dissolved in the oceans under pressure, they argue that mankind is the sole controller and cause of current CO2 levels. That is utterly without any sort of proof.
My repeated story is that CO2 is determined entirely by ocean surface temperatures, outgassing in the hot equatorial levels and being taken in at higher latitudes and colder oceans under Henry’s Law. Additionally you can prove that every 14 years, half of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is changed, refreshed. Half the fossil fuel CO2 vanishes and so modern CO2 contains almost no old, fossil fuel CO2. The amount is under 2%. This was accepted as fact in 1953 at the invention of Radio Carbon Dating and was known as the Suess effect.
So the subsequent warming argument is irrelevant because even if CO2 did produce significant warming, the increase is not man made.
How can there be man made Global Warming without either the man made or the warming?
(To support their argument without proof, the IPCC propose again without any proof that the vast amount of CO2 in the oceans is trapped at depth and takes no part in CO2 exchange where gas exchange with the oceans is vast and fast, or fish would drown. At one point they do state a half life of 80 years with proof or logic. In other parts they claim man made CO2 stays in the air for thousands of years. These are unsubstantiated and coincidentally contradictory statements. Mankind does not and cannot control or even substantially influence CO2 levels.)
183
Alternatively consider that the 2% of CO2 in the air came from the 98% in the ocean. What would it take to make that 3%? A little bit of surface heating. That is simple physical chemistry.
83
You do not have to be a scientist to know that if you heat lemonade, CO2 leaves the lemonade. It goes flat.
Wouldn’t the obvious answer be that warming causes higher CO2, not the pure conjecture that extra CO2 somehow causes heating?
Worse, the discovery of this horrible problem is totally coincident with the 1988 creation of the UN’s Intergovernmental weather group, the IPCC, tiny tin pot military dictatorships controlling the weather by taxing Western democracies? Really?
22
“this horrible problem is totally coincident”
I think you mean,
“this horrible problem is totally codependent”
21
True the IPCC needed and needs a Climate crisis, but I meant coincident in time. Create a committee. Instantly find a problem which requires the committee. Now spend 30 years fixing the problem with taxes. Very much like our CSIRO with 350 scientists spending our money trying to find a problem to solve while presenting themselves as the problem solvers?
12
18 Nov: Reason blog: Elizabeth Nolan Brown: Hate Crimes, Hoaxes, and Hyperbole
A reality check for all sides
When I reported last Friday that there had been “no violent hate-crimewave” happening — emphasis on the word violent — it was to dispel widespread rumors of a post-election surge in physical attacks on gay, transgender, and non-white Americans by emboldened and bigoted Trump supporters. Thankfully, this still holds true…
Several of the most prominent early reports of Trump-inspired violence against people of color were later admitted to be fabrications or directly contradicted by police statements. Pointing this out seems to really anger people, who assume my intent is discredit all such reports, or to deny that there’s any bigotry among Trump supporters. Neither is true. Rather, I saw a lot of distortions being spread and a lot of people who were really scared…
This isn’t helped by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)…
The bottom line is that when it comes to physical aggression inspired by this election, we are looking at a little more than a dozen incidents reported, over a 10 day period, in a country of roughly 318.9 million people—none of which resulted in serious injuries. And these incidents vary widely in how much they can be attributed to politics, prejudice, and hate versus tempers, egos, and mental-health issues flaring along with the election results and our collective heightened emotional state…
Anti-Trump Protester Tackled at Ohio State University: A young man leading an anti-Trump rally at Ohio State University (OSU) was tackled down a flight of stairs this week…
Stanton was initially assumed to be an angry Trump supporter, but OSU Students for Trump said he was not part of their organization and, according to the Franklin County Board of Elections, he is registered as a Democrat. Friends and classmates claimed Stanton was a big Hillary Clinton supporter, that he has Asperger syndrome, that he has a hard time sometimes in social situations, and that while they didn’t know what motivated the attack, it definitely wasn’t pro-Trump bias. The young man’s father later confirmed to the Columbus Dispatch that he does have Asperger Syndrome…
Adams said Tuesday that he would drop the assault report he filed against Stanton…LISTS INCIDENTS REAL & FAKE
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/18/election-hate-crimes-hoaxes-hyperbole
17 Nov: The Lantern: Daniel Smyth: Charges yet to be dropped against student who tackled anti-Trump protester
Despite the request from the victim to drop the assault charges against Shane Michael Stanton, no decision has yet been made from the Franklin County prosecutor’s office on whether that will happen.
“The charges have been filed. They have not been dropped if that’s your question,” prosecutor Zachary Gwin told The Lantern on Thursday…
Gwin said the pretrial hearing will give an opportunity for him and the defense attorney to discuss the case. The defense will also have the opportunity to gather discovery evidence, which will ultimately help both sides decide on how to proceed with the case, Gwin said.
It came to light after the incident that Stanton has Asperger Syndrome, which experts say could have affected Stanton’s actions Monday night. Stanton is also not a Trump supporter, said friends, his family and his attorney.
***The Lantern never labeled Stanton a Trump supporter, though various (media) outlets reporting on the viral video of the collision got that detail wrong.
Gwin said there will not be a decision on whether the charges will be dropped until the pretrial hearing is over.
Stanton’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.
http://thelantern.com/2016/11/charges-yet-to-be-dropped-against-anti-trump-tackler/
30
“The US-German study found the impact of greenhouse gases on temperature grows as Earth’s surface warms.”
Not only is this wrong, it fails the most basic of smoke tests.
Emissions go as E = oeT^4, thus the change in T per change in E is 1/4eoT^3 where e is the emissivity and o is the SB constant (5.67E-8 W/m^2 per K^4). At 255K, this is about 0.27 K per W/m^2. At the average surface temp of 288K and e=1, this is about 0.18 K per W/m^2. At 288K with e=.61 setting E equal to the planets LTE emissions equivalent to 255K, the indisputable, deterministic sensitivity is about 0.30 per W/m^2.
If the emissivity was an impossibly low .000001, the temperature dependence of the sensitivity still goes as 1/T^3 which decreases as the temperature increases. In order for this to increase, the 1/T^3 dependence must be converted into a T^n dependence, where n >= 1. It’s inconceivable that anyone, especially any kind of scientist, can think that this is even remotely possible. All you need to do is consider that from 0K to 1K, the sensitivity is nearly 65K per W/m^2. Once you get up to about 200K when CO2 starts turning into a gas and GHG effects start to kick in, there’s just not enough degrees left to get a sensitivity as high as they claim even it remains constant with T from there on, much less increase as T increases.
52
Otis elevator heir in denial:
18 Nov: TMZ: Trump Star Vandal Faces Judge, Pleads Not Guilty
The guy who took a pickax to Donald Trump’s Hollywood Walk of Fame star got his first chance to tell it to the judge, and for once, he was a man of few words.
James Otis appeared in L.A. County court with his attorney, and entered a not guilty plea. We broke the story … the D.A. charged him with one count of felony vandalism.
After court, he strolled out showing no signs of worry, but then made a statement that was reflective … and more regretful. Remember, he’s facing up to 3 years in jail if he’s found guilty.
Plea deals happen all the time, but this would seem to be a lock for prosecutors — Otis recorded video of himself destroying Trump’s star, and even confessed he did it in protest of the then-candidate for prez.
VIDEO: 1min29secs: (REGRETS DAMAGING THE STAR, BUT HE PLANS TO FIGHT TRUMP NON-VIOLENTLY ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AS THE ***WHOLE COUNTRY*** IS DOING, EVERY SINGLE DAY HE IS PRESIDENT ETC) http://www.tmz.com/2016/11/18/trump-star-vandal-james-otis-arraignment-in-court/
3 Nov: TMZ: Hollywood Walk of Fame Vandal Suing Trump & Hollywood to Remove Star
Otis’ bizarre claim is that the star has had a negative effect on Hollywood because tourists are from all over the world, embracing a variety of cultures, religions and traditions that Trump has attacked…
He also says Trump has become such a lightning rod, it costs a fortune to maintain the star because dogs have crapped on it, humans have peed on it and others have defaced it.
He says he has 64,559 signatures from people who want Trump’s star 86’d from the Blvd.
P.S. He doesn’t have a case.
http://www.tmz.com/2016/11/03/donald-trump-star-vandal-hollywood-walk-of-fame-remove/
40
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-19/un-climate-talks-end-with-pleas-for-trump-to-join-fight/8039926
40
Just read this on their ABC , desperate times call for desperate measures .
30
Utter DESPERATION
And Yep.. Trump will definitely join the fight against the climate change agenda 🙂
And the more they wail and carry on, the more he will hammer them !!
Ain’t karma a lovely thing 🙂
97
This is o/t, but just in case you haven’t seen it:
Trump’s dilemma: to please his friends by trashing the Paris climate deal, or not? – the Guardian
41
Rod,
The funniest thing about that is the advertising banner that popped up with it:-
“Become an Australian Guardian Member and Support Independent Journalism for $100”
https://membership.theguardian.com/au/supporter?CMP=ppc_mem_2149&gclid=COrb_PW3tNACFQoQvQod1cUPqQ
Trigger Warning – hope you don’t own Guardian Shares…
61
You can’t own shares in The Guardian as it is owned by the Scott Trust, and as far as I am aware is partly funded through off-shore bank accounts.
From http://www.thefullwiki.org/The_Guardian
21
Also see http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/the-guardian-the-gullible-blind-to-whistleblowers-ignoring-scandals-defender-of-feel-good-teenage-thinking/
21
Just to clarify The Guardian Australia is controlled by Guardian News and Media (GNM). GNM is controlled by Guardian Media Group … which is controlled by the Scott Trust Limited.
Google GNM and/or Guardian Media Group for more.
21
Then I’d say the Guardian is losing money.
30
You are right Jim. They have been burning through money for quite a long time. The Scott Trust ran out of assets to sell to support the business a few years ago. So the group sold it’s big money earner –the car magazine “AutoTrader” for about 600 million pounds and they have been surviving on those proceeds. But last year they lost about 180 million pounds.
So this might explain the “crowd funding” attempt.
50
HSBC and the sham of Guardian’s Scott Trust
3 March 2015
“When I and others accuse the British media of systematic and consistent bias in favour of corporate power, and point out that the media is structurally part of that system of corporate power, we typically receive emails from readers arguing that not all parts of the media are subject to such pressures. Britain, we are told, is privileged to have two “liberal” media outlets, the BBC and Guardian, that are seen either as neutral or as a leftwing counterbalance to the rightwing agenda of the rest of the media…
Rather, the media in the UK is embedded in the corporate world, and therefore incapable of fulfilling its self-declared role as watchdog against abuses by the powerful.”
http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015-03-03/hsbc-and-the-sham-of-guardians-scott-trust/
30
Even funnier . .
Imagine that . . China leading the charge to ‘tackle’ climate change.
Talk about living in a bubble.
80
They are becoming sillier by the day.
20
He has many friends around the world.
20
Warwick Hughes has a great post.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=4794
David Archibald must have some inside track – News from the Cone of Silence – priceless. Greg Norman defacto Ambassador.
More from David – Peak China
“Mr Norman patched the call through to President-elect Trump who was not rude but made it plain in telling Turnbull what the new rules were and that Trump would be using Greg Norman as a filter as he would be very busy.
Apparently Turnbull was somewhat nonplussed and said, “Well, we need to discuss climate change and the TPP…” Trump peremptorily dismissed both issues with “Not a priority, but talk to Greg.
He is a great Aussie who has been part of my team for 30-years and he is the advisor I trust.”
120
Ebell should just state the warmist haven’t proved their computer programs work and, in fact, all the real science supports the so-called skeptics.
Let them spend their time spinning their “consensus” while the global warming based industries are shredded.
30
remember the PC madness of the 7-year-old Baltimore school boy who was suspended for chewing his Pop Tart into the shape of a gun? or the 6-Year-Old in Colorado who was suspended for pointing his fingers at a classmate in the shape of a gun? or the 10-year-old boy in Ohio who was suspended for three days for pretending his finger was a gun? or the 8-year-old boy who was suspended in Florida for pointinf his fingers in the shape of a gun while playing cops and robbers?
the Fake News MSM lapped it all up,with never a hint of mockery to suggest it was utterly ridiculous.
however (not that national MSM is interested in this story) it seems suspension is not warranted: –
18 Nov: SanAntonioExpressNews: Silvia Foster-Frau: Mock assassination of Trump stirs controversy at San Antonio school
A skit portraying the assassination of President-elect Donald Trump by two 10th grade students at Marshall High School provoked anger and dismay from the parents of a student who watched it unfold last week.
Harold and Melinda Bean said that in the skit, entitled “The Assassination of Donald Trump,” one of the boys made a gunfire sound effect with his cell phone as the other boy, portraying Trump, fell to the ground in mock death.
All of the students were required to submit descriptions of their English class presentations beforehand to be approved by their teacher, the parents said, but these two students in particular changed their skit afterward…
“Appropriate action” was taken to reprimand both boys and their teacher, said Northside ISD spokesman Barry Perez. The parents, however, believe more should have been done, including suspending the two students.
“Honestly I have run out of words to describe how angry I am and how shocked I am that they’re still in school today,” Melinda Bean said.
***Younger children using their hands to simulate guns on the playground have been suspended, she said, and this was far worse…
Perez said campus officials investigated the incident and found that the teacher didn’t condone it and stopped the skit. But Harold Bean questioned why she allowed it to start once she heard the title.
“Pardon my language but I think that it’s a bunch of B.S. if they’re going to tell you the kids were stopped,” Harold Bean said.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/article/Mock-assassination-of-Trump-stirs-controversy-at-10621911.php
[Pat, I don’t know what caused this to be trapped in moderation. But it’s entirely acceptable so I’m approving it as is. Sorry for the delay.] AZ
30
18 Nov: Australian: Brendan O’Neill: It’s all the fault of the thick, ill-informed, irrational mob
After Brexit in June and now the victory of Donald Trump, everyone’s freaking out about the howling little people and their ripping up of the political script.
This is the year of rage, commentators claim. Brexit was a “howl of rage”, says The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland. And now it has been joined by the “anti-establishment anger” of those US voters who elected Trump. It was “rage, not reason” that made people go for Trump, says a US neuroscientist. All this hand-wringing over the rage of Them gives an impression of a swarm of folk brutishly disturbing politics and business as usual. Brexit and now Trump have “shaken the postwar liberal order”, says the Financial Times.
Apparently these pesky plebs, driven by “temporary populist passions” rather than “reasoned deliberation”, in the words of British-American conservative Andrew Sullivan, have done great harm to liberal, rational public life.
This is nonsense. It’s a dangerous and distracting myth. For it isn’t ordinary people, whether Brexiteers or Trumpites, who threaten to dismantle important liberal ideals; it’s their critics, the members of the political class raging against what they view as the raging masses, who risk doing this…
The truly disturbing thing about 2016 is not the rage of the masses against the establishment but the rage of the elites against democracy.
In the 20 years I’ve been writing about politics, I cannot remember a time when disgust for democracy has been as explicit as it is now. It’s everywhere…READ ALL
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/brendan-oneill/its-all-the-fault-of-the-thick-illinformed-irrational-mob/news-story/03b43d5bed606febfc0f0ffd2d132e67
let me add to O’Neill’s anti-democratic examples BBC’s veteran journo Carrie Gracie:
10 Nov: BBC: Carrie Gracie: US election 2016: China eyes chance to weaken US power
VIDEO: 1min37secs: Some Chinese views of Donald Trump
Now a bitter and scandal-ridden presidential race has damaged Chinese confidence that Americans can be trusted to run themselves…
And Chinese media have discussed at length the experience and meritocratic advance of public servants in their own one-party pyramid as a comment on shallow demagogues in electoral democracies…
For a nation which within living memory has suffered civil war and the terrors of the fanatical Cultural Revolution, the bitterness of the US campaign has tarnished any fairytale that American democracy once represented…
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37924880
Gracie is not posting her most recent piece from World Service radio, which is along the same lines as above, but ends with how, despite the authoritarian nature of the Chinese Govt, the corruption, the State violence, etc, Chinese people in general now see their system as better than the US system. she provided no evidence, not even a Fake News MSM poll. in fact, if u watch Gracie’s vox pop at above link, first young man says Trump is a role model, especially for Chinese men, & the others interviewed either admire him or aren’t hostile.
btw Gracie has form on this subject:
24 Oct: BBC: Carrie Gracie: Ugly US election race a poor ad for democracy in China
“The race to the bottom will make people rethink the value of democracy,” commented one Chinese state-owned newspaper. Another said the presidential race had become “an unprecedented joke”…
Of course it would be dangerous for Chinese media or public to turn the same candour on their own political system…
But censorship aside, I sense that there is real damage to the reputation of the American political system as a result of this year’s toxic presidential race…
Since the arrival of President Xi Jinping, this trend has crystallised into an active confidence about China’s model of “consultative democracy”.
It may be conventional wisdom in political science that mature dictatorships inevitably democratise or stagnate. President Xi insists that China’s scale and history make it an exceptional country, not bound by the rules that apply elsewhe…
Yang Rui for example, a well-known anchor on China’s state television, told me it was a mistake to use the ballot box to decide everything “because you have to suppose every voter is rational and reasonable”. He pointed to the American election campaign as an example of debased populism that threatens to entrench division and triviality…
American Dream or China Dream? In my experience, and despite their seven decades of communism, the Chinese public tends to be pragmatic rather than ideological. If their political system delivers, they don’t care what it’s called and they don’t insist on going to the ballot box to vote for one team or another…
***Update 25 October 2016: This article was amended to remove a quote incorrectly attributed to Donald Trump.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37724839
20
I get this weird cognitive dissonance thing when I talk to climate alarmists. The sceptics have indeed won, but that only seems to fuel their certainty and their scorn. I can’t *see* the science that they say is settled. Maybe I lack faith?
50
Here’s a thing.
It’s just occurred to me that what I really want is to discover a PRO-warmist site with something to offer besides warmed-over BS and the assurance that I *have* to believe it because it’s being endorsed by sincere, youthful-looking blokes in stylish, summer-weight casual suits.
Like Spooky Mulder, I Want to Believe.
Unfortunately, at this point such a website would have to be run by people from the future…
30
off Topic but hope this link to the happenings at Marrakech is allowed
ht tp://www.therebel.media/cop22_in_marrakech
10
Thanks nc,
Each time I’ve tried this, the download stalled, so have only been able to read the firts paragraph. Will keep trying. Is anyone else experiencing problems?
Cheers,
Dave B
00
News Flash
‘Joe Bastardi says in today’s Daily Update that “there’s lots of snow in the northern hemisphere” and that it will become “more and more prominent” across the northern United States, accompanied by “explosions of thundersnow coming off the [Great] Lakes“.
‘Joe projects heavy snows across much of the US up until the new year and warns of a “December to remember”.
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/11/18/warnings-of-a-december-to-remember-as-no-hemisphere-snow-cover-reaches-2nd-highest-level/#sthash.2TzdibHV.dpuf
32
Just when you think the madness cannot get any worse we get this
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/19/uk-researchers-tax-food-to-reduce-climate-change/
The sooner Trump introduces his plan to defund (the USA input) the scam, the better
32
So Myron Ebell’s tent is pitched in the enemy’s camp according to Boyer. So what?
Doesn’t this boil down to a dispute over whose philosophy of running a country won the election. And as Barack Obama so famously remarked to Republican leaders the first time he met with them in his office, “We won!” Thereby dismissing Republicans as a force for the duration of his presidency. Something over which Republicans had a big cause for complaint but did not get nearly this ridiculous about it. And Obama appointed people he thought were “suitable”. Or am I wrong about this?
Now a different philosophy about running things is in power and it got there just as legitimately as Obama did. I don’t know that Trump has actually gone so far as to dismiss Democrats as a factor during his administration but certainly by his appointments to head various efforts and agencies he’s going to be saying the same thing, “Surprise! We won!”
How about that? When you win an election you get to put in power only the people you choose. The power sits behind the president’s desk and he does as he pleases.
It’s time for those who loved it so much when they were on the flow side of the action and we were on the ebb, to suck it up and find a way to survive what they don’t like now that we’re on the flow side of the ebb and flow of politics again. Because in the end, neither one can prove the statement, “I’m right and you’re wrong — 100% inconvenient fact, believe it or not.
As an old comic strip put it, “Grin and bear it.” Or maybe they would prefer, “Fish, cut bait or jump overboard.” Don’t you love it when those who lorded it over everyone they could when in power suddenly find themselves out of power and don’t like the result?
BB
80
This just goes to show that any idiot can win an award. I just can’t understand how any rational thinking person could agree with the AGW alarmists crowd after doing some basic research into the subject.
52
Rational thinking people(non-Leftoids) have zero in common with CAGW true b’lvers and propagators of such absurd nonsense.
But where there is a dollar, there is an advocate, especially when its the soft touch poor old dumb taxpayer.
Everybody knows that there is nothing as lucrative as government funding.
Who could have imagined that ‘Saving the Planet’ would also be so profitable!
So easy these days to achieve ‘SaintHood’, while flying everywhere around the globe in private jets to spread thy word(enforce Marxism) to the little people.
Climate Martyrdom is the leftoids sacred political kumbayah,and cannot be challenged by climate infidel blasphemers, just like me.
Come on Jan 20…Enter the Donald…A long overdue Bull in the Global Warmer’s china shop!
52
‘…to spread thy word(enforce Marxism) to the little people.’
The Klimatariat and their supporters are only pseudo Marxists, nevertheless its all playing out well for the Beijing Marxists.
32
Melanie Phillips, author, columnist and speaker eloquently deconstructs the near impenetrable left thought process and how it’s maintained.
Her earlier experience at The Guardian and her ‘coming out’ as it were is also interesting. Perhaps there’s some parallel to our host’s ‘coming out’ as a one time Greens supporter.
A 13:13 minute well rounded video that is worth the time IMHO.
Leaving The Left – Melanie Phillips
81
The dark depths of Leftoidism…the Guardian…where no Conservative has gone before.
Well done Melanie Phillips! She would be of great concern to the Marxist Conglomerate,of which she was one of their own but is now in great defiance of their teachings(brain-washing and indoctrination)
After the loss of the unlosable US election to ‘the Donald’,the leftoids dream of world subservience must be in total disarray!
As we can see they are in hyperventilation mode…..and its great to be ringside.
Main event yet to commence…..Come On Jan 20!
32
Award for ‘Science Communication’ ?
How about an award for just ‘Science’, instead of ‘Propaganda Communication’!…How about that?
32
Fake News MSM alert:
20 Nov: NYT: A Bleak Outlook for Trump’s Promises to Coal Miners By CLIFFORD KRAUSS and MICHAEL CORKERY
15 Nov: NYT: The Coal Industry Isn’t Coming Back by MICHAEL E. WEBBER
reality:
18 Nov: EIA: Coal may surpass natural gas as most common electricity generation fuel this winter
After declining for several months, the share of U.S. electricity fueled by coal is expected to slowly begin growing when compared to the same period last year. In contrast, the share of generation from natural gas is expected to experience year-over-year declines. Based on expected temperatures and market conditions, coal is expected to surpass natural gas as the most common electricity generating fuel in December, January, and February…
EIA’s November Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) projects that natural gas prices delivered to the power sector will continue rising…
The higher costs of natural gas relative to coal are likely to encourage the industry to use more coal to fuel electricity generation than in the recent past. Forecast cooler winter temperatures, especially in areas where coal is dominant, also contribute to higher projected coal use in power generation…
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=28832
18 Nov: Reuters: Timothy Gardner: Can Trump make coal great again? At least some companies think so
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-coal-idUSKBN13D17J
20
another terrific piece from Michael Wolff, whose brilliant interview with Steve Bannon for H’wood Reporter was posted above in the zerohedge link, see comment #43:
9 Nov: Hollywood Reporter: Michael Wolff: Trump Win Exposes Media’s Smug Failures
The media turned itself into the opposition and, accordingly, was voted down as the new political reality emerged: Ads don’t work, polls don’t work, celebrities don’t work, media endorsements don’t work, ground games don’t work.
Not only did the media get almost everything about this presidential election wrong, but it became the central issue, or the stand-in for all those issues, that the great new American Trump Party voted against.
The transmutation of political identities has arguably devolved into two parties: the Trump one, the angry retro people, and the Media Party, representing the smug modern people, each anathema to and uncomprehending of the other. Certainly, there was no moment in the campaign where the Media Party did not see itself as a virtuous and, most often, determinative factor in the race. Given this, the chants of “CNN sucks” at Trump rallies should not have been entirely surprising.
But they were. The media took this as a comment about press freedom rather than its own failure to read the zeitgeist. In fact, it largely failed to tell any story other than its own…READ ALL
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-trump-win-exposes-medias-smug-failures-945733
smug mocker:
12 Nov: New Yorker: Andrew Marantz: The Alt-Right Hails Its Victorious God-Emperor
I spent much of this fall listening, both online and in person, to the connoisseurs of ugliness who call themselves the alt-right. This is such a new category that no two people agree on precisely what it means or how many people fall within it. Some on the alt-right are committed white nationalists; others are committed neo-monarchists who refer to Donald Trump, buoyantly, as their “god-emperor”; others are chaos agents who are committed to nothing at all…
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-alt-right-hails-its-victorious-god-emperor
good “loyalists”, ready to fight Trump:
19 Nov: Politico: Sarah Wheaton: Obama loyalists plot Trump resistance
Alumni of the Obama White House spent days mourning Trump’s win. Now they’re ready to fight.
Over the past 10 years, Obama alumni have spread throughout the government, the advocacy world, and influential parts of the private sector, including at Google and Facebook…
Obama is still a powerful force for the generation that grew up working for him.
“He’s our Jesus Christ. We’re crazy,” said Jaff, not without self-awareness. “It’s 10 years later, and we’re still obsessed.”…
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-loyalists-trump-resistance-231642
20
OT but Jo, you may want to look at this: http://www.news.com.au/technology/the-trump-factor-tipped-to-spread-to-australian-politics-as-aussie-truthers-push-on-social-media/news-story/4e7b111bbef4a06b7a3616e6bae3eecd
They’ve put you at the top of “australian truthers” websites. I’d consider that deliberately defamatory. What do you expect from the scum at news.com.au?
I gather the editor is married to a lefty in government employ.
Might be fun to demand a retraction and/or a large sum of money from him.
[Thanks. Yes, I’ll be correcting that fake news article. It would help if people can tell me where it is printed – which publications. Ta! 2400 blog posts and none of them here are “Truther” or anti vacc. – Jo]
41
This is just the catalyst the alarmists are now using to shut down debate. What they are calling “fake news” is any site promoting a position that is not in sync with their own. Look for more slurs and libel against the sites over the next 4 years (or more) as they know they are losing the debate scientifically and so must shut down the opposition.
Any article that Quotes Lewandowsky cannot be considered to be anything but a PR piece.
00
help needed, as I have not been able to access Business Standard India for some time. the BS result doesn’t have an option for a cached version, not for me anyway.
all other results for this ***article, which do have a cached version, have only the excerpt below & u then have to link to BS.
could someone provide a link that I can open or excerpt some of what Nitin wrote, as he is the only journalist telling it like it was:
(ignore more positive top tweet, as it is dated 15 Nov)
Twitter: Nitin Sethi, Business Standard India
Tweet: Results from #COP22 : Rules made bent to bypass the Paris Agreement, ominous future for #climate beyond Trump:
Business Standard: ***Marrakech: Developed countries use rules to break the climate law. Skewed start to writing the rulebook for Paris Agreement by 2018.
(found elsewhere: What is gained in scripting a law can be lost by making a rule. That was the lesson developing countries, including India, took back from the climate change negotiations at Marrakech, which ended in the early hours of Saturday. There was a second lesson.)
Nitin Sethi re-tweeted:
Nathan Something @n_thanki · Nov 18
Look at the pre-2020 outcome. An embarrasement. I am ashamed to be here watching you all applaud this. #cop22
20
Pat,
When trying business-standard.com, I get “DNS address could not be found.”
Perhaps this is the story you had in mind at The Wire?
It does credit Business Standard.
The ‘Marrakech Call’, Not Trump, Hobbles Climate Change Talks in Morocco
Read all at above link.
10
Raven –
thank you very much for the link. that is an earlier article by Nitin Sethi, but highly informative nonetheless. developing countries have been totally sold out. no surprise there.
the article headlined “Marrakech: Developed countries use rules to break the climate law” should be dated 18 or 19 November and is Nitin’s end of summit piece. hope someone else can find that one.
I never had trouble accessing Business Standard India, until I started posting Nitin’s work at jo’s. cannot understand why it is not possible to open their website now.
again, many thanks. that is a dynamite link.
01
Pat,
There seems to be something strange going on with business-standard.com.
I was able to successfully link from Nitin Sethi’s latest tweet to his article “Developing countries win partial victory on controversial Marrakech Call” . . but unable to link to it a second time.
Earlier today, business-standard.com requested my ad-blocker be turned off, so I complied but it still seems to fail on a second try at the above tweeted link. Perhaps that indicates a cookie issue. Dunno.
I was originally successful by Googling business-standard.com and entering via a cached link to an unrelated news article and navigating from there . . and now that method doesn’t work for me either . . and I still couldn’t find your original article. Bah . .
The mischievous me suspects they haven’t been able to pay their hosting provider because of the latest chronic lack of bank notes debacle in India. 😉
00
18 Nov: Daily Caller: Enviro-Billionaire Wastes Millions On Failed Millennial Election Outreach
Posted By Chris White
Democratic donor Tom Steyer dumped tens of millions of dollars in a failed attempt at herding young people to vote against President-elect Donald Trump.
Steyer’s $25 million campaign simply did not produce results. In fact, young voters stayed home in larger numbers than in 2012, when President Barack Obama won his second term.
Only about 24 million voters under 29 voted this election year, according to exit polls. Their share of the voted dropped from 26 percent down to 15 percent this year in several battleground states. Steyer plowed money into youth outreach only to see young voters avoid the ballot box.
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton won the overall youth vote, though she did it by a much smaller margin than Obama did four years ago…
Steyer’s political action group, NextGen Climate, was active on more than 95 college campuses in and around Pennsylvania leading up to Election Day. It spent more than half of the money on campus engagement, and the other half on off-campus campaigns…
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/18/enviro-billionaire-wastes-millions-on-failed-millennial-election-outreach/?print=1
21
18 Nov: Reuters: Alister Doyle/Megan Rowling: Under Trump shadow, climate talks set 2018 deadline to agree rules
(?Writing by Nina Chestney; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
Showing determination to keep the Paris Agreement on track, the conference agreed to work out a rule book at the latest by December 2018…
The final text also urged rich nations to keep building towards a goal of providing $100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020…
“Not one country has said that if President Trump pulls the United States out of Paris, they will follow him,” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists…
“Rich countries have been trying to wriggle out of their pledges to help poorer countries meet the costs of coping with impacts and greening their economies,” said Harjeet Singh at ActionAid…
***Also on Friday, a group of 48 developing countries most at risk from climate change said they would strive to make their energy production ***100 percent renewable “as rapidly as possible”, as part of efforts to limit global warming.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-accord-marrakesh-idUSKBN13E01H
18 Nov: ActionAid: Developing countries at Marrakech told “no real finance: you’re on your own”
Harjeet Singh, global lead on climate change for ActionAid said:
“The job here in Marrakech was to start writing the rulebook for the Paris Agreement and to take urgent action.
“But the issue of finance has thrown a spanner in the works. Although several countries have made welcome contributions to immediate finance needs, rich countries have been trying to wriggle out of their pledges to help poorer countries meet the costs of coping with impacts and greening their economies.
“Climate action will cost money that poorer countries simply don’t have. The general message to developing countries is ‘you’re on your own.’…
http://www.actionaid.org/news/developing-countries-marrakech-told-no-real-finance-youre-your-own
21
***the whole gang tries to manufacture some positive spin..but fails spectacularly.
the nasty anti-Trump rhetoric hardly a smart tactic!
18 Nov: ClimateChangeNews: COP22 headlines: what did Marrakech climate summit deliver?
An oasis of climate commitment in a desert of Trump panic, the UN talks made steady progress on putting the Paris Agreement into action
***By Megan Darby, Karl Mathiesen, Ed King and Lou Del Bello in Marrakech
It will go down in history as the Trump COP. Marrakech 2016 has had an orange cloud hanging over it – and not from the desert dust.
But amid the flapping over what the permatanned POTUS-to-be means for climate action, negotiators have been steadily getting on with the job…
Message to Trump
On the penultimate scheduled day, the conference adopted a call for all nations (yes, you too Donald) to honour promises made in Paris and renew their attempts to stave off disaster…
Ratifications galore
Here’s one for lovers of palindromic numbers. During the conference, 11 governments ratified the Paris climate agreement – Australia, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Finland, Gambia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan and the UK…
Carbon cuts
***Notably the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a 47-strong coalition of developing countries, declared it “will strive to lead” the green transition – ultimately going 100% renewable…
Transparency
On the rulebook for monitoring greenhouse gas emissions, politicised decisions on the balance between national sovereignty and global uniformity were put off until another day…
Climate finance
Aside from a few strategic funds, this was not a COP for new financial pledges…
Africa
It was billed as the “Africa COP” and African countries walked in with clear demands.
In order to meet their Paris commitments they need more money…
However, many leaders were keen to move beyond a dependence on aid. They fleshed out the ambitious Africa Renewable Energy Initiative (AREI), which plans to achieve 10GW of additional generation capacity by 2020 and 300GW by 2030 – appealing to private investors not just public donors…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/11/18/cop22-headlines-what-did-marrakech-climate-summit-deliver/
11
Fake News Economist’s ***”So they hope” Editorial:
19 Nov: Economist Editorial: Polluting the Outlook: Mr Trump may slow but not derail America’s clean-energy transition
PIC: Coal miner with sign “Trump digs coal”
MOCKING PHOTO CAPTION: ***So they hope
IT WAS on November 16th that the International Energy Agency (IEA), an organisation that represents oil- and gas-consuming countries, announced its prediction that over the next quarter of a century renewable energy, such as wind and solar, and natural gas will hugely eclipse the traditional role that coal and oil have played in satisfying the world’s growing demand for energy (see chart)…
The trouble is that after the projections were calculated, Donald Trump, who is both a climate sceptic and a fossil-fuel fan, was elected as America’s next president…
Many green-energy enthusiasts are bracing for the worst…
Though Mr Trump can unwind many domestic environmental regulations, analysts say he may find his hands tied by market forces, by the limits to federal power and by the fact that energy investments can take decades to pay, making it unwise for owners of power plants, oil-and-gas fields, and pipelines in America to dismiss the clean-energy revolution. First, his desire to open up what he says may be $50 trillion-worth of oil and gas reserves under federal lands will depend on oil prices…
Although Mr Trump can swiftly revoke Mr Obama’s executive orders, it will take him longer to tackle rules that have been laid down, such as the proposed Clean Power Plan, which is the president-elect’s main bugbear as an example of climate-related overreach. It is stuck under review in the Supreme Court, but owes its authority to the Clean Air Act, so environmental groups may sue over efforts fully to repeal it. Moreover, new rules will need to replace the old ones, which could take years…
Third, Mr Trump is unlikely to seek to repeal tax credits for wind and solar energy…
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21710311-mr-trump-may-slow-not-derail-americas-clean-energy-transition-polluting-outlook
COMMENT: Wwihp3MgfM: Your article states: “As a politician, he might also note that renewable energy now employs more people than oil and gas”
According to the US government energy employment report linked below, 600,000 Americans are employed in industries related to alternative energy (broadly defined to include nuclear and hydroelectric). By contrast, 3.6 million are employed in industries related to fossil fuels.
(LINK)
While republicans are often guilty of downplaying environmental risks, left leaning advocates are guilty of downplaying the cost of environmental regulations. Tackling global warming will be much more expensive than most people ***realize.
—
***THE ECONOMIST REALIZES THE TRILLIONS IT WILL COST…AND THEY HAVE THEIR EYES ON THE CAGW $$$.
11
Fake News New Yorker still in love with Obama:
28 Nov Issue: New Yorker: David Remnick: Obama Reckons with a Trump Presidency
Inside a stunned White House, the President considers his legacy and America’s future.
PHOTO CAPTION: “We’re going to have to redesign the social compact,” Obama said. “And I know how to build a bridge to that new social compact.”
The morning after Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Barack Obama summoned staff members to the Oval Office. Some were fairly junior and had never been in the room before. They were sombre, hollowed out, some fighting tears, humiliated by the defeat, fearful of autocracy’s moving vans pulling up to the door. Although Obama and his people admit that the election results caught them completely by surprise—“We had no plan for this,” one told me—the President sought to be reassuring.
“This is not the apocalypse,” Obama said. History does not move in straight lines; sometimes it goes sideways, sometimes it goes backward. A couple of days later, when I asked the President about that consolation, he offered this: “I don’t believe in apocalyptic—until the apocalypse comes. I think nothing is the end of the world until the end of the world.”…
A few weeks before the election, Obama went on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and performed a routine in which he read one insulting tweet directed at him after another. Finally, he read one off his phone from the Republican candidate: “President Obama will go down as perhaps the worst president in the history of the United States! @realDonaldTrump.”
A short, cool pause, then Obama delivered the zinger: “Well, @realDonaldTrump, at least I will go down as a President.” And then, like a rapper dropping the mike, Obama held out his phone and let it fall to the floor…
When I joined Obama on a campaign trip to North Carolina just four days before the election, Hillary ***Clinton was hanging on to a lead in nearly every poll…READ ALL
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency
31
“Science blogger and global warming denier Joanne Nova of the site JoNova said given the experience of Trump and Brexit, alternative media in Australia would “absolutely” play a more influential part in Australian politics.”
Well they got the bit about global warming denier correct. But “science blogger”? No, I don’t think so.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/the-trump-factor-tipped-to-spread-to-australian-politics-as-aussie-truthers-push-on-social-media/news-story/4e7b111bbef4a06b7a3616e6bae3eecd
27
No posts here on “truther stuff”.
No posts on vaccine issues.
No posts that say the planet is not warming.
Looks like the story reporting fake news is generating its own.
Bit desperate eh?
But seriously was this in print anywhere?
52
I’ve never quite figured how AGM “denialists” get to be lumped in with the tinfoil hat brigade in this way. I know *why*. I just don’t get *how*!
23
Jo Nova.
You should read the article before commenting.
14
Why would any body bother reading any piece of fantasy from news.com.au ????
If that is all you have.. you are indeed EMPTY of anything worthwhile even mentioning.
11
Now Jo, you know that’s just untrue, I distinctly remember a post about vaccinations against cancer, PCA if I recall correctly and other medical breakthroughs which evoked very lively and interesting discussions. I even remember you posting Lewandowski’s pseudo psychology propaganda – not that anybody agreed with his conspiracy theories. So you are truly an equal opportunity conspirator.
By the way we are still not being told about the contamination of polio vaccines in the 60’s with the known oncovirus SV40 which logically may have contributed/caused the cancer epidemic we are now going through. Nor are we being informed about the correlations (admittedly not causation) between SIDS and the immunisation of under 2’s. Nor are we yet being properly informed about the recent study that found that cholesterol is not correlated with heart disease and that the obsession with cholesterol reducing drugs has very little if any therapeutic value, while the real culprit – excessive carbs gets off scott-free; to some degree because of the green vegan cults desire to turn us all into unhealthy vegetarians. Most of this propaganda is driven by manipulation through the same political correctness that defends global warming pseudoscience.
You can’t question CAGW
You can’t question vaccination
You can’t question cholesterol
You can’t question sunscreen even in the middle of a vitamin D deficiency epidemic.
the list goes on.
Free speech means it’s our right to question, the Queensland government currently with its forced immunisation is exposing lots of under 2’s to SIDS when it is known that there is at least a correlation that suggests immunising under 2s is not safe. Where is their precious precautionary principle when it’s really needed.
My looong experience is that if the government says you can’t question something, then that’s the exact thing one should be examining and questioning the most.
You should be able to question why 1960’s polio vaccines were contaminated with a simian oncovirus
You should be able to examine the links between immunisation and SIDS
You should be able to question whether statins are really necessary
You should be able to question CAGW.
It’s your right, use it or lose it.
01
Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 is effectively rerouted to space via water vapor.
CO2 is not merely harmless, it is profoundly helpful. It is helpful in that it is plant food and, perhaps more importantly, it reduces plant’s need for water.
“It is DIFFICULT to get a man to understand something when his SALARY depends on him NOT UNDERSTANDING IT”. Upton Sinclair in the intro to An Inconvenient Truth. Ironically this is true also when applied to ‘warmers’.
32
“CO2 is a greenhouse gas, ” no, nopers, nope, not, isnt, wont, doesnt….
12