They may not like it, but scientists must work with President Trump

by Judith Curry

Jack Stilgoe and Roger Pielke Jr. have written a superb article on the response of scientists to the Trump presidency.

The reactions from scientists about a Trump presidency are predictable: a disaster for the climate and planet, threats to leave the country, concerns about having to leave their current job that relies on government funding, etc.

In the midst of all this angst (not to mention craziness), Jack Stilgoe and Roger Pielke have published a superb article in the Guardian entitled They may not like it, but scientists must work with Donald Trump.  Excerpts:

Donald Trump has won. Science and scientists played almost no part in the campaign. Now, scientists must consider how they fit into a Trump future.  In the tribal world of US politics, many now find themselves on the outside looking in. Most university scientists are Democrats, and the 2017 President, House and Senate will all be Republican. For this group, nothing portends disaster more than the elevation of a long-time opponent to national and international policies, Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, to oversee the transformation of the Environmental Protection Agency.

While speculating on details like who Trump will ask to replace John Holdren as his science advisor, scientists should not just be asking what Trump will do for them. They should face up to the difficult question of what they should be doing for Trump.

There are thousands of political appointees, including many science positions, that will need to be nominated, expert advisory bodies constituted and reconstituted, and experts put into staff positions under the White House. Any scientist who agrees to hold their nose and work with the Trump administration should expect much of the same criticism received by Marburger.

No one knows what Trump will do – on science or much else. However, the history of US science funding shows that Republican presidents “appear more eager to spend [money on R&D] than their Democratic counterparts”.
 
How should scientists engage on policy issues such as vaccination and climate change, where Republicans are often accused of being anti-science, or worse, at war with science? Despite Trump’s rhetorical nods to the social conservative wing of his party during the campaign and his enthusiasm for convenient conspiracy theories, he is clearly a pragmatist with little worry about changing his policy preferences.

Scientists should therefore ask themselves whether they would support policies that did what they regard as the right thing, but for the ‘wrong’ reasons. Policies focused on deploying electric vehicles and nuclear or wind power may be justified in purely economic rather than environmental terms. Alternatively, environmental regulations may provide convenient cover for the taxing of imports as the USA struggles to justify a new protectionism. When it comes to climate change, maybe the pragmatic business of policy design might finally take precedence over trying to convince a Republican Congress to see the world through a climate scientist’s eyes.

It would be easy for scientists to bring back an opposition strategy focused on defending a so-called ‘war on science’. Scientists should be aware that the playbook that many followed to oppose President George W Bush may not work as well under a less ideologically-driven president.

For scientists and other experts, the surprise election of Donald Trump to the US presidency comes with choices. How we respond, inside our own communities and in relation to governments will determine whether we remain relevant or jeopardise the constructive role that we should play in policy and politics, regardless of our allegiances.

JC reflections

In my recent post Trumping the Elites, along with my previous posts on the presidential election, I went out of my way to be non-partisan.  I bet none of you has any idea how I voted (I have only told two people).  Nevertheless, I am being roundly criticized for congratulating President Trump in my blog post (e.g. I shouldn’t be patting him on the back or pretending to support him in any way).  Heck, even Hillary Clinton and President Obama congratulated Trump.

I would like to thank Stilgoe and Pielke Jr. for their much needed analysis and statement.

I was struck by an article earlier this week in the WSJ: How Donald Trump Filled the Dignity Deficit.  It is focused on the white working class voters (the so-called ‘deplorables’).  Here’s to hoping that a change from the Obama/Clinton world of encouraging advocacy science can restore dignity the community of scientists that choose not to advocate for progressive causes and prefer to go where the evidence leads them.  Scientists (not to mention professional societies) calling other scientists ‘deniers’ and worse who directly or indirectly challenge their political causes and preferred policy outcomes needs to stop. Otherwise the scientific enterprise in the U.S. risks longterm damage.

JC message to scientists: Lets try to use the opportunity afforded by the election results to minimize advocacy science, support funding priorities that will serve the public good, and provide the best evidenced-based advice (tempered by a careful uncertainty assessment) that we can.

392 responses to “They may not like it, but scientists must work with President Trump

  1. Judith Curry, you are first class.
    It is astonishing to me how intolerant the ministers of tolerance are.
    So many sacred cows now lie dead.

    • You probably voted for Stein. Hillary is too cr00ked and you are too honest.. Trump is too mean and you are too kind. Johnson is too stupid and you are too smart.

      Don’t answer if I’m right.

      • David Springer

        Curry: “I bet none of you has any idea how I voted”

        Stein. See above.

      • Anyone who voted for anyone other than Clinton or Trump, or didn’t vote at all–especially if they don’t want to tell others how they voted–lacks rudimentary logic and good judgment. Anyone who voted for Clinton, after 8 years of Obama and their lies together, is hopelessly deluded. The mere fact that the Democratic Party Platform called for prosecuting “climate skeptics” shows anyone with any sense that the Democratic party is nothing less than a criminal conspiracy, working against the most basic right of a free people, and is insane.

    • Judith,

      Excellent post. Thank you. My eyes watered towards the end.

      I am glad no one knows how you voted. I hope you keep it that way.

  2. Should “science can restore dignity the community of scientists ” be “science can restore dignity of the community of scientists” ?

  3. I am an Australian living in Australia and cannot believe the hysteria that has gripped the USA and all due to a democratic vote that was clear. Trump won, Brexit was passed in Britain and in both cases the people have made their choice very clear. The world needs to take a good look at themselves and ask why these things happened. I think Judith’s last paragraph sums it all up, it is an opportunity to move forward.

    • Judith is always the adult in the room.

    • Robbie

      I agree, the hysteria is astonishing. The left are likening trump to hitler and seem to be searching for remote cabins where they can stockpile food and await for societal breakdown.

      It seems the liberal elite are only liberal when people agree with their views

      When someone has a different view it appears they must be stupid, illinformed, evil, racist, bigoted and are so Ill informed they have made the wrong decision.

      The rioting and disorder by young people on the left is especially disturbing. Trump won. It is a slap on the face to democracy to protest against the result.

      Tonyb

      • Tony, in a sad but real sense it is IMO a necessary part of the progressive unraveling/unveiling. Nobody rioted when Obama won in 2008, The violence and misbehavior in Portland and Chicago unmasks what many of these types really are. In a more civilized but non-the-less fundamentally similar way, the Pielke piece unmasks the PC police state in academia.

        BTW, the acknowledged fact that Kellyann Conway, Peter Thiel, and Dr. Ben Carson will surely have very senior administration positions puts the lie to the Dem/MSM protestor position that Trump is a mysogenistic, homophobic racist.

      • Istvan, what the lunatic left doesn’t understand is that their atrocious behavior (which is on display as we speak) constitutes the very reason that they were defeated in the first place. Not just once (with the loss of the house in 2010), not just twice (with the loss of the senate in 2014), but thrice (with the loss of the presidency now in 2016)…

      • I agree with Robbie and Tony B: the left is inherently intolerant and in America they are terribly immature. This is an embarrassment for us globally.

      • Let’s compare Democrat vs. Republican behavior after a loss. Bush 1 transition to Clinton was professional, cordial, and peaceful. Transition from Clinton to Bush 2 – not so much – white House Staff removing the “w” from all keyboards, stealing White House property, and the behavior of Democrats in general. The transition from Bush to Obama – again, professional, cordial, and peaceful – no rioting, looting, beating up of those who voted for Obama. Look at the disgraceful democrat behavior now.

        Another difference – while there are Trump supporters who turn a blind eye to his many faults, there are a large number who recognize his faults and are holding their breath hoping he will make America great again. Very few Clinton supporters acknowledge that she has done anything wrong, and in fact defend her when what she has done is indefensible.

        The media will continue to fan the flames of liberal hate and racism, and continue to lie and work to discredit Trump in any way possible.

        We have college campuses protecting snowflakes by providing them safe spaces to hide, with professors who openly cried due to the election results. And we will likely have a similar response by “scientists” who will denigrate anyone who answers Trumps call to serve.

      • David Springer

        Oh stop. It’s a silly kerfluffle not a civil war. Kids using it for an excuse to not do their homework.

      • > Let’s compare Democrat vs. Republican behavior after a loss.

        Beware your wishes:

        [Defeated Donald] was so incensed with the outcome of last night’s election that he called for a “revolution” and a massive march on Washington.

        “Let’s fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice. The world is laughing at us,” he wrote.

        In fact, the majority of the initial reactions around the world were positive, but many began laughing at [Defeated Donald] himself as he continued to agitate for a national upheaval.

        “We can’t let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!” he cried.

        Perhaps he was still bitter about his “October Surprise” flop.

        http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/5-unhinged-right-wing-reactions-romneys-defeat

      • John Carpenter

        Ya Willard, instead of following through with a useless protest march on Washington and talk of revolution, Trump decided go for the ultimate prize himself. Some actions are more impactful than others.

      • > instead of following through with a useless protest march on Washington and talk of revolution

        It might be hard to deny that Defeated Donald did talk of revolution, JohnC, and his reactionary stance is anything but revolutionary.

        He did follow through with the usual populist playbook, though.

      • David Springer

        Oh look. Disgraced Willard pops his head up and looks around.

        Still 6 weeks of winter left, little buddy. Then begins 4 years of your worst nightmare.

        HAAHAHAHAAHAHa’haahahaahaha!!!!!!!!!1111111111

      • > Then begins 4 years of your worst nightmare.

        Tell that to minorities and the workers who are getting conned, Puppy Dave.

        As far as I am concerned, it may be my wildest dream come true.

      • TITTER!

      • David Springer

        I see. Willard actually wanted Trump to win. His “wildest dream” come true.

        Ooooooooooooooooooookay. 😜

      • As Jim Jeffries said, teh Donald is a lot of fun.

      • A comedian who makes a lot more sense than Trump. We need to get used to that.

      • ‘The violence and misbehavior in Portland and Chicago
        unmasks what many of these types really are.’

        Take Off That Mask.

        Masks, like the spots and stripes of
        tigers or leopards lurking in undergrowth
        may be a cover up for sinister intent,
        for a Macbeth, say, who smiles and smiles,
        yet may, behind that smiling mask, be
        a damned villain waiting for nightfall
        to carry out an undercover
        nefarious (or murderous) event.

        Just as likely though, wearing a mask
        may be concealment for a shrinking self
        the donning of a protective covering
        like the turtle and the whelk, or as in classic
        drama, putting on the mask of an Achilles,
        now there’s a way for an un-heroic actor
        to become a hero, just for one day.

      • Next Beth will write an Ode to the Oregon Standoff.

        A limerick recycling what we could read on teh Donald’s rallies might also be nice.

    • Don’t forget Australia also spanked Malcolm – if the vote had not been interfered with he would probably have been given the boot.

      But, like the USA, there were people who were disenfranchised by not being able to vote, others who never got the papers to their polling place and rumours of altered votes – and he STILL lost the large majority and increased the numbers of Independents he has to negotiate with.

    • Actually ‘the people” voted for Clinton by what’s looking to be some 2 million votes.

      • Steve

        Looking at the veritable sea of red that now represents America and the corresponding small pockets of blue, it appears your forefathers may have been wise after all in instituting the electoral college system so that the large urban areas did not overwhelm the rest of the country.

        The vote under the current system was won by Trump and if you believe the popular vote is fairer in Americas’ circumstances then you must campaign to change it.

        As a Brit, our last general election was unfair in as much the Scottish national party were vastly over represented whilst UKIP were extremely under represented. However it generally works out pretty fairly.

        tonyb

      • Actually ‘the people” voted for Clinton […]

        Which “people”?

        The US has had the Electoral College system for over two centuries. That’s the system the candidates campaigned under, that’s the system Trump was elected under.

        Historical “what-ifs” are pretty much good only for shouting matches, but consider how many voters in “non-critical” states chose not to vote, or at least not to vote for President. Consider how the campaigns strategized their resources around those electoral votes.

        Two important factors would have influenced different voters under strategies intended to maximize national votes:

        •       Neither candidate was very popular; I suspect even the enthusiastic campaigners had some cognitive dissonance for the sake of beating the candidate they disliked more. (Or down-ballot party affiliations.)

        •       The widespread bullying and threats by Clinton supporters that encouraged Trump supporters to keep quiet about their preference, and might well have kept people who knew their vote didn’t matter (in safe states) from bothering to vote.

        The last-minute campaigning by both candidates would probably have targeted different parts of the country if they were after maximum national vote rather than maximum Electoral votes.

        I don’t know who would have won, I suspect Trump. But the actual popular vote is a very poor proxy.

      • AK: ” The widespread bullying and threats by Clinton supporters that encouraged Trump supporters to keep quiet about their preference, and might well have kept people who knew their vote didn’t matter (in safe states) from bothering to vote.”

        Which is – I suspect – precisely what happened over the EU referendum too.

        Why do the “Liberal” left always rely exclusively on negative arguments, threats and insults to try to convince people to subscribe to their POV, never anything positive? All stick and no carrot – given how “sensitive” and “caring” they claim to be, I can’t see why they don’t realise that.

      • Wow! Someone has the temerity to say “All stick and no carrot – given how “sensitive” and “caring” they claim to be, I can’t see why they don’t realise that.” on a Trump thread.

      • Where did you find that, all I can find is 390 000 for her.

      • The electoral college does not favor rural over urban states, or vice versa. However swing states are favored to be mixed states over homogeneous states, and that is all about where the boundaries are. Since state boundaries are very arbitrary, the electoral college is an arbitrary function of the map borders. Two states partition their electoral votes according to district votes, which seems fairer, but only if districts are of roughly similar population. This change is apparently allowed within the current system.

      • Since state boundaries are very arbitrary, the electoral college is an arbitrary function of the map borders.

        Nope.

        The state boundaries may be “very arbitrary,” but the state laws follow those boundaries, and people choose to live in different states with different laws.

        A state’s representation in choosing the President (and passing laws) depends on a population whose size, in turn, depends on how welcome people feel under its laws.

        That’s how the country was originally set up, which is why efforts to shove everything up the the Federal level is something of a perversion of the original system.

      • That doesn’t change that the swing states are always mixed states. Which states are mixed depends on its boundaries not on any choice of the people.

      • Sullivan is another nimbus who doesn’t understand civics.

        And apparently fails to understand that the “popular vote” argument is one that losers use.

      • Jim D,

        Where do you come up with stuff like this? State boundaries are arbitrary.

        Yep, last week I lived in Oregon, but since they moved the state line, I now live in Idaho. Who knows, next week I could be a Californian. God forbid.

      • tim, maybe you can explain why they drew the Oregon boundary where they did, or even why Oregon exists as a separate state. This is arbitrary. Some mapmaker made some decisions for reasons known only to himself and, bingo, you have Oregon.

      • Jim D,

        There is a show called How the states got their shape. Better reference than anything I can provide.

        Now, how about explaining how boundaries drawn in the 1850’s (referring to Oregon) have anything to do with elections in 2016.

      • The word is ‘arbitrary’. You complained about it for some still unknown reason. You explain.

      • Given the fact that JimD is now whining about the shapes of the states, could it mean he’s running out of things to whine about? We can only hope!

      • Jimd

        Here you go. This is why the Oregon boundary evolved as it did

        https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/oregon-territory

        Sounds an interesting state.

        It’s boundaries are where they are for good and also arbitrary reasons in much the same way as our ancient counties in britain have the boundaries they do because of Romans, Saxons, Vikings and other influences. My own country was formed primarily by the celts and where defensible hills and coasts could be used to keep out intruders.

        Tonyb

      • State boundaries are arbitrary.They evolved, and their populations developed within them. Some states like Rhode Island are too small to make any sense. Others like California should be multiple states because of their population, five times the state average. Others like Michigan have the Upper Peninsula that should really be part of Wisconsin, and don’t get me started about the Oklahoma panhandle, etc. That is what I mean by arbitrary.

      • Jim D: “State boundaries are arbitrary.”

        As are the political boundaries in the UK too.

        UKIP took 3.9 million votes, and gained precisely one seat, despite being third after Con and Lab by vote total. The Greens secured 1.1 million votes but also ended up with only one MP. The Liberal Democrats took 2.4 million votes, it ended up with only eight MPs; whereas the SNP got 56 MPs with 1.5 million votes.

        No matter what your opinion of UKIP, that’s absolutely crazy.

      • Choosing an MP it seems the highest vote in your constituency should count. However, there are methods of getting more proportionate representation in Parliament, like they do in the EU, for example, which is where UKIP had more representation ironically.

      • Jimd

        You are missing the same point as the political elite in both Britain and America are missing. This is that people are attached to their state/ county country and globalisation, rule by corporation and the unelected is something that has been bugging them for Years.

        Sure The Oregon borders are arbitrary but that is what people like, they identify with it. That doesn’t make them bigots or stupid in the same way that people who love their country and are patriotic are evil nationalists and therefore in some way racist or fascist.

        In 1950 there were some 105 countries. Today there are nearly 200 . This should be demonstrating to those that rule us that we like and identify with our little patch of soil and are proud of it and do not want to be subsumed into some anonymous whole where borders become meaningless. This relates perfectly to the Brexit vote. America also seems to be tired of being treated as one giant immigration hostel where illegals can enter with impunity.

        Cherish your arbitrary boundaries. It’s what makes each place unique. Its what people want.

        Tonyb

      • @climatereason…

        You might be interested in this: Variation in County Size: A Theory of Segmental Growth by G. Edward Stephan (1971) American Sociological Review 1971, Vol. 36 (June) :451-461

      • Tony said:”This is that people are attached to their state/ county country”

        Many of us in the US are attached to Western culture. I know I would like to keep it.

        If a given belief system isn’t compatible with ours, it isn’t the end of the world. There are plenty of countries from which to choose, just don’t choose ours.

      • Jim, I haven’t complained about anything. I have questioned your reasoning with regard to your statement that the ” arbitrary ” state borders have something to do with the election results. You have yet to explain how it does. Which is evidence that you made it up.

        Tell us how state borders have anything to do with this election.

      • the electoral college actually has a great deal of merit. we have a problem in Canada due to the popular vote. Quebec for years decided the elections. No matter how western Canada voted, you would turn on the TV 1 second after the polls closed in the West, and they would already be announcing who won the election, without a single vote yet counted in the West.

        when a simple majority decides, a few urban populations centers like LA and NY can control the entire election.

      • Steven Sullivan : “Actually ‘the people” voted for Clinton by what’s looking to be some 2 million votes.”

        You’re somewhat premature there, more votes have been counted.

        Actually, “the people” voted for Trump by around 700,000.

      • “Actually ‘the people” voted for Clinton […]”

        I wonder what the real count was sans the fraud and illegals that Obama encouraged to vote.

    • Robbie – Good comments, I’m with you (literally).
      Geoffrey Williams – Sydney.

  4. Let’s not overstate things. Myron Ebell will not oversee the transformation of EPA. He is just overseeing the transition team. If there is a transformation that will be up to the new Administrator and his or her team, and will take years.

    Nor does the Science Advisor have much to do with what gets funded. That is largely up to the new agency heads, plus OMB, on the request side and Congress on the actual funding side, which is not changing much. I expect little to change in the $60 billion annual basic research budget, which no one in power wants to cut..

    New ideas of relatively modest proportion are certainly welcome. Here is one of mine: https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/29/refocusing-the-usgcrp/.

  5. Maybe the good doctor should set policy and run NOAA.

  6. APS continues to be a bunch of self serving gutless wonders.

  7. Well, Dr. Curry, you have already run the gauntlet. If there is a knock on your door, you can accept the position armored and hardened well in advance.

    • Judith Curry Here is where to apply:
      Serve America

      President Elect Trump has promised to change Washington, DC and that will start with identifying and recruiting the finest men and women from across the country to serve in his Administration.   Any individual who wishes to serve the Administration should utilize this online application in order to participate.

  8. “minimize advocacy science” such as this? http://www.nature.com/news/hillary-clinton-will-make-a-fine-us-president-1.20823

    Some suggest ‘advocacy science’ doesn’t exist. This is certainly evidence that advocacy IN science does.

    • >> Some suggest ‘advocacy science’ doesn’t exist.

      The ‘”some ” being those ardently practicing it, as a way of pretending they aren’t. The best propaganda is that which presents itself as objective.

  9. Much of the negative response to the election results shows how thin is the veneer of civility that the establishment holds toward the productive– toward the payers of the taxes that afford everyone else the benefits of modernity. The people now have an opportunity to weigh in on whether the continued funding of the politicized pseudoscience that Climatology — as it has come to be — is a luxury that we can afford.

    • There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in.

      • Quoting, and In Memory of Leonard Cohen, who passed on yesterday, November 10, 2016, in Los Angeles, CA. Truly one of the Greats.

      • Great occurrences require a paradigm shift. “Two major types of print shaped the political processes of the American Revolution: pamphlets and newspapers.” (Robert G. Parkinson, Print, the Press, and the American Revolution)

        The Medium is the Message. reality TV has gone mainstream and now has equal merit with the supposed wise men and women of the MSM in establishing what is important and to convey ideas.

      • Wagathon,

        I’d not thought of it that way: ” reality TV has gone mainstream and now has equal merit with the supposed wise men and women of the MSM in establishing what is important and to convey ideas.”

        “The Apprentice” is reality TV. Guess we’re as ‘mainstream’ as it gets, huh?

  10. To me at least, the funding for science will not decrease, rather, it’s priorities are likely to change. And, given past practices of scientists who keep a wet finger to the wind, knowing which way the winds blow, research universities and government agencies will accommodate to these priorities accordingly.
    Self interest prevails above ideology.

    There will of course be some whose self identity is linked to the CO2 poison paradigm. These will thrash about for a while, calling in favors from one group or donor to another, yet, over a 4 year span, their lab space will give way to other scientists who have adapted.

    Some current directors pushing a climate change catastrophe paradigm will loose their posts, which is good. Who supplants these directors will depend upon the current reigning Administrative priorities, as usual.

    If there is a repeal of the EPA Endangerment Finding, and the Clean Power Plan is shelved, I expect EPA to undergo a significant restructuring, moving all the energy related regulation to the Energy Department, leaving behind and EPA looking somewhat like itself before the Clean Air Act (CAA) got high-jacked. If the CAA gets moved to Energy, then a much smaller EPA will be left after 4 years, and, if there remains a Republican in the White House after 2020, we will see how EPA manages after its transformation.

    Energy will be the driving engine for the next decade or so of science research funding. The military will be a sponge for new science and will also direct funding towards new science, especially in space adventures where a lot of new science is needed.

    Parenthetically, in medicine, man looses body mass in space, and until this issue is resolved as well as some other body systems impacted by weightlessness, we aren’t about to travel and reside on the moon for very long let alone travel to Mars.

    There is a lot to do in science to make up for the time science has been high-jacked by the CO2 poison myth.

    • Reversing the endangerment finding based on an honest review of the science seems very doable. But moving the CAA somehow to the Energy Dept sounds impossible.

      • Reversing the EPA CO2 endangerment finding will invite litigation. Long slow slog. There are two simple things to do week 1 that fix the problem permanetly. Revoke CPP by executive order on grounds is unconstitutional (hence the SCOTUS stay). And pass a one sentence CAA amendment declaring that for all CAA purposes, CO2 is not a pollutant. Gets thru Senate because in 2013 Reid rammed through repeal of 60 vote cloture rule for all legislation plus all judges except Supremes. Then EPA cannot be ‘sued and settled’ ever again under Mass. v. EPA to reinstigate more nonsensical AGW mischief.

      • Any major regulatory will be litigated, as they always have. But in the original endangerment finding litigation the Court explicitly said it deferred to EPA on the science so litigating a revision that finds no endangerment should be “Court proof.”

        As for CPP, to my knowledge a regulation cannot be repealed by Executive Order. EOs are limited to agency actions. They do not have the force of law that regulations have.

      • Hopefully, the new Senate will severely limit the filibuster. If they don’t do that, many of these good goals won’t get done.

    • I expect EPA to undergo a significant restructuring, moving all the energy related regulation to the Energy Department, leaving behind and EPA looking somewhat like itself before the Clean Air Act (CAA) got high-jacked.

      The Department of Energy is not a regulatory entity. I would have Department ‘cultural’ concerns given that history.

      • Actually, the “cultural” differences may end up for the best. They won’t be channeled into policies that worked for real pollution like sulfur and mercury.

        Given that the same approach has totally not worked for fossil carbon.

      • The Energy Department has several regulatory programs, including appliance efficiency and FERC.

        But moving EPA CAA regulation to DOE would be a massive legislative effort. EPA is written into tens of thousands of pages of law and regulation.

      • Still DOE’s mentality is running the labs and the weapons complex. Also in regard to the latter the department is up to its neck in both contaminated sites (hazardous chemicals and radionuclides) and routine site emissions and the conflicts of interest are to too strong. Hence the NRC and the EPA. The DOE predecessor was ERDA–the Energy Research and Development Agency. Before that the AEC, etc. That’s a lot of cultural to overcome.

        I guess we shall stay-tuned and find out.

    • I hope agencies can be consolidated. We need a FBI and a CIA. We don’t need Homeland Security and NSA, for example. EPA’s mission statement needs to be scaled back to include only real pollutants, not alleged pollutants.

      All the agencies other than the FBI need to be demilitarized.

  11. The election result is invalid. It is only valid when the Democrats win.

  12. Hmm.

    So how did Judith vote? I would guess either she wrote in another name for president so endorsing neither of the main two candidates, or maybe voted for the independent .

    Do I win the prize Judith? Is it a large prize worth winning?

    A good example of hysteria comes from victor venema. He sometimes comes round here so I hope he might explain why he is so despondent and quite why he seems to equate trump with hitler like tendencies.

    Tonyb

  13. Hopefully Trump will force a more realistic appraisal of ‘climate science’ which eschews advocacy & activism and considers the evidence refuting the ‘consensus’, evidence which, so far, has been ignored or actually excluded from consideration by the IPCC and its supporters. It would be good to have evidence-based policy rather than policy-based evidence with disastrous economic consequences.

  14. Of course, I don’t know how the world of science,will react, but there is already a change in ordinary peoples’ reactions in my little part of Australia. Before the election, if I tried to tell people that Donald Trump for all his faults did have some (some, not all) good policies, no-one woiuld listen. After the election, they are listening and suddenly they ‘get it’. May science go the same way.
    And Judith, thanks for all your great work and wonderful attitude. May the future have great things for you.

  15. We kept hearing about how terrible Trump is and how Clinton was the only rational choice, yet he was elected by Americans who believed that Clinton was a worse choice, aided by people like me who refused to vote for either candidate and who supposedly threw our votes away. My vote is my voice, and I’m OK with how things turned out. The people have spoken and anyone who doesn’t like it has to get over it.

    In Vermont, where there’s been a big fight over windmills and where so many think climate change is an issue that trumps all others, the green (Democratic) candidate for governor lost and the Republican won. In my opinion this was a huge win for sanity.

    • I agree with your last sentence, but it’s worth pointing out that Vermont still went overwhelmingly for Clinton, and the governor-elect, Phil Scott, refused to endorse or support Trump and from the comments he has made, is apparently very far from Trump on issues related to climate change.

      Also, and not to imply that you said otherwise, just for clarity: opposition to industrial-scale wind installations in Vermont is by no means exclusive to Republicans. At least one Democratic candidate for governor, Peter Galbraith (the former Ambassador to Croatia and my favored choice), was quite vocal in his opposition and in advocating for local control over siting of new wind farms. Considering the environmental impacts of industrial-scale wind, I’d argue that his and Scott’s IS the truly green position, climate notwithstanding.

  16. I understand that some fields in science may get less funding, and others may get more, but that is how it is when your field is dependent on the ruling policy. Not so different from advicors to the government.
    The only reponse from science must be to do the best and prove that the results are solid and backed by data, and have some relevance at some time.
    We may even get rid of all those results that mention climate change without reason, and that would be a setback for Lewandowski and Cook.

  17. The authors of the article are less then knowledgeable as to usage of the term ‘reality based community’.

    ‘Reality Based Community’ is a term used by people on the hard left suffering from ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’…it has nothing to do with ‘faith based’ anything.

    Of course a number of prominent climate scientists and advocates suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    A sample of Bush Derangement Syndrome is failing to acknowledge that the various energy acts passed under the Bush Presidency resulted in the US actually achieving it’s Kyoto Targets.

    • A sample of Bush Derangement Syndrome is failing to acknowledge that the various energy acts passed under the Bush Presidency resulted in the US actually achieving it’s Kyoto Targets.

      A much more substantial benefit of the various energy acts passed under the Bush Presidency was the fact US is approaching self sufficiency in energy and industries that had been forced to leave US because of high energy prices have been returning. This is a great benefit to the US economy, standard of living and world security (because USA is no longer so dependent on reliable, secure supplies of Middle East oil).

  18. Judith Curry NOAA Administrator. Sounds good to me!

  19. Scientists are selling a service and in many cases government is their customer. Condemning your customer is not a smart strategy … especially when you have only one.

  20. Willis Eschenbach

    The article says:

    Any scientist who agrees to hold their nose and work with the Trump administration should expect much of the same criticism received by Marburger.

    Scientists should therefore ask themselves whether they would support policies that did what they regard as the right thing, but for the ‘wrong’ reasons.

    “Hold their nose”? My respect for the authors just plummeted. Those kinds of false claims of moral superiority are why Trump won. Myron Ebell is not “holding his nose” to work with Trump, nor should anyone doing honest science.

    It is only those infected by the green slime, by which I mean those whose political agenda outweighs their scientific honesty, who would need to “hold their nose” in order to work with the Trump Administration. Unlike the authors, I encourage any scientist who thinks they would have to “hold their nose” to NOT work for the Trump Administration. If they are there just to advance their own political agenda, they might consider that before making the switch. People with scientific axes to grind may not be welcome.

    w.

    • Perhaps the authors (pielke is from CU after all) were under the mistaken impression that Deplorables don’t bathe.

    • Me, too, Willis. What stupid things to write.
      Let’em leave. There’s plenty of replacements looking for work.

      • Well the authors hit on a key point. Nearly all off the relevant scientists consider the prospect of working for/with Trump to be too abhorrent to even hold their nose in an attempt.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        curryja | November 11, 2016 at 5:15 pm |

        Well the authors hit on a key point. Nearly all off the relevant scientists consider the prospect of working for/with Trump to be too abhorrent to even hold their nose in an attempt.

        Thanks, Dr. Judith. If that is true, that is indeed good news, long may their noses remain unheld …

        w.

      • “Let’em leave. There’s plenty of replacements looking for work.”

        be careful what you wish for

      • Steven, see below. New blood is a most excellent approach for introducing novel, and successful, solutions. Consider your own career.

      • dan… there is no new blood.

        its the one thing fake skeptics have never been skeptical of..

      • Steven Mosher: “dan… there is no new blood.”

        Famous last words…

      • Let’em leave.

        “Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral.”
        –B.Brecht

      • if you want to turn around a failing project, look for all members of the project that are “indispensable” and fire them. the reason people are indispensable is because they are preventing information from reaching the people that need it.

    • Cemeteries are filled with indispensable people.

    • “Nearly all off the relevant scientists consider the prospect of working for/with Trump to be too abhorrent to even hold their nose in an attempt.”

      Invite them to the NASA Muslim Outreach sessions. Big Tent ’em. Or have them take some Tolerance/Sensitivity classes. We can work this out, honey.

      Andrew

  21. Those who claim to predict the future climate didn’t know which way the wind was blowing.

  22. Actually, the number of sciency positions filling leadership roles in the new administration (meaning policy advice or management) is not so large that filling them should be a large problem despite the issues Pielke rightly points to. Refocus NASA on space rather than earth science and you do not have replace Gavin since GISS disappears. For top advisors on things like energy/science (Steve Koonin) or climate/NOAA (Judith) they have already suffered the feared ostracism so should not have problems serving if asked.

  23. “Nor does the Science Advisor have much to do with what gets funded. That is largely up to the new agency heads, plus OMB, on the request side and Congress on the actual funding side, which is not changing much. I expect little to change in the $60 billion annual basic research budget, which no one in power wants to cut..”

    David W, get’s this right.

    However, here is the deal.

    1. You will not see much of a change in the amount of basic research budget.
    2. Whatever Science that produces will have a Big old Trump Brand
    on it. It will be Trump’s science, like it or not, agree with it or
    not. It will be science produced on his watch with his implicit endorsement. It will be the change you voted for… regardless.

    • ” It will be the change you voted for… regardless.”

      Doesn’t imply ownership will be accepted.

      • They can try to disown it. But they will own every last fraction.

      • Agreed. Buy you know it won’t work out that way. Taking things seriously but not literally and all. It’s the benefit of ‘flexible’ interpretation.

    • Steven Mosher: “It will be Trump’s science, like it or not, agree with it or not.”

      And, hopefully, it will be good old classical science, not the spurious “Post-Normal” variety so beloved of second-hand temperature database salesmen and Mannipulators with their AlGoreithms and computer games climate models.

      Heh, “do you want fries with that, sir?”

      • You will get the exact same science you get today.

        But you will own it.

        Trump branded. Trump funded. Agw.

      • Steven Mosher: “Trump branded. Trump funded. Agw.”

        But unlike Obama branded Obama funded AGW, Trump branded Trump funded science will likely demonstrate to be insufficient to be capable of causing significant warming of the Earth’s climate, I think you’ll find.

        Why do you keep trying to insist that (C)AGW sceptics deny the theory of greenhouse gases? All you do is make yourself look a stubborn, intransigent fool, it’s not as if large numbers of knowledgeable posters haven’t taken you to task for it.

        As I said, nobody – certainly very, very few with a scientific education (unlike you with your claimed English degree, although no-one would suspect you of having one from the state of your posts) disputes the theory of AGW, so why do you keep pretending they do? The debate is about the magnitude of the effect, not its existence.

        Ah, but unless you insult peoples’ scientific knowledge, understanding and experience, your quasi-religious cultist arguments haven’t a leg to stand on, have they?

      • David Springer

        Steven doesn’t know what the hell is happening. Big hat, no cattle.

    • How do you like Obama science?

    • Trump Science can’t be worse than Obama Science.

  24. Oh dear Dawkins suggests the inability of uk/us scientists to adapt and the ignorance of the uneducated,this is a damaging elitist statement eg.

    The two largest nations in the English-speaking world have just suffered catastrophes at the hands of voters—in both cases the uneducated, anti-intellectual portion of voters. Science in both countries will be hit extremely hard: In the one case, by the xenophobically inspired severing of painstakingly built-up relationships with European partners; in the other case by the election of an unqualified, narcissistic, misogynistic sick joke as president. In neither case is the disaster going to be short-lived: in America because of the nonretirement rule of the Supreme Court; in Britain because Brexit is irreversible.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/richard-dawkins-and-other-prominent-scientists-react-to-trump-rsquo-s-win/

    A clear case of the IYI taleb classification.

  25. I am delighted. The removal of political correctness that treats anyone who dares to dissent, or even question, the C02 = pollutant paradigm as a dangerous lunatic may be ending. A long overdue paradigm shift is what I hope to see happen. Myron Ebell’s involvement is, IMHO, a good start.

    • The removal of political correctness that treats anyone who dares to dissent, or even question, the C02 = pollutant paradigm as a dangerous lunatic may be ending.

      Seems like a pretty parochial attitude.

  26. Thank you, Dr Curry.
    There are some of us, non-scientists who feel we are betrayed by activist academia science who fail in most instances to explain the most important issues:
    1. Name all the greenhouse gases and their individual ppm and the conditions imposed.
    2. Name the so called ‘dangerous’ greenhouse gases and this ppm.
    Please note that recently HFC was added to the Montreal Protocol as a ‘dangerous’ greenhouse gas. I did not know that this gas was dangerous until DuPont introduced it following the banning of the CFCs.
    Do environmental scientists have ethical or moral conscience?
    I wish you well, Dr Curry. You are a light the little man like me is looking at.

  27. Dr Curry.

    “Lets try to use the opportunity afforded by the election results to minimize advocacy science…”

    The irony. The first thing you can do is shut down this website I guess, that is how you feel about advocacy.

  28. Anyone would be better than Holdren. Anyone. Astonishing that he’s still in that position.

    As a biomedical researcher, I’m lobbying for shifting the majority of the $20B/annum in “climate science” research (mostly silly hypothetical studies of the effects of temperature increases) to be shifted to the NIH, increasing our available funds by 50% or more.

  29. JC–I completely agree with your message to scientists, but I simply can’t imagine much of a change. There are just too many scientists who believe that there will be tremendous problems in the future so they will continue to behave as they have…and they will likely get worse as a reaction to President Trump. So hope for the best, but don’t be surprised when all this gets even nastier.

  30. Why is it that way round? Why isn’t it Trump that has to work with the scientific facts as they are put to him?

    • Jim D,

      There are facts, and there are climatological “facts”.

      The President can presumably work with, or believe, whatever he wishes.

      I’m sure you can tell him what he should do. He can no doubt find your phone number if he wishes.

      When was the last time the President sought your opinion? Never? I’m not surprised.

      Cheers.

      • I think we will find out soon that he believes in climate action. He doesn’t hold on to his ideas for long as we are finding out now.

      • I think we will find out soon that he believes in climate action.

        I hope that he will favor some sort of fossil carbon action, albeit one that’s much less expensive than that supid Paris nonsense.

        But I don’t regard it as likely, any more than I regarded his election victory as likely.

      • We find that when Trump gets burned on something he says, he doesn’t repeat it, even if he doesn’t apologize, so this is his learning process. The wall is rapidly just becoming a metaphorical one. Healthcare is starting to look like it will remain intact for the poor, the young, and the ones with pre-existing conditions. The Muslim ban is already not one.

      • W/R/T Healthcare. A reasonable synopsis:
        “guaranteed issue at community rates.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/12/donald-trump-is-beginning-to-face-a-rude-awakening-over-obamacare/

        Sound bites won’t get it done.

      • Yep, once he caves on pre-existing conditions, individual mandates logically have to exist. Supporters of Obamacare have realized this from the start, and I think the mechanics of this are now becoming more clear to the others. A much simpler system is Medicare for all which just replaces all insurance costs with an additional flat couple of percent to the payroll tax, but the US system of money in politics precludes this route.

      • Competition from removal of barriers via state lines is IMO a great adjustment. HSA’s won’t work. Folks (especially the ‘deciders’) don’t (can’t?) save now. W/O a ‘mandate’ to save it won’t happen.

        What some may have to come to realize is that Arts of deals and taking one ‘seriously not literally’ does not only point one direction.

      • Insurance companies have to make deals with the care providers for each state they operate in, and it is not as simple as that to get a uniform policy for multiple states. They have to want to do that, and figure out if there is any upside for them. However, increasing their pool size helps in their bargaining with drugs companies and in keeping their costs down.

      • Show me an insurance company that doesn’t want the opportunity to grow revenues. They’re in the money business, not the insurance business. They’ll figure it out if barriers are standardized. But there is that ‘states rights’ thingy.

      • Expansion is good until it leads to monopoly, but limits on profit-making which are legislated should keep prices under control. The danger is that a few large national companies would survive and elbow out small local operations, reducing choice.

      • Yep, once he caves on pre-existing conditions, individual mandates logically have to exist. Supporters of Obamacare have realized this from the start, and I think the mechanics of this are now becoming more clear to the others. A much simpler system is Medicare for all which just replaces all insurance costs with an additional flat couple of percent to the payroll tax, but the US system of money in politics precludes this route.

        Should we deny coverage to preventable illnesses which people brought on themselves but now expect society to pay for?

        When you spread the spending to the government, take away individual accountability and remove market forces from pricing, that’s where we’re going.

        Socialism is unambiguously inefficient leading to decline of the wealth of nations, but it is also unambiguously the preferred state of human nature and as such where we’re headed. But with it, the dystopian state of centralize gov.

        Have a nice day.

      • TE,
        “Should we deny coverage to preventable illnesses which people brought on themselves but now expect society to pay for?” Fair point. Taking further, should we deny coverage to those who do not ‘bring illness’ on themselves?

        Market forces must be a part of the discussion. Taking him seriously, Trump has stated his intent to retain coverage for ‘pre-existing’ and those under 26. So the discussion begins from there.

        You (and others) may find this an interesting perspective: “Early in the 20th century, industrial America faced the “problem of sickness”: when working people missed work owing to ill health, they also lost their wages. This loss of income, even more than the cost of medical care, made sickness a major cause of poverty. In 1915, progressive reformers proposed a system of compulsory health insurance to protect workers against both wage loss and medical costs during sickness.”

        From 2003, but provides a fairly comprehensive history: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447696/

        Loss of wages=loss of tax revenue+loss of productivity to society.

        As you know, or the poorest, coverage is already a societal compact in the form of Medicaid. Consideration of the negative ramifications is also important.

        A bit off topic but politics wanders.

      • TE, I don’t know what you mean by preventable illnesses that you would presumably want to charge more for. Do these include alcohol and smoking related surcharges. What about pregnancy or having dangerous jobs? It is a slippery slope, and better just to have a flat charge irrespective of these questions.

    • Why is it that way round? Why isn’t it Obama that has to work with the scientific facts as they are put to him?

      • He does. We get more renewable energy and better fuel efficiency policies as a result. Fossil fuels are not a viable route forwards anymore. Time to move on from them if you are thinking about the future in any way at all.

      • Curious George

        Could you point to something that does not require subsidies?

    • The simple answer is this: Trump now controls the money. So the scientists can do whatever they want. But if they want money they will have to find a way to work with President Trump.

      • Ken,

        “Trump now controls the money.”

        Civics 101: ““All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
        — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

        “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
        — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7”

        http://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/

      • The view that there is still too much uncertainty to decide means more money for research, not less. This was the Bush administration’s view.

      • That there is too much uncertainty doesn’t necessarily mean more money is needed.
        1. More money is always nice, but what other projects will be cut to provide for ?
        2. And perhaps internal priorities need changing. Take money from modelling and putting it into measurements maybe.

  31. Why should I show you my data when I know you’ll try and find something wrong with it ?
    – IPCC senior author and Climategate cr00k Prof Phil Jones

    That this egregious advocacy science comment went and remains largely uncensured by the climate science establishment, tells us the latter’s modus operandi : the function of government-funded climate ‘science’ is to make the case for CAGW no matter what, so as to whip up climate alarm and thereby ease the passage of new taxes and a general expansion of government on the back of it.

    The first step for the Trump administration, therefore is to introduce the concept of a basic scientific method to the field – the desire to find the truth rather than work towards some precomitted conclusion. They need to expunge the prevailing alarmist advocacy agenda from all government climate science funding agencies, and replace it with one of scientific integrity.

    If and when this is accomplished, only then will it be appropriate for Trump or anyone else to take on board what government climate scientists are saying. We need to hear all the facts, not just carefully selected ones a la Prof Jones.

    • punksta1.

      “– IPCC senior author and Climategate cr00k Prof Phil Jones”

      Repeat after me: Con-spiracy. Con-spiracy. Con-spiracy.

      • Huh?
        You suggesting he did NOT write that?

      • Harry
        I don’t know why you feel the need to suggest conspiracy, since there is very a very obvious vested interest. You’d need to be spectacularly gullible to think it has no effect.

      • In regard to your comments I prefer “mooron”.

        As in “it takes a mooron to not recognize that the conspiracy accusations are a product of Cook and Lewandowski.” Poster children for junk science.

      • Harry Twinotter

        “The first step for the Trump administration, therefore is to introduce the concept of a basic scientific method to the field..

        I could have had more fun with this (like mentioning Dr Phil Jones is a UK researcher) but why bother. It’s more of the same Conspiracy Theory stuff. It is ironic people promoting Conspiracy Theories supporting President-elect Donald Trump in the name of their version of “science”, while not mentioning who the future Vice President is.

      • Yes the attempt to mask and deflect away from the obvious vested interest government has drumming up climate alarm, by saying those who point it out as “conspiracy theorists”, is truly idiotic. The sort of desperate measure characteristic of people wedded to a cause they realise is bankrupt.

    • “Why should I show you my data when I know you’ll try and find something wrong with it ?”

      Is there an expiration date for this or will it be forever applied going forward and to all?

      One would expect intelligent people to learn from history. But may we have a specific advanced version of what will make ‘Climategate’ become a memory so we can move along? Then get it to Trump because if he can’t implement it’s not likely it ever will be and trust in science by all may never again occur.

      • “Why should I show you my data when I know you’ll try and find something wrong with it ?”
        Is there an expiration date for this or will it be forever applied going forward and to all?

        It will and must be applied for as long as a there is no clear, no condemnation from the climate establishment of this sort of thing. Until then, it just makes no sense to put any trust in government climate science.

      • Punksta,

        So the answer is no, progress between ‘the teams’ remains stagnant, and division reigns. Somebody must capitulate and all is well. Simple. No change in process.

        That’s the best answer you can come up with?

      • Danny
        You miss the point in truly spectacular fashion. A change in the process is exactly the whole point – getting the scientific method INTO climate science, and getting advocacy for a precommitted conclusion OUT. Which will never happen while there is no repentance over issues like Climategate.

  32. I nominate Michael Webber from the University of Texas at Austin to be the president’s science advisor.

  33. Regarding the riots by those in America who would like to overturn the election results, I thought this letter in the British Daily Telegraph today accurately catches the reasons for it.

    ‘The protestors in American cities appear to be in their twenties. This generation, particularly if college educated , have been brought up on the shibboleths of political correctness, safe spaces, cultural appropriation and protection from viewpoints and literature running counter to their sensibilities. all of these are bound to trump democracy.
    They must be shell shocked.”

    To this I would add in to the shell shocked and angry a good smattering of scientist, columnists, the cultural elite, movers and shakers and others who think the only ‘correct’

    The left is in meltdown, as are many world leaders-especially in the EU- some of who will find themselves at odds to their electorates or, as in the case of the undemocratic EU bureaucracy, at odds with those who have never had an opportunity to vote for them.

    tonyb

    • Yeah, or maybe they just agree with Trump who said, when the thought (wrongly, obviously, this is Trump) that Romney had won the popular vote in 2012:

      “He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!”

      Or maybe history is taught better in school these days.

      • Vtg

        That is the system in the US so they must live with it. Whether that system is the best one is another matter. I understand the electoral college came about to ensure there was a representative view from across the country and it was not dominated by the big cities and big states. If so, perhaps it remains relevant or, the least worst system.

        The point remains that the younger generation appear in part to be rather fragile and appear unwilling or reluctant to accept views or opinions that differ from their own. If they do differ they appear to believe they must be wrong.

        We have seen this with Brexit, which, to your credit, I think i have seen you defending the result

        Tonyb

      • I understand the electoral college came about to ensure there was a representative view from across the country and it was not dominated by the big cities and big states.

        Partly at least. But, IMO, the original idea was that the established state governments would pick men they trusted, who in turn would personally appraise the candidates and vote for whom they considered best.

        AFAIK this system broke down (or really never got established) due to the rise of (somewhat) national political parties, voting for people known mostly through newspaper reports. (With some contribution from 2nd/3rd hand personal reports.)

        But it’s important to realize that, at the time, both the President, and the whole National Government counted for much less. Most political activity went on at the State level.

      • The point remains that the younger generation appear in part to be rather fragile and appear unwilling or reluctant to accept views or opinions that differ from their own.

        Tony, I don’t think you understood what I wrote.

        Last time around, *Trump* said there should be a “revolution” because he didn’t agree with the electoral college resulting in a president he objected to. Though he was wrong about the vote, of course.

        Then he spent years whipping up a racist campaign against Obama’s origins.

        So who’s fragile here – the seventy year old demagogue, or the “younger generation”?

      • vtg, “Then he spent years whipping up a racist campaign against Obama’s origins.”

        How is that racist? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/07/there-was-a-very-real-birther-debate-about-john-mccain/

      • And vtg, exactly how many demonstrations, riots, etc. did we actually see. The behavior of liberals following a loss is disgraceful,

      • btw, tony b, VTG is a great example of the hypersensitivity of the left.

        Here is an example of hypersensitivity in action. http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/story/33682203/student-apologizes-siu-chancellor-responds-after-racially-charged-photo-goes-viral

        Liberal college students having a bit of fun with a facial mask used to remove blackheads becomes a symbol of Trump’s racism :)

      • Anyone is against Trump is a racist.

        Really Jim?

        I think that’s rather insulting, personally.

      • John Carpenter

        VTG, Trump also frequently said during the election the system was rigged. Apparently it worked to his advantage this time. That is if you think the EC is a rigged system.

      • vtg, “good question. Start here.”

        Obviously not Trump supporters if the “unruly” protest happened at a college student union :)

      • Verytrollguy is a snowflake. Get him a binky and a qualude. Little fella is going to be sad for a long long time.

      • Hey Don. Your post needs translation for a limey, and I’m too damn lazy for teh Google. Just like those Mexicans, no?

        But do tell me, which of your namesake’s responses to losing the popular vote do you support, Don?

        2012 or 2016?

        Revolution or not revolution?

        Spin me right round Don.

      • It is possible that Trump shoots his mouth off without thinking AND that many of the nation’s younger generation are delicate flowers that can’t handle not getting their way. The two are not mutually exclusive.

  34. Looks like there’s going to be some huge re-organization and mission change for NASA..

    Trump obviously fondly remembers the space race. Sounds like NASA is going to be busy getting a manned space program going again under a Trump administration.

    http://sciencedebate.org/20answers

    Q: There is a political debate over America’s national approach to space exploration and use. What should America’s national goals be for space exploration and earth observation from space, and what steps would your administration take to achieve them?

    Trump: Space exploration has given so much to America, including tremendous pride in our scientific and engineering prowess. A strong space program will encourage our children to seek STEM educational outcomes and will bring millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in investment to this country. The cascading effects of a vibrant space program are legion and can have a positive, constructive impact on the pride and direction of this country. Observation from space and exploring beyond our own space neighborhood should be priorities. We should also seek global partners, because space is not the sole property of America. All humankind benefits from reaching into the stars.

    • There’s going to have to be a lot of retrenchment WRT “fair employment” and “affirmative action” for that to work. Also, they’ll need to do something about corporate corruption.

  35. “Hopefully Trump will force a more realistic appraisal of ‘climate science’ which eschews advocacy & activism and considers the evidence refuting the ‘consensus’, evidence which, so far, has been ignored or actually excluded from consideration by the IPCC and its supporters. ”

    I’m sorry but this is bizarre, contorted and irrational thinking …. unless, of course, you advocate a *conspiracy*, at which point you severely depart from sanity, and conversation is ended with me.
    The “consensus” has been reached precisely because there HAS been a “realistic appraisal” of the whole of the science, and nothing else comes remotely near to the correlation and causation needed to be the culprit.
    Non experts can moan as much as they like about “pal-review” but give me a better way of understanding the science.
    I don’t get to gainsay what a doctor say’s of my diagnosis with either feelings or by getting a contrary diagnosis because I don’t like it. If that diagnosis is the opposite but comprising only a small minority of the whole, do I sensibly go with that ??
    And don’t come back with the 97% not thing.
    Where are the scientists clamouring to rectify that *misapprehension*. “Conspiracy” again?
    If you want 100% certainty then you are having the wrong life.
    I call to mind someone on a blog somewhere who said….
    “I came to the conclusion that AGW is a hoax by the use of critical thinking”
    You just couldn’t make it up.

    Can I also say that Trump has said climate change is a hoax…..

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/

    Mind I think we will find that many of his “beliefs” may alter now that he has won the Presidency.
    Vis:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37953528

    It seems that as well as the man’s other *attributes” the US has voted in someone who has a flip-flop approach to *beliefs* as well.

    Oh – also……

    And over to the usual suspects.
    Maybe even from the usually silent Judith?
    Nah.

    • Tony Banton,

      Your comment suggests you do not understand what is important and relevant. It’s not climate science! It’s the economics and the advocated policies. IPCC AR5 WG3 acknowledges (repeatedly in Chapter 3) there is little empirical evidence to support the damage function. The damage function is used to calculate SCC, net benefits of climate policies, optimal carbon prices. Without a valid damage function there is no valid, rational justification for mitigation policies or, in fact, for public funding for the climate industry. That’s what YOU need to understand!

      • Lang — Dr. Richard Tol (who you cite a lot) must not understand either! Why does Dr. Tol support a carbon tax implemented internationally through “Trade Clubs”?

        https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1608/1608.05597.pdf

      • I cannot speak for Richard Tol, you should ask him your question directly.

        In the paper you linked Richard Tol says:

        First-best climate policy is a uniform carbon tax which gradually rises over time.

        and …

        Although an international agreement on a harmonized carbon tax is impossible …

        Replace “climate policy” with GHG abatement policy” in the first quote and I agree with both statements.

        I have a high regard for Richard Tol’s work and recognise he is one of the foremost authorities on estimating the economic impacts of global warming. However, he has acknowledge, as does AR5 WG3, that the empirical data available to derive and validate the damage function is limited and sparse (or words to that effect). I think the data used to derive the energy impacts is from a 1996 study. If that is correct, it is amazing that no more recent work has been done. You’d think many of the researchers advocating for policies to control the climate would be trying to collect the empirical data to show GHG emissions are a serious threat. However, they are not, why not? It suggests, the evidence for significant damages is lacking, perhaps not valid. The paleo climate data in the three charts posted here don’t give me cause for concern: https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/12/are-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity-values-biased-low/#comment-796768

        I’ve asked the alarmists on CE and elsewhere many times to provide a link to a brief, clear outline of the empirical evidence used to define/calibrate/validate the damage function. The alarmists all dodge this question. That sends a pretty clear signal that the damage function cannot be relied on. Without a valid damage function there is no valid, rational, justification for mitigation policies other than ‘no regrets’ policies.

        I suggest, if you want to make a constructive contribution you read this and consider whether there is a substantial error in it – i.e. sufficient to substantially change the conclusions: Why carbon pricing will not succeed https://anglejournal.com/article/2015-11-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed/

      • Lang After reading your essay, two points come to mind: When someone challenges your strawmen (plural) arguments you (1) simply always go back to your specific strawman; (2) no answer will ever be acceptable to you (except to build nuclear of course).

        (By the way, I did ask Dr. Tol the question. His response was to provide his paper which I’ve linked to).

        In the past here at CE, I’ve consistently stated that I oppose a U.S. stand-alone Carbon Tax for numerous reasons (e.g., a regressive tax; would hurt domestic manufacturing and just outsource greenhouse gas emissions to countries with environmental standards much lower than the U.S.)

        However, I’ve also stated that a Carbon Tax might work if implemented within the context of international trade clubs/agreements. As most Climate Economists have stated, this addresses the free-loader problem. You previously called me a Clown when I stated a position which Dr. Tol believes is appropriate (as well as other leading Economists).

        The basic argument (by Tol, Nordhaus, etc.) is that through “Trade Clubs”, high international participation rates can be achieved. Also as a side note, Jon Huntsman (Republican) argued “trade clubs” can involve more than just a “carbon tax”. For example, Vietnam providing more textile clothing products into the U.S. if Vietnam purchases and implements low carbon energy technologies from the U.S. As Huntsman says, “A win/win quid pro quo with economic growth”.

        So yes, it’s possible that high participation rates can occur — contradictory to your Strawman argument.

        My second point is that no answer will ever satisfy you and the majority of others here at CE. You will either attack (A) the temperature assumption (e.g., where many econometric models assume much higher temperatures than Nordhaus); (B) the potential damage (e.g., the Denier argument that CO2 is just plant food).

        As usual, you want to “define” the climate discussion under your Strawman. Like you did with Andy Boston, you would want Dr. Tol to interact with you here at CE so that you can convince him using his own arguments, that he is wrong on a carbon tax.

        Things are much more dynamic than the simplistic Strawman damage function argument you are making here at CE. In a previously provided link, Dr. Tol talks about this (and answers many of your questions) in this interview:

        https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-conversation-roger-harrabin-and-richard-tol

        Clearly, leading climate economists (like Nordhaus, Tol) are recommending action based on SOMETHING other than just ~200 year econometric model projections.

        Again, read the Tol interview to at least see what this “something” is. Hint: Many of Dr. Tol’s points are the same as those which Mosher keeps on trying to tell you about.

    • If you don’t spend a little time thinking about what your doctor says, then you’re just a pawn to be manipulated by the pharma companies selling to doctor’s via pharma reps and/or the health insurance companies who set payment policies and/or the hospital/practice managers who “optimize” for profits.
      While probably there has always been some level of non-professional influence in science and health care, the level which exists today is on par with the worst political and religious excesses of the past millenia.

      • Jim D
        MPs can vote down Article 50, but I don’t think there is a slightest possibility of that.
        Legal experts who wrote article 50 recently stated that it is ‘reversible’ at any time during two year transition period.
        hence as the Telegraph’s headline puts it: “More than 80 MPs join Lib Dem plot to force Government to hold a second referendum on Brexit terms”
        Neither of two would be advisable or good, since it would aggravate further divisions which are slowly healing and people are coming to accept it for the better or for worse. I hope it is for the better, with Trump in the US there is a hope of an earlier trade agreement.

    • The “consensus” has been reached precisely because there HAS been a “realistic appraisal” of the whole of the science, and nothing else comes remotely near to the correlation and causation needed to be the culprit.

      Wrong.

      Non experts can moan as much as they like about “pal-review” but give me a better way of understanding the science.

      Honest peer review.

    • Tony
      – Climate science is funded by government.
      – Government has a vested interest in spreading climate alarm (justifies more government).
      So you’d have to be spectacularly gullible to think government-funded climate science isn’t automatically skewed to show an impending climate catastrophe.

      But whether Trump can bring some integrity to this corrupt ‘science’ remains to be seen though.

    • “The “consensus” has been reached precisely because there HAS been a “realistic appraisal”

      Twaddle.

    • Short-centered principle components analysis
      FTP directory labeled “SECRET”
      Yamal
      Upside-down Tijlander
      Hide-the-Decline
      Gleickgate
      28Gate
      Glaciergate
      Climategate
      etc., etc., etc.

      Fraud after fraud after fraud by the IPCC’s leading “climate scientists”.

      Trump IS correct. The claims of Imminent! Global! Warming! Catastrophe! whose only solution is “the coercive power of the Central State” (per Moonbeam Brown – Mussolini must be SO proud) is a despicable hoax.

    • Tony Banton: “Can I also say that Trump has said climate change is a hoax…..”

      I think you’ll find he actually means anthropogenic climate change, Tony.

      After all, that’s what you lot mean when you call us climate deniers, isn’t it?

      And of course, he’s absolutely 100% correct.

    • *conspiracy* Clearly you’ve never read the Mann-Jones emails.

  36. I see from the above comments that few old grumpy men don’t like youngsters protesting as it happens this time against Trump’s election. It is task of young generation to protest, be it Vietnam war, 1968 Paris all the way to global warming, Heathrow airport or the Trump’s election.
    It is in the healthy and progressive societies that young generation can and should protest, motives are irrelevant, even protesting for sake of protest. One day they will mature in the old grumpy man too.
    From my point of view Brexit is bad, the Trump election is good. In June of the last year I had a bet my brother that Trump would win, I wish I went to a betting shop instead.

    • Scott Adams put it very well: Hillary Clinton ran a campaign where Trump supporters were denigrated as stupid, racist deplorables. It was a campaign of literal divisiveness – the educated elite helping the unwashed masses understand what’s good for them.
      Trump, for all his faults, didn’t attack Clinton’s supporters as a whole. His message was clearly goal focused: Make America Great Again.
      Not Make America run by Literati. Not Make America Preserve and Protect Banksters.
      All of his negative talk about immigrants, Muslims, whatever was subservient to the core positive message whereas Hillary Clinton’s talk about inclusiveness was subservient to her message of Me! I’m Better!
      I also find highly amusing, the whining on the popular vs. electoral vote.
      California was overwhelmingly pro-Clinton, but a significant part of that is because the turnout was so poor. 9M votes were cast out of a 39M population = 23% of the CA population voting.
      Nationally, 126.7M votes were cast vs. a US population of 321M = 39.5% of the US population voting.
      Many non-Hillary Clinton individuals didn’t even bother to vote in California, although many of the pro- and anti- potheads clearly did.
      Changing US voting from the present all or nothing to a ranked list as exists in many European countries would increase participation significantly, but the Founding Fathers excluded direct democracy for reasons very much related to big urban vs. rest of the country splits.

      • Hillary Clinton ran a campaign where Trump supporters were denigrated as stupid, racist deplorables. It was a campaign of literal divisiveness – […]

        Then the MSM jumped in and accused Trump of running the “divisive” campaign.

        I suppose they didn’t know any better. Being collectivists, they didn’t understand that their “voter blocks” were figments of their own imaginations.

      • The election results seem to pretty clearly indicate that MSM has zero credibility or influence with the overall voting population.
        Jeffrey St. Clair noted in this article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/09/the-cataclysm-notes-on-election-day-and-the-politics-of-exhaustion/
        “The press, like the rest of the establishment, was all behind Clinton. HRC got 57 editorial endorsements from major papers, Gary Johnson got 4 and Trump only 2. So much for the influence of the press.”
        then
        “Of the cable networks, Fox News proved to be the most entertaining and informative to watch through the campaign. If they weren’t exactly “fair and balanced,” their anchors were at least more fair and balanced than CNN and MSDNC. They openly debated the merits of Trump, sometimes fiercely. MSDNC and CNN have been all in for Clinton from the beginning. MSDNC even helped to snuff out the Sanders campaign.”
        And St. Clair, as editor of Counterpunch, is hardly a bastion of right wing think tankery.

      • In just two days in just one city (Los Angeles) there were more arrests for the anti-Trump brigade than at every Tea Party gathering…….ever. Kind of shows who the adults are, doesn’t it?

        These Trump Tantrumpalooza rioters are just like the Occupy nitwits, remember them? Thousands of arrests, millions in property damage, mountains of garbage for someone else to clean up and the taxpayers to get stuck with the bill.

      • David Springer

        “Nationally, 126.7M votes were cast vs. a US population of 321M = 39.5% of the US population voting.”

        A lot of those were children not old enough to vote, duh. Voter turnout is given as percent of eligible voters. This year it was 55.4%.

      • Unless you can show that there are profound demographic differences between California and the United States as a whole, your attempt at rebuttal is a complete failure.
        Specifically, that Californian families have a demographic bulge comparable to China’s one child policy…in 1980.
        Fail.

      • The mainstream media has a profound effect on how the people vote. Check out the Nielsen ratings. Most people still get their so-called ‘news’ from the mainstream media. They sit there like good little drones and absorb the propaganda. How many more votes do you think President The Donald would have gotten, if the mainstream media had not been totally out to eviscerate him?

      • Actually, in this election, I believe that the more Trump was attacked, the better his anti-establishment credentials were burnished.
        I don’t disagree the mainstream media matters in most elections – but it didn’t here.

      • The Lame-stream media was responsible for giving Trump the publicity he needed in the primaries and the general

      • Only in the sense that MSM was establishing Trump’s anti-establishment platform. A platform normally not easily pulled off by a billionaire.
        Nonetheless, the MSM has to earn its pay somehow. If they didn’t attack Trump, they would have been branded traitors by HRC and Co. and been drummed out of the industry.

      • JimD
        MPs can vote down Article 50, but I don’t think there is a slightest possibility of that.
        Legal experts who wrote article 50 recently stated that it is ‘reversible’ at any time during two year transition period.
        hence as the Telegraph’s headline puts it: “More than 80 MPs join Lib Dem plot to force Government to hold a second referendum on Brexit terms”
        Neither of two would be advisable or good, since it would aggravate further divisions which are slowly healing and people are coming to accept it for the better or for worse. I hope it is for the better, with Trump in the US there is a hope of an earlier trade agreement.

      • David Springer

        California’s vote was irrelevant. The contest was over before the polls closed there.

      • Nonetheless, California contributed 2.7 million extra votes for HRC vs. Trump – leading to HRC winding up with 400K more overall votes than Trump.
        So California definitely matters.

    • People in the US have a right to protest. They don’t have a right to beat others, shoot the police, burn down buildings, or otherwise destroy property. They have been doing that.

      I would go further and say they don’t have a right to protest in the street. They can use parks. In the street, they deny me the right to move freely and interfere with my Constitutional right to pursue happiness.

      • The protests in SF, which have been exacerbating the already atrocious traffic, only serve to further reinforce the idiocy of these kids. How exactly does making working class people’s lives more difficult, help their cause?

      • “How exactly does making working class people’s lives more difficult, help their cause?”

        Working class people are despicable because they probably voted for Trump.

        They must be punished.

      • What’s wrong Jim2 ?
        It is how things are done in civilised countries. Ask a Frenchman (or even an Englishman) it will tell you that his is most civilised country in the world. Have you ever seen a French demo ? Didn’t French give you your statue of Liberty and now you don’t like liberals and libertarians; how times have changed.
        Seriously, I’m sure you don’t expect these youngsters to go and do their demo in a park in the kiddies’ playground.
        They are just getting toughened when the mature, sensible, elderly grumpy presidents send them again and again to fight someone else’s war, hopefully not in Europe any more, we had enough of warfare, but somewhere else in Asia, there is also Africa available too.
        Obama, had different idea and he for the most of his tenure kept young Americans at home, but hey, he is only a half American.
        Trump is also half American and he isn’t too keen to go and defend other nations from themselves, or from their neighbours, but that wasn’t case with Clinton and Bushes, all the way back via Nixon and Johnson to the early years of the last century. But those were the proper Americans, you might say.
        Only joking….

      • Vuc, I hope you aren’t holding up Obummer as the model for managing the Middle East. We in the West were better off with the CIA-supported dictators. Much more effective and cheaper.

      • Jim2,
        Agree fully para 1.
        Para 2 must ask. When Trump came to town it required restriction of access (barricades, convoy). Would you be against that?

        Public streets seem to be public.

      • “When Trump came to town it required restriction of access (barricades, convoy).”

        SOP for many political visits, the same in most countries.

        When Obama visited the UK, he was afforded a similar courtesy.

        Would you have a problem with that?

      • Cat.

        Obama was a president. Trump was a private citizen with designs on running for president. Bit of a difference.

        But just to be clear, I’m okay with ‘the public’ (in this case Trump) using the public roads. I’m equally okay with ‘the public protesters’ using ‘the public roads’. It’s Jim2 who apparently takes issue, but only with the protesters.

      • Unfortunately, the prevention of assassination, a heinous crime, is more important than keeping streets open. You have such an unfortunate tendency to moral equivalency where it doesn’t exist. I realize it is your shtick, but it is ever so disingenuous.

        But the protesters have alternatives – parks.

      • Jim
        Why not let them manage themselves? Many nations prefer and find more acceptable strong home leaders even dictators to the western form of democracy, and very often for a very good reason.
        If we need their petrol they will sell to us as much as we want,

      • But the protesters have alternatives – parks.

        Not really.

        The point of a protest isn’t just to show everybody how people are willing to come show off their point of view.

        The point of a protest is to get people’s attention. Blocking the streets, violence, etc. get more attention than a bunch of people peacefully protesting in a park.

      • AK: “The point of a protest is to get people’s attention. Blocking the streets, violence, etc. get more attention than a bunch of people peacefully protesting in a park.”

        Amusingly, under many of the regimes they appear to believe to be superior to those of the UK and USA, they would find themselves facing tanks, and even helicopter gunships.

        I wonder how many would exhibit the courage of their convictions if that was the outcome…

      • Jim
        You don’t set up democracy, it needs to be learned step by step and that may take more than one or two generations. Even in a long standing democracy as the UK, the PM tried to bypass parliament. Ah, but majority of the people voted that way, they said. I hear majority of people voted for Hillary, not Trump. The US follows democratic rule that would not be valid for the UK, and neither of two is suitable for majority population of the Islamic persuasion.

      • Even in a long standing democracy as the UK, the PM tried to bypass parliament.

        Wrong.

        Parliament had already agreed that the majority decision would be followed.

      • Hi AK
        Parliament decreed some years ago that referendums in the UK are advisory, that has not been changed by a parliament act from ‘advisory’ into ‘obligatory’. Advisory is still the legal position, the simple reason why the court overruled the PM. It is the government leaflets, and I had one, which said that government will follow the decision of the referendum.

      • Ak

        You are of course correct in your interpretation of the Brexit vote

        The proposer of the referendum bill declared it meant that ‘the decision (about the EU) should be taken by the British people, not by parliamentarians in this chamber’

        How explicit can you get?

        The MP’s voted in favour of the referendum bill by 6 to 1. It had gone through 12 separate stages of debate.

        The leaflet sent to every voter by the Govt prior to the vote promised they would immediately action the result. It read:

        ‘This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.’

        http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160815143715/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk

        Here was the question asked of us.

        “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

        Remain a member of the European Union
        Leave the European Union”

        below is the precise format of the ballot paper

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12122349/This-is-what-the-ballot-paper-for-the-EU-referendum-vote-will-look-like.html

        It is difficult to know how anyone could be more specific with their intentions than the Govt were. The Mp’s were consulted 12 times and agreed overwhelmingly that the decision was the peoples and not the MP’s and that the result would be actioned by the Govt.

        There are some very sore and undemocratic losers in both the UK and the US. I have been on the losing side in lots of elections but I neither protested nor demanded another bite of the cherry.

        tonyb

      • There is no doubt that they will leave the EU, but the terms are in the air, and Parliament gets a say in that part. If they favor a soft over a hard exit, and that would seem to be their choice, they can vote on that.

      • @vukcevic, climatereason…

        I wouldn’t want to speak on the English Constitution; I doubt I really understand how a Constitution could work when it’s partly unwritten.

        My point was that nobody “tried to bypass parliament.”. The PM’s position was that Parliament had already spoken.

        Whether the Constitution (or whatever) actually mandates giving Parliament an opportunity to change its mind is for the court(s) to decide, as apparently is in progress.

        In practical terms, though, I’m highly skeptical whether enough MP’s would risk the consequences of voting to overturn the popular will for it to matter. This strikes me as a bunch of delusional little snowflakes who don’t like the decision. (Pretty much like the Change.org petition here.)

      • Simple fact is:
        For the 2011 referendum for changing the electoral system the relevant legislation was introduced to make an exception obliging the government to change the law in case of a ‘yes’ result.
        No such provision was introduced or contained within the EU referendum legislation. therefore its statute remained as ‘advisory’.

      • vuc – it’s difficult to set up a democracy in a culture that condemns gays to death and makes women second class citizens.

      • cat – that reminds me of Kim Philby. One of Britain’s most accomplished spies, working, well, for the Soviets. After he was found out and moved to Russia, he was upset at the treatment of Solzhenitsyn. These kids would be aghast if they had to live in a place like the Soviet Union. From the article:

        By now his devotion to communism was being undermined by his exposure to how it worked in practice. He lamented the power of the KGB and the lack of freedom symbolised by the incarceration of dissidents such as Nobel Prize-winning writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who was deported from the Soviet Union in 1974. At one point he asked his KGB minder: “Why are you expelling Solzhenitsyn?” The minder concluded he had become disillusioned: “He was a romantic. He really believed in Marx.”

        http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/443138/The-spy-who-went-into-the-cold-The-story-of-the-British-man-who-betrayed-his-country

      • Yes AK, I can see precisely one there, making my point exactly.

        By the way, I heard that more half the Soros-financed demonstrators who are smashing up businesses, torching cars and dragging truckers from their cabs and beating them for trying to do their jobs hadn’t bothered to vote anyway…

        Typical of the “Liberal” Left…

    • Misinterpretation Vuk.

      I suspect it is closer to my opinion – that after being subjected to months of hand wringing and accusations against the Trump campaign about encouraging violence, we see widespread violence from the darlings of the left. Of course anyone paying attention during the campaign understood that the inciting of violence and undermining of the process was coming from the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

      I must admit that they did us a favor. They helped make the bias of the MSM obvious.

  37. As regards climate science the point of signifigant diminishing returns occurred several budget cycles ago. Processing data is getting cheaper and analizing it is apparently not cost intensive at all-see BEST. Obviously it sucks for the people who will enevitably be made redundant.

    As far as being taken seriously, I think people like Schmit who in general act like a big boys will continue to be respected by the yet to be named science advisor.

  38. In the past, I’ve posted the following themed comment. I’ll keep doing so until either Dr. Curry refutes it or others can provide links of Dr. Curry refuting it.

    I am not a climate scientist and believe Dr. Curry is an objective voice in the climate debate. I see a lot of CE Denizens “hijacking” Dr. Curry’s statements to support “their” views. But here is what Dr. Curry has stated time and again:

    (1) Her “best guess” is that the human influence on global warming is about 50%.

    (2) She subsequently refined this above statement to mean a range between 25% and 75% (where one could assume this means a simple average of ~50%).

    My biggest criticism of CE Comments is that most people come to CE to just fight — rather than trying to find “common ground”. Below is my list of possible “No/Low Regrets Policies” on GW/CC.

    Note that Dr. Curry is “on the record” as writing favorably on the top 2 actions. Also, note that Dr. Richard Tol (who is discussed quite a bit here at CE) favors the last bullet item — implementing a carbon tax through international “trade clubs” (which Jon Huntsman [Republican] supported also):

    • Segrist, this is why few pay attention to you here. Most CE regulars agree with the majority of those points. Why debate fellow commentators on points you agree on.

    • Well, tim56 basically nailed it.

      The “Curry range” is the sweet spot of Climate Science and most sensible people think it is in her range. Arguing with people who aren’t sensible is a waste of time.

      As to your “solutions”:
      Sequestration at low forcing is just a crazy waste of money.

      It doesn’t make sense to do anything about methane. You would have to put gas catchers on termites and cows, and above rice fields.

      Fossil fuels are such a trivial part of the methane “problem” it doesn’t matter.

      If items on your “approach” list can be achieved at zero or negative cost, have at it.

  39. real unbiased scientific research may actually get a boost from all the funding thay will be diverted from biased agenda driven research.

  40. From the article:

    Brussels (AFP) – The European Union’s founders believed its unity would be forged in crisis, but after Brexit and the election of Donald Trump to the White House the bloc looks shakier than ever.

    On Sunday, foreign ministers from the 28 EU countries will hold talks in Brussels on the impact of a president who has previously questioned the decades-old transatlantic pact to defend the continent.

    With populists on the rise, Russia posing an increasingly menacing presence to the east, the migration crisis and the endless fallout from the eurozone debt crash, many fear perpetual turmoil.

    EU President Donald Tusk said on Wednesday that the events of 2016 were a “warning sign for all who believe in liberal democracy”, and urged Europe to “finally get our act together”.

    But Trump’s election has made it harder to regroup, given that Europe — while trying to stay pragmatic in dealing with Washington — has no idea what to really expect from the billionaire.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/brexit-trump-europe-reels-crisis-041345232.html

    • My personal opinion is that Trump’s NATO comments were primarily directed towards getting members to meet their existing commitments. As a businessman, he sees holding them to their funding commitments as a “profit” for US tax payers.

      • “As a businessman, he sees holding them to their funding commitments”
        Maybe they’ll just declare ‘bankruptcy’ and rejigger their participation.

      • Timg56

        Very few NATO countries- the uk is one of the few- meet the NATO commitment of 2percent of GDP. Some countries have been getting away with as little as 1 percent for Years.

        I see this as a wake up call to the recalcitrants to get their act together.

        Judging by the melt down in the eu over trump he may have made his point.

        Boris Johnson described the gnashing of teeth in European capitals as a ‘whinge o Rama’ and refused to attend the emergency meeting of eu leaders that is taking place at this minute.

        Tonyb

      • As usual Tony adds to the discussion, while Danny adds to his resume as leading adolescent at CE.

      • Whatsamatter Timmmypoo? Don’t you like it when the Trump’s historic behavior is provided in to evidence?

        Little sensitive?

      • Ok, explain how Trump’s past behavior has to do with the topic.

        Never mind as it doesn’t. Just you trying to be cute. Instead of trying to bait people (Timmypoo, seriously? That’s immature even for a 13 year old.), try addressing the argument. How do you evaluate Trump’s comments concerning NATO?

      • I see you are still responding in character Danny. As in not addressing the topic and using childish taunts and non original replies.

        Can I count on your promise not to respond any further?

  41. Just as it was amazing to witness that the Left was willing to sacrifice the safety of the country to maintain political power, it has been an eye-opener to see how easily an ideologically-motivated Western academia has been willing to abandon the scientific method.

    • Most of the “Left” are internationalists. “National security” for them is just a symbol to be manipulated in pursuit of personal (or ideological) power.

      The “nation-state” is clearly obsolete. They want it to go away, not evolve into something new, and valuable.

  42. This is rich. The Daily Beast has decided to act like a government watchdog again, like the media supposedly was supposed to be doing during the Obama administration. Obviously, they are doing it now because a Redimowit has been elected. (Will be elected, we have to get past 12/19 first). Hypocrites. Breitbart may be the only way to get news that isn’t filtered though the lefty gate keepers.

    From the article:

    How The Daily Beast Will Stand Up to President Donald Trump
    We will be the loyal opposition. We will not deny his legitimacy. But we will oppose his worst policies and hold him to account.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/09/how-the-daily-beast-will-stand-up-to-president-donald-trump.html

  43. AK,
    Cuts both ways:
    “Since Trump’s unexpected victory in Tuesday’s election, Republicans have been cheering a quick end for President Obama’s efforts to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

    But it doesn’t look like Exxon, a steady GOP donor, is on board.

    McCarron, Exxon’s vice president of public and government affairs, linked to a statement that appeared to be written last week when the company commended officials for the “entering into force” of the climate deal.” https://www.news-journal.com/news/2016/nov/10/exxon-vp-calls-climate-change-a-serious-risk/

    • Of course he isn’t. Coal is a competitor of oil and nat gas.

      That being said, I’m not sure how Trump will grow the coal industry given cheap natural gas and the flexibility of gas power plants. But, again, I’ll give him a chance and wait and see.

      • Jim2: “That being said, I’m not sure how Trump will grow the coal industry”

        Interestingly, in the UK Jeremy Corbyn, the complete antithesis of Trump, promised to open the Welsh coal mines.

    • Well, Exxon is an international company. With the collapse of the AG lynch mob in the US (with Trump’s election), they can reasonably expect legal lynch mobs elsewhere in the world.

      I’d add something to that, as opinion. A carbon tax starting at, say, $20/ton and rising in a linear fashion over 30 years would probably be enough to incent a conversion from fracked oil and gas to fossil-neutral fuels.

      But it would be slow, and it would be decades before it shows a significant profit. The big oil companies are well suited to this sort of long-term profitability.

      There are other options that would leverage agility and innovation in small start-ups, and probably get the whole thing done much faster. But the big oil dinosaurs would have a much harder time playing.

      Of course, they’d favor a carbon tax over something more quickly effective.

  44. The EU is still throwing temper tantrums. From the article:

    European Union policy spokesman and Berlin Brexit negotiator Axel Schäfer has said that Britain was “delusional” if it opted to prioritise deeper trade relations with the U.S. over remaining in the Single Market.
    The senior member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Social Democrat (SPD) coalition partner told The Times that Britain would be left “more isolated after Brexit” with less chance of striking a trade deal with the U.S. following the victory of Donald Trump in the presidential election.

    Mr. Schäfer, who, after the EU referendum result said that the political bloc had not done enough to counter populist, Eurosceptic, “anti-EU tirades”, claimed that hopes of a trade deal with the U.S. under President Trump were unfounded:

    “What changed [with Trump’s election] is the likelihood of a speedy and preferential trade deal between UK and US…Even before Tuesday the chances were rather low, now the hope for this kind of deal seems delusional.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/12/eu-threatens-punish-britain-getting-close-trump/

  45. From the article:

    And he did it all while circumventing the massive media machine that worked in lockstep unison to block him at every turn. Every mainstream newspaper and television outlet — after months of gorging themselves at the profit trough of his monster ratings — shirked all pretense of covering the election fairly.

    Mr. Trump — excuse me, President-elect Trump — was smeared as a racist, xenophobic misogynist with tiny hands and a small bank account.

    Then he beat the last GOP standard-bearer among blacks and Hispanics. Even Hillary Clinton’s much ballyhooed appeal to women shrank a bit from President Obama’s levels in the past two elections. Those right there are the single most devastating statistics out of the whole election. The mainstream media has cried wolf for the last time. Nobody is listening to any of them anymore.

    The only people left believing these liars and slime artists are these melting snowflakes calling in sick and hovering in safe places under their beds — the dopes marching in the streets demanding civility as they shout threats to grab Trump by his genitals.

    Or these thug criminals beating the tar out of a Trump voter at a street intersection.

    These snowflakes need to tread very, very carefully because these kinds of wild and violent and ugly demonstrations will only strengthen President-elect Trump and his now-vocal majority.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/11/nuclear-option-trump-outsmarts-media-earns-mandate-aims-destroy-obamas-divisive-racialist-policies/

  46. Sheriff Joe lost, but at 84, he was probably not long for the office anyway. And, there’s always the next election taking place in a new political landscape. From the article:

    How Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio lost his political invincibility

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/arizonas-sheriff-joe-arpaio-lost-political-invincibility/

  47. Jim

    From the hysteria by EU leaders over the election comes this plain common sense by the British in an action that I understand was approved by the entire govt.

    “Boris Johnson has snubbed an emergency EU foreign ministers’ meeting called to discuss Donald Trump’s shock US election victory.

    A Foreign Office spokesman said that an “act of democracy” had taken place in the US and that there was no need for EU ministers to organise an extra meeting on top of the one already scheduled next week.

    It comes after Foreign Secretary Mr Johnson branded vocal European concern about the US election result as a “whinge-o-rama”, while Ms May was criticised by Labour for failing to “temper” her congratulations to the President-elect.

    A Foreign Office spokesman said: “The Foreign Secretary will not attend the meeting convened for Sunday. There is a regular Foreign Affairs Council meeting on Monday where a range of issues can be discussed in the normal way.

    “We do not see the need for an additional meeting on Sunday because of the US election.”

    tonyb

    • Too funny.

    • Tony – I read that there is some anti-EU aspect to the upcoming election in Italy. Do you know anything about that?

      • Jim

        I think you may be referring to the Italian referendum next month?

        It is basically about fiddling with the constitution in order to speed up decisions but in turn it will somewhat sideline the second house so is viewed by many as being undemocratic.

        The anti eu groups are determined to turn it into a protest vote about the failings of the eu in general but specifically about their lack of help with migrants of which Italy has taken more than their fair share since migration patterns changed after that large bribe to turkey.

        More generally the eu hierarchy are determined to make it very difficult for Britain as there are forthcoming elections in France and holland whereby the respective leaders are determined to use Brexit in order to push their own anti eu ambitions. If Italy also is seen to have become eu sceptic that will cause further problems to non elected juncker. If Britain has been seen to be cowed however, that will reduce the enthusiasm of other nations to follow us out of the lunatic asylum

        The sooner we are out of this mess the better. Joining A revamped nafta, where the words ‘free trade association’ are in the title sounds attractive on the surface. Assuming it will still exist of course.

        Tonyb

      • Tony – as others have said, Congress makes law and Trump signs it. The only thing Trump can do unilaterally is Executive Orders. Obummer did this a lot. Trump will be able to nix those early on. But any change in the law will have to be done by Congress.

      • If by ‘a lot’ you mean more than some and less than others but not all that many, you’re correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

  48. Now that the unthinkable has happened and Donald Trump has been elected President, it is likely the Clean Power Plan will be abandoned.

    The CPP was always problematic anyway because if one chooses to aggressively regulate carbon emissions and still remain within legal bounds, one must aggressively regulate all carbon emissions, not just some of them.

    The environmental activist groups are now likely to change strategy and sue the EPA demanding that the Clean Air Act be used to its full legal authority in regulating all carbon emissions, not just those of the coal-fired power plants.

    This is a strategy they refused to pursue while the Obama Administration was in power. However, if the courts side with them, nothing short of modifying the Clean Air Act could stop them.

    In any case, some years will pass before there is a final resolution to these lawsuits.

    • The New Supreme Court will be helpful in this.

    • No need to modify the CAA. Trump EPA just needs to reverse the endangerment finding, based on new/real science, especially a low climate sensitivity value. This falls well within EPA’s discretion and the Courts will defer to it. Absent endangerment, the CAA simply does not apply to CO2 emissions.

      • CAA can be amended with one sentance to exclude CO2 as a pollutant. Dem’s cannot block in the Senate because in 2013 Reid crammed through revised cloture rules. Faster and cleaner than another endangerment finding that would get court challenged. Solves CPP, does not solve WOTUS overreach. Let thatnone go to Scotus after the new justice is seated.

      • The only policy approach which could possibly achieve an 80% reduction in America’s carbon emissions by 2050 involves aggressive regulation of all sources of carbon, which implies that an endangerment finding must be written under CAA Section 108 as well as the one which has already been written under CAA Section 202.

        That avenue is now blocked. Whether the Clean Air Act is amended by the Congress to exclude CO2, as Rud Istvan suggests, or whether the CAA Section 202 finding is reversed by a new EPA administrator and a Section 108 finding is never written, the aggressive pursuit of carbon emission reductions here in America must await the election of a Democrat Congress and President, whenever it is that our fickle voters inevitably decide that the Republicans didn’t deliver on their promises.

      • The only policy approach which could possibly achieve an 80% reduction in America’s carbon emissions by 2050 involves aggressive regulation of all sources of carbon, […]

        Wrong!

        This is a watermelon l1e.

    • Unthinkable by whom?

      You disqualify you view with statements such as this. You indicate an inability to see past your own opinion. Because as the results have shown, quite a few people thought it was “thinkable”.

    • Some, or many, on the dark green side hope that Trump will side with them.
      That is not what we elected Trump to do.

      We elected Trump to trump the extreme alarmism. We elected a congress to trump the extreme alarmism. The democrats made promises and fooled too many people once, and twice, but not this third time.

  49. Judith,

    Lets try to use the opportunity afforded by the election results to minimize advocacy science

    I don’t see how you can say this and suggest that the article was superb.

    • Buck up, kennyboy. Look on the bright side. All that money being squandered on redundant global warming ‘science’ propaganda can be redirected to lavishly funding the little nerds laboring away in poverty and obscurity trying to figure out how planets are formed. We’ll need more planets when this one burns up. Right, kennyboy?

      • Charming as usual, Don Don, but that still doesn’t explain how Judith can regard the article as superb, while suggesting that maybe we have an opportunity to minimize advocacy science. It’s hard to interpret lines like this in the article

        Scientists should therefore ask themselves whether they would support policies that did what they regard as the right thing, but for the ‘wrong’ reasons.

        as arguing for a reduction in advocacy science.

      • I am not trying to explain Judith. In the grand scheme of things that article is less than a nit. Just having a little fun at your expense, kennyboy.

    • aTTP’s spot on. Jack Stilgoe and Roger Pielke Jr. are advocating that scientists end the blacklist on helping republican presidents. We all know (wink wink nudge nudge) there is no blacklist, so the article is nothing but conspiracy ideation spawned by free market mental disease as perfectly predicted by Dr. Lewandowsky.

      • Suggesting that scientists have to hold their noses to work with Trump is a revelation of the thinking even on the “skeptical” side about their side of the advocacy.

    • Of course you don’t Kenny. Because you are a liberal twit who can only see things through your special PC spectacles.

      But keep it coming. Unlike some people, clowns don’t terrify me.

  50. Pingback: They may not like it, but scientists must work with Donald Trump | Science | The Guardian – Noscibilis et Amabilis

  51. I hope Trump follows through with investments in clean coal and nuke. I don’t like clean coal, but we have to face the reality that the coal is getting burned and we cant stop it, so we should make it better. The nuke angle is to hedge against an 8.5 scenario where we need to remove CO2 from atmosphere/ocean which will require excess power capacity. Maybe that’s what we do for the startup problem with nukes… have them running at night taking CO2 out of the environment and putting it into Hades.

    • Modern coal fired power plants are already clean. Nothing dirty about CO2, which is the global food supply. The investments we need are simply new coal fired power plants, like many other countries are building.

    • Stealing CO2, plant fertilizer, from the atmosphere and placing it where it cannot make green things grow is a crime that should have severe punishment.

      • pope,

        Absolutely. Also should be punished for attempted extermination of the human race.

        Obviously, not enough CO2 to nourish photosynthesis, homo sapiens becomes extinct! These people probably deserve martyrdom, rather than worship and total obedience.

        Cheers.

    • You guys are funny. Hey, following pope’s logic, they should put the SO2 back into the coal PP exhaust because it also fertilized US farmland. Now farmers have to apply sulfur fertilizer. Look it up, it true.

      • horstweb,

        Typical GHE acolyte attempt to deny, divert, and confuse.

        Strawman. Who else but you mentioned SO2? Even though the UN FAO accepts “SO2 [sulfur dioxide] pollution may be good [as fertilizer] for plants [1979]”, I exhale CO2. It doesn’t seem to do me too much harm.

        SO2 is a different kettle of fish. Maybe you don’t understand the difference, and get CO2 and SO2 confused.

        You probably can’t understand that the GHE doesn’t exist. CO2 cannot heat anything.

        Cheers.

  52. From the article:

    “What’s happening to America?” said David Wilcox, as he showed his wounds inflicted by the mob. “You’re supposed to be able to vote in peace! It’s supposed to be part of our democracy. And what happened is, I vote for somebody, and I get beaten, robbed, and my car stolen, and I have no way of getting my wife to and from work safe anymore,” he told the Chicago Tribune’s news crew.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/11/whats-happened-to-america-trump-supporter-beaten-by-chicago-mob-speaks-out/

  53. From the article:

    Tonight, November 11th, MILO accepted the Annie Taylor Award For Bravery presented to him at the David Horowitz Restoration Weekend in Palm Beach, FL.
    Other guests of the night included BREXIT champion Nigel Farage, Dinesh D’Souza, creator of Hillary’s America, Peter Schweizer, creator of Clinton Cash, and more.

    MILO began his acceptance speech discussing his recent travels to New York City, where he attended the Donald J. Trump presidential victory party.

    “Hillary Clinton’s supporters couldn’t imagine a world in which she’d lose to Donald Trump. Look at it from their perspective — although their candidate is obviously ill, completely out of touch with the real world, an insane old megalomaniac, and surrounded by a staff curiously obsessed with cheese pizza, they thought they had this wrapped up.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/11/11/milo-awarded-david-horowitzs-restoration-weekend-palm-beach/

  54. Add to the things you don’t wear in certain black neighborhoods – Trump gear. Common sense.

    • My favorite Trump gear:

    • Who’s the racist now, Jim D? Do you draw a redline around these neighborhoods? What do you look for?

    • Do you have any examples of colored folks getting beat up in white neighborhoods for supporting Hillary? Just curious.

      • They know better than to go there. The police would be called on them, and then what happens would not be pretty.

      • They know better than to go there. The police would be called on them, […]

        Don’t be silly. I used to live in a very well-off neighborhood (not me, but most). There were plenty of people walking from the nearest bus-stop to houses and stores where they worked. Many were colored.

      • AK, they need to be wearing shirts that incite you. Perhaps a Hillary shirt would not, because she has said nothing against whites, but maybe Black Lives Matter or Black Panthers or something like that would be an equivalent. Or maybe if you lived in an even more white neighborhood where they burn crosses on the weekends.

    • Yahoo Sports? Apt?

      What’s your view if you don’t mind sharing?

      • Danny

        The first few dozen comments on the yahoo site were interesting. It seems like scientists with political views aren’t popular. Mind you I didn’t read the entire 2900 comments so perhaps the tone subsequently changed

        Tonyb

      • Tony,
        Seems like the initial post wasn’t well thought out. If they felt the need a simple respectful congrats would be fine I think. But then socially oriented pressures led to retraction and it’s after all representation of a ‘membership’.

        Maybe folks (except me of course) should just keeps their heads down for a while. IMO Trump hasn’t yet formulated a self view of President Trump. ‘The people’ have made a choice and the job is tough. Now we work together. It’s how we do it. Protests are fine as is cheering, damage is not.

        Curious to hear the views of Dr. C.

      • I like the original APS press release, although I acknowledge that using Make America Great Again was guaranteed to raise hackles

    • The initial press release used the slogan “Make America Great Again” which a lot of people see as a threat rather than a rallying cry. It was a poor choice of words by the APS. Their release clearly was written by a partisan Trumpy, and there was partisan pushback from those in the APS on the other side. The slogan was the mistake.

      • David Springer

        Wait don’t tell me. Make America Great Again is a dog whistle meaning Make America White Again, right?

      • If you say so.

      • The results of the recent election are proving that even among “scientists” there ain’t no insurance against stupid.

      • Their release clearly was written by a partisan Trumpy, […]

        Actually, it reminds me of Hillary’s:

      • So, because “alot of people” see that phrase as a threat, which is different from a rational evaluation of the phrase, it shouldn’t be allowed.

        Earth to Jim, that’s one of the reasons you lost. People are tired of catering to sensitive little snowflakes.

      • The phrase usually came at the end of speeches strewn with divisive threats to various communities, including the media. It has started to be associated with his threats by those communities. Wearing a MAGA hat in certain parts will not win friends.

      • Wearing a MAGA will not make friends.

        And apparently is also justification for assault. At least according to you.

        Wake up Jim, your description of Trump rallies is pure MSM spin. Try looking at actual evidence. It points overwhelming at the dems in trying, (and post election succeeding) to incite violence.

      • tim, I didn’t say it was justified. You would get assaulted unjustifiably in some areas, but assaulted nonetheless. Maybe you don’t think so. Try it out.

      • I have never felt threatened no matter what part of town I have been in. But then I have yet to buy into the whole victimization mindset.

        Contrast that with all the crying, the pledges to leave the country, the rioting because your side lost an election, the “What do parents tell their children” (thank you Van Jones for that over the top election night drama), the social media wailing and the ” I’m going to kill myself” videos. These are the type of losers that even Glee would have a hard time spinning positively. (For the record I loved how that show raised people at the margins or considered outcasts into role models.)

      • Well, Trump will make good comedy material both here and overseas, so that is an upside.

      • Still can’t respond to direct questions, huh Jim.

      • Was there a question in there? What do parents tell their children?

    • I am extremely offended by the withdrawal of the statement. I feel like crying and protesting and I need a safe space. To whom do I direct my complaints and feelings of anger and sadness?

    • Too funny: “endorses online polls over scientific statistically modeled polls”

      Maybe if they’d paid attention to the online polls they might have had a clue what was about to happen.

      BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHahahaa!!!!!!!!11111

  55. ==> Maybe if they’d paid attention to the online polls they might have had a clue what was about to happen. ==>

    Do you mean that he was going to lose the popular vote within the margin of error?

  56. Sorry people, there is no room for journalists.

  57. For many, CAGW is a religion. That is why skeptics are called deniers. No one is obligated to cooperate with evil. Even those who recognize that there may be some validity to skeptical views (for example, questioning climate models), can find plenty of other reasons for believing that Mr. Trump is evil.

    You might be able to recruit pragmatistic scientists by saying that Americans were given a choice between two deeply flawed candidates; now we need to make the best of one of them. Skeptics hated their voices being ignored by those in power. It would be a mistake to exclude supporters of the consensus now – or would it? Aren’t they evil too? Fortunately, the host of this blog has generally resisted the urge to personally commend individuals on the other side, despite ample provocation.

  58. Legitimize identity politics then be stunned when European-Americans vote in blocks like Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans.

    Awkward.

  59. White women determine they are voting for a president not looking for a date.

    Smart.

  60. http://www.wsj.com/video/full-hillary-clinton-concession-speech/C6005DB9-1C09-4479-A411-9B569BAC9DF2.html

    While I had some policy differences with Clinton, she can be so good. Reassuring, optimistic and thankful. What position could Trump offer her? Would this be unprecedented? It would be better than a continued battle.

  61. Is it negligent to make a billion dollars of business loss that the other taxpayers then have to forgive payments on? Is it negligent to charge people thousands for educations they didn’t receive? Is it negligent to hire someone to lead the campaign who has worked with the Russians? Et cetera. I don’t know. You tell me. Could be.

    • No. Thanks for asking!

    • Trump used a tax law issued under BILL CLINTON. There is a huge difference between keeping ones own money LEGALLY and taking money directly from the government. NOT THE SAME THING.

      • If the IRS had seen any chance of a case, they’d have challenged it.

        OTOH it is a case of double-dipping. Legal, but due to an oversight writing the code.

        Perhaps if Congress (and regulators) would spend more effort on crafting clear and logically consistent legislation, rather than horse-trading in “smoke-filled rooms”, there would be less of this.

        A case could be made that Trump earned all that money he didn’t have to pay in taxes, by exposing that flaw in the code.

        Of course, a case could be made the everybody earned the money the government takes in taxes, so it shouldn’t be taken.

      • I’m not saying people shouldn’t be taxed. I’m saying there is a difference between keeping ones own money and getting (unearned) money directly from the government.

      • Negligence was losing the money, or perhaps it was just incompetence. Anyway it cost the country a lot of tax revenue to help him recover his business losses. His write-off was 2% of the national total of NOL in those years.

      • What you’re all missing here is this wasn’t TRUMPS money that was lost.

        http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-trumps-big-tax-loss-may-not-have-been-a-cash-loss-at-all-2016-10-03

        But you fight for him being right Jim2.

      • What you’re all missing here is this wasn’t TRUMPS money that was lost.

        Nope.

        Anyway, your link says nothing like that.

      • AK,
        Do you really need you hand held and to be led?

        “The prevailing wisdom that has emerged in the past week among accounting experts is that Trump was able to use more than $900 million in paper losses to reduce his taxable income via a loophole in the code that allowed losses of private businesses registered as S-Corporations to flow to their owners, even when they didn’t put an of their OWN CASH into the companies, which is where the name double dip comes from. The tax experts Fortune contacted for this story confirmed this is likely the tactic that Trump used.” http://fortune.com/2016/10/08/donald-trump-taxes-contractors/

        In order to see, you have to look.

        You said ‘nope’. Prove it.

      • @Danny Thomas…

        You said ‘nope’. Prove it.

        Look at my comment above.

        OTOH it is a case of double-dipping. Legal, but due to an oversight writing the code.

        You said “you’re all missing here”, I didn’t miss it. You missed me saying it.

      • AK,
        Actually read and appreciated your comment w/r/t ‘taxes’ being OPM (other peoples money).

        My comment was that this wasn’t ‘taxes’, but money derived from ‘banks, investors, unpaid others (associated with bankruptcies), OPM. But in some forms the associated tax abatements would fit your comment.

        Look. I’m in no way suggesting anything nefarious. Apparently the IRS was good with the supporting documentation justifying legal handling. If so, Trump was ‘smart’.

        But to suggest that: “here is a huge difference between keeping ones own money LEGALLY and taking money directly from the government. NOT THE SAME THING.” (Jim2) is like picking the salt outta soup. It’s just wrong. (And on this I think you and I agree).

      • But to suggest that: “[t]here is a huge difference between keeping ones own money LEGALLY and taking money directly from the government. NOT THE SAME THING.” (Jim2) is like picking the salt outta soup. It’s just wrong.

        Can’t agree with you here. The government has no natural right to anybody’s money. They set up tax laws and enforce them with guns. If somebody finds a loophole in that tax law, that means he doesn’t have to deliver (as in “stand and deliver”) as much of his money to the government.

        There’s a big difference between that and taking money from the government. It may be a difference you don’t like to acknowledge, but it’s still a difference.

        Just because some people put them in the same “moral” category doesn’t make them the same. And doesn’t obligate anybody else to classify them together.

      • AK,
        Depends on how you define: “The government has no natural right to anybody’s money.” As a citizen, doesn’t one choose to abide by the laws of the land? ‘The government’, based on an impression of your assertion, has no right to exist taking to the extreme.

      • As a citizen, doesn’t one choose to abide by the laws of the land?

        Or change or overthrow them. As happened on the 8th.

        ‘The government’, based on an impression of your assertion, has no right to exist taking to the extreme.

        “Government” has no right to exist. Period. End of sentence.

        People have a right to let a government exist, to replace it, or to remove it.

        The essence of that right is enshrined in the “Declaration of Independence”.

      • AK
        You might be correct about it being an oversight given the massive size of the tax code. However there are thousands of lobbyists in DC engaged in thousands of meetings to influence the most minute language in every piece of legislation. So we don’t know for sure.

        I wa involved in crafting language associated with our annual state agency budget. Many individuals and interests were tasked with ensuring that the language was precise and reflecting legislative intent. All of it was
        run past the appropriate legislators in great detail with the same attention as the numbers. There were occasional errors but given the thousands of pages produced each year with the budget, it is remarkable how few.

      • However there are thousands of lobbyists in DC engaged in thousands of meetings to influence the most minute language in every piece of legislation. So we don’t know for sure.

        IIRC the law was amended to block such things a few months later. I’ll take that as an indicator to go along with.

      • Negligence was losing the money, or perhaps it was just incompetence.

        Wrong!

      • Danny

        What is your opinion on the giant American corporations such as Google and Apply who organise their affairs in such a way that they do not pay tax in the countries in which they operate?

        Shielding their money in this manner is estimated to cost the UK some $50Billion a year in lost tax revenue.

        The money is also shielded from the US govt in as much it never goes ‘home’ in the form of corporation tax.

        tonyb

      • Tony,

        Ugh. These are multinational corporations. As long as they abide by the laws of the land so be it.

        In your case, from what I gather from readings, laws were followed and the gov’t decided after the fact that they weren’t satisfied. Please correct if inaccurate.

        Using the trickle down theory, they are subject to taxation (indirect) via their sales and employees & VAT’s where applicable. Property taxes are in play also.

        As I understand it, a part of Trumps plan to pare our debt is in fact via similar methods. He plans to cut taxes to the ‘elite’ whom it’s presumed will create jobs and increase gdp. Taxation of the increase in incomes (new jobs created) will then be utilized.

        This is one area I’d like both sides to modify. IMO we should try a base of taxes offset by proven commitment by corporations to actually reinvest as opposed to a wink and a nod that ‘trickle down’ will actually occur. Incentives, not punishment.

        Specifically Apples reportedly has $200B cash on hand. Incentives should be created to put those resources to work, but how to do so w/o greater regulation and interference is above my pay grade. Stevereincarnated or Cerescokid would be much better input.

        What are your thoughts?

      • Danny, yes, most, maybe 99%, of the money Trump lost was borrowed. Then through this arcane law he claims the tax benefit on that full loss, not just his share of it. Later when his business went public, the shares cratered, and his investors lost again and he didn’t lose much. He is a serial loser of other people’s money in that respect.

      • JimD,
        That’s basically how I understand things occurred.

        But being a ‘loser’ isn’t illegal.

      • “In the comeback, he probably booked untold tens of millions in real cash savings on his taxes, cash he could put in his pocket, which was generated by cash that Trump essentially took out of the pockets of his suppliers. Those creditors were the ones who really had the money at risk, not Trump. And as so often in the Trumpian universe, the folks who funded him and, in some cases supplied the brawn and brick that built his empire, were the ones who lost out, while the Donald won.”

        Trump did not pay his suppliers in full. 30 cents on the dollar perhaps. What did their tax returns show? Less income > less income tax paid. If bad enough, a loss carryforward. Whether or not Trump did this or that on his tax return, they saw the same thing anyone with business losses sees. He didn’t take their losses away from them.

        I don’t know what they are saying in the first sentence of the quote. Later he has a carry forward loss which saves him money. He put that money in his pocket, or rather he earned it and just left it there. But how could that be ‘essentially’ the money he never paid his suppliers? First he doesn’t pay his suppliers, so yes he has their money. Then he rests for a year. Then he makes some more money. That money he then made seems to have little to do with what he never paid his suppliers. So when he keeps what he would’ve had to pay in taxes for income earned later how can that be the suppliers money as Fortune contends?

        This Trumpian universe was created by the establishment. Recognizing the universe’s properties is a good thing.

        “Generally, if you exclude canceled debt from income under one of the exclusions listed above, you must reduce certain tax attributes (certain credits and carryovers, losses and carryovers, basis of assets, etc.) (but not below zero) by the amount excluded. You must attach to your tax return a Form 982, Reduction of Tax Attributes Due to Discharge of Indebtedness (and Section 1082 Basis Adjustment), to report the amount qualifying for exclusion and any corresponding reduction of those tax attributes. For cancellation of qualified principal residence indebtedness that you exclude from income, you must only reduce your basis in your principal residence.”

        The IRS currently says, do accounting that makes some kind of sense. The above says, you can exclude cancellation of debt income but you sometimes do an offset to balance things out. Your basis can be reduced. Less basis means more gain or less loss.

        Rookie Tully writes,
        “Trump was able to use more than $900 million in paper losses to reduce his taxable income via a loophole in the code that allowed losses of private businesses registered as S-Corporations to flow to their owners, even when they didn’t put an of their own cash into the companies, which is where the name double dip comes from.”

        I don’t know where the term double dip comes from. But it does not come from the rules related to S-Corporations and shareholders basis.

        If he borrowed the money, and lost it, he would be able to take a loss until they changed the law.

        It was correct to change the law in 2002. Under the old rules, do this:
        Make an S-Corporation.
        Have it borrow $100 million.
        Lose it all.
        Take a $100 million loss as Trump did.
        Don’t pay back the loans.
        Your S-Corporation has a negative $100 million net worth.
        Wait for them to cancel the debt.
        Exclude that income as it is the same amount or less than your corporation’s negative net worth.
        You get a $100 million NOL carry forward.
        It can be very valuable.

        Under current law do this:
        Don’t have a positive net worth.
        Get 10 credit cards.
        Spend $100,000 on the cards in Vegas.
        Never pay any credit card balances.
        Wait for them to cancel the debts and send you 1099s.
        Tell your tax tax guy your finances.
        Exclude all the debt forgiven from being taxed.
        It’s called the insolvency exclusion.

      • Ragnaar,

        Thanks for detailed layout.

        Could alternatively be called, ‘taking’. But that is not as comfortable for ‘the narrative’ that only ‘the poor’ are takers.

  62. It is way past time to get totally rid of the term “social cost of carbon”

    The old term, before alarmism, and the now new term is:

    “THE SOCIAL BENEFIT OF CARBON”
    Lawyers should find expert witnesses who testify as to the benefits of carbon and the robustness of the natural climate cycles.

    There should be no more saying that there is anything bad about carbon energy.
    Carbon energy pulled people from the dark ages and propelled them around the world, under the seas and into space.

  63. carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a crime, it is stealing fertilizer from the air that would have made green plants grow better while using less water. Lawyers should find expert witnesses who would testify to this.

    People who commit this crime should be punished. The EPA, that enforced this crime should be dismantled and restructured to answer more to the states.

    People who grow green things should sue the people who steal CO2.

  64. Here’s a bit of depressing news. What could a Trump admin, along with a Redimowit controlled Congress, do about this? From the article:

    Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change

    Written by
    SARAH EMERSON
    CONTRIBUTING EDITOR
    November 11, 2016 // 01:20 PM EST
    COPY THIS URL
    A bright speck of climate news was quickly overshadowed by the presidential election this week—America’s children have officially won the right to sue their government over global warming.

    Yesterday, a lawsuit filed by 21 youth plaintiffs was ruled valid by US District Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon. A group of citizens, whose ages range from nine to 20, charged President Obama, the fossil fuel industry, and other federal agencies with violating their constitutional rights by declining to take action against climate change.

    “Federal courts too often have been cautious and overly deferential in the arena of environmental law, and the world has suffered for it,” wrote Judge Aiken in her ruling.

    Along with renowned climate scientist James Hansen, who in 1988 pleaded with Congress to consider the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions, the youth group was applauded by activists who saw their lawsuit as a much-needed beacon of hope for future generations. In it, the plaintiffs accused the US government and energy trade industries of endangering their rights to life, liberty, property, and to vital public trust resources.

    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/kids-win-the-right-to-sue-the-us-government-over-climate-change

    • What could a Trump admin, along with a Redimowit controlled Congress, do about this?

      What they’re already doing: appoint and approve a strict constructionist to the Supreme Court.

      For that matter, this was probably brought as a “sue&settle” initiative. If the president requires the government lawyers to vigorously pursue the case, it’ll probably vanish.

  65. Obama is still getting as many Muslims as he can to the US. Has anyone heard about this one?

    TURNBULL and Obama Government officials are racing to begin resettling refugees in the United States before the incoming Trump administration can halt the deal between the two countries.

    Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has ordered the biggest peacetime border protection operation in Australian history to deter people smugglers after the US agreed to accept refugees currently held on Nauru and Manus Island.

    The agreement will see women, children, family groups and other vulnerable refugees assessed for residency in the United States.

    US Homeland Security officials are expected to arrive in Australia within days to begin arranging health and security checks.

    Mr Turnbull yesterday publicly thanked President Barack Obama for agreeing to the one-off deal, but was unable to say if incoming president Donald Trump would honour the agreement after he was sworn in on January 20.

    Mr Trump has previously called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration to the US and many of the 1,145 asylum seekers on Nauru and 958 on Manus are Muslims.

    http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/race-to-resettle-refugees-in-us-before-deal-is-overturned-by-presidentelect-donald-trump/news-story/9b9b8f1ff32b3e691565b3d3b6fdcb31

  66. Good luck with that Dr Curry. Acceptance is a word to those on the left, not a concept.

  67. Here’s some good news. Let China spend ITS money on wasteful renewable energy programs. Lead on, China! Lead the way. If you develop something that works, then WE can steal it from YOU!! :)
    From the article:

    The election of climate change skeptic Donald Trump as president is likely to end the U.S. leadership role in the international fight against global warming and may lead to the emergence of a new and unlikely champion: China.

    China worked closely with the administration of outgoing President Barack Obama to build momentum ahead of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. The partnership of the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters helped get nearly 200 countries to support the pact at the historic meet in France’s capital.

    By contrast, Trump has called global warming a hoax created by China to give it an economic advantage and said he plans to remove the United States from the historic climate agreement, as well as reverse many of Obama’s measures to combat climate change.

    He has appointed noted climate change skeptic Myron Ebell to help lead transition planning for the Environmental Protection Agency, which has crafted the administration’s major environmental regulations such as the Clean Power Plan and efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/11/trump-win-opens-way-for-china-to-take-climate-leadership-role.html

  68. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #248 | Watts Up With That?

  69. “The APS received so many complaints that it felt compelled to retract it and issue an apology.”

    That is infuriating. Stand your ground, goddammit! You have two choices, you respect the office of president and the person occupying it, or you respect only the office. It is not acceptable for an important national scientific organization to do neither. You disrespect The People when you disrespect the office.

  70. And to think they could instead be working with this ideological and temperamental soul-mate:

    REPORT: Hillary Clinton Became PHYSICALLY VIOLENT on Election Night and Tore Into Robby Mook and John Podesta

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s