Week in review – science and policy edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Analysis of 1930s ‘Dust Bowl’ drought finds heat waves were preconditioned by unusually dry springs [link]

538 by Gavin Schmidt: Why We Don’t Know If It Will Be Sunny Next Month But We Know It’ll Be Hot All Year [link]

Over 200 years of deadly London air: smogs, fogs, and pea soupers [link]

When climate change meets sprawl: Houston’s flooding problem [link]

Hudson Bay could be ice-free in winter within 5-10 years, says seal researcher [link] …

Greenland ice sheet less stable than previously thought [link]

During last warming period, Antarctica heated up 2 to 3 times more than planet average [link]

Extreme rainfall risks could triple in the U.S. under climate change, scientists warn [link] …

This is cool:  Time lapse of land use change and natural variation. [link]

Why do climate models disagree on the size of global temperature variability? [link]

Large differences in regional precipitation change between a first and second 2K of global warming.  [link] …

New ROV sets out to explore deep sea vents. [link]

New #JClimate modeling study projects changes to #ElNino & related tropical circulation & precip as #climate warms: [link]

This paper in Science says cosmic ray variability not affecting climate. [link]  …

Tornado swarms are on the rise, but don’t blame climate change [link]

Brazil’s Amazon #deforestation grows 29% in a year, 7,989 square kilometers of forest cover removed http://xhne.ws/6QxtA

Scientists just affirmed a major (and long feared) climate feedback involving the Earth’s soils [link]

Check out great research from @dougwbird on burning & biodiversity [link]

#Urbanization & anthropogenic #aerosols affect characteristics of E. Asian #summermonsoon. See new #JClimate paper: [link]

New @NatureClimate study on island freshwater stress [link]

Bird poop helps cool the Arctic in summer, new study finds [link]

Precipitation, temperature, and moisture transport variations associated with two distinct ENSO flavors… [link]

A key glacier in Antarctica is breaking apart from the inside out, suggesting that the ocean is weakening ice [link]

Great collection of toy climate related models w/ extensive documentation: from @airscottdenning [link]

Nice blog from Michael Grose on regional temp change + variability [link] …

Scientists find huge reduction in African dust plume led to more Saharan monsoons 11,000 years ago. [link]

What’s behind the record low Antarctic sea ice (which was at record highs 2 yrs ago): [link]…

An interesting newcomer to the public discussion of arctic sea ice; fabulous visualizations and good insights [link]

ARCTIC CRISIS: Loss of sea ice, changes to tundra: Study says Arctic faces 19 tipping points [link] …

Speedy Antarctic drills start hunt for Earth’s oldest ice [link]  …

Analysis: Atlantic hurricane season is growing longer: [link]

Environment Canada tests new supercomputer to forecast weather [link]

Policy and social sciences

Link between #climatechange and Syria’s war is nonlinear, so let’s not oversimplify. [link]

Ronald Bailey:  Energy poverty is much worse for the poor than climate change [link]

Navigating Complexity: Climate, Migration, and Conflict [link] …

Outdated USDA regs can block sustainable farm practices – this HAS to change. [link] …

Hefty paper argues for more social science in conservation science, [link] …

Arctic Ecosystems and their Services Under Changing Climate: Predictive-Modeling Assessment [link]

From Richard Muller: How does climate change affect your personal life plans? [link]

New report helping to build a fuller picture of the climate effects of biofuel feedstock production – [link]

The Corn Ethanol mandate has been an environmental disaster, & IMHO, the worst environmental policy in U.S. history [link]

About science and scientists

Academic freedom and authority are fundamentally about responsibilities. [link]

Free Speech is the Most Effective Antidote to Hate Speech [link] …

The Politics of Data: The rising prominence of a data-centric approach to scientific research. [link]

‘Some were on the verge of tears’: Scientists outraged by ’sexist’ banquet joke at Arctic conference [link]

“The Not-Talking Cure”: the student journalist and the student terrorist. [link]

Why Scientists Are Scared of Trump: A Pocket Guide [link]…

It’s time for researchers to challenge scientific falsehoods and misinformation on the Internet [link]

From Kevin Folta: A new low. When you can’t silence scientists, scare the media from interacting with them. [link] …

The death of facts:  the emperor’s new epistemology [link]

Sharing & discussion of scientific work has changed drastically in a world of blogs, online repositories & Twitter. [link] …

 

453 responses to “Week in review – science and policy edition

  1. I suspect the arctic banquet joke was even worse for specifying vegetarian women. If this type thing is to be prevented the answer will be no jokes.

    • Uphold unalienable free speech and conscience, with civility
      The best solution to “hate speech” is upholding our unalienable right to FREE Speech – as preserved by the First Amendment.
      Correspondingly we need to appeal for combining vigorous debate wtih public Civility, NOT fascist coercion. See Os Guiness’ on The Case for CIvility: And Why Our Future Depends on It.

      In a world torn apart by religious extremism on the one side and a strident secularism on the other, no question is more urgent than how we live with our deepest differences—especially our religious and ideological differences. The Case for Civility is a proposal for restoring civility in America as a way to foster civility around the world. Influential Christian writer and speaker Os Guinness makes a passionate plea to put an end to the polarization of American politics and culture that—rather than creating a public space for real debate—threatens to reverse the very principles our founders set into motion and that have long preserved liberty, diversity, and unity in this country.

      Guinness takes on the contemporary threat of the excesses of the Religious Right and the secular Left, arguing that we must find a middle ground between privileging one religion over another and attempting to make all public expression of faith illegal. If we do not do this, Guinness contends, Western civilization as we know it will die. Always provocative and deeply insightful, Guinness puts forth a vision of a new, practical “civil and cosmopolitan public square” that speaks not only to America’s immediate concerns but to the long-term interests of the republic and the world.
      ― Os Guinness, The Case for Civility

      • David Springer

        Looks like screechy climate alarmism hopped on a hyperbolic bullet train and Curry’s got a ticket to ride.

        Unconscious or conscious attempt to contain the huge downsizing of climate science due to calm grown ups taking control of US government?

        Funny stuff either way. Just thinking about Scott Pruitt, the lead denier state attorney general of the 28 who’ve been suing the face off the EPA, becoming the head of the EPA is a laugh riot nonpareil.

        Hard to believe, isn’t it? I love it so!

  2. This paper in Science says cosmic ray variability not affecting climate.

    Possibly the death of a beautiful theory, once again slain by the ugly fact. The CERN people managed to lower the temperature to troposphric levels of 208 K (compared to the previous Kirkby et al level of 248 K) and found particle formation greatly increased, but the fraction due to ions remains quite low.

    • That theory was meant to be killed from day one.

      We know that cosmic rays depend 10 to 1 on the Earth’s magnetic field variations versus solar magnetic field variations. And climate variations don’t look at all as variations of the geomagnetic dipole.

      Cosmic Rays followed the upper curve, while most people managed to deceive themselves into thinking that they had followed the bottom picture.

      Now if somebody can show me a climate image that looks like the top picture I might start to understand Svensmark hypothesis. But if clouds were clearly not responding to the 10 times bigger changes in cosmic rays caused by the dipole why on Earth would they respond to the 10 times smaller changes caused by solar variability?

    • One new paper does not invalidate many others.

      • One new paper does not invalidate many others.

        Please provide links to “many others” which demonstrate that cosmic ray variability is affecting climate?

        Thank you.

  3. Standard Models are the consequences of a failed attempt to save the world from nuclear annihilation.

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Truth_or_Consequences.pdf

  4. “Handling Political Harassment and Legal Intimidation: a Pocket Guide for Scientists”

    Dr. Curry, I’m guessing you were not consulted by the authors about your experience.
    Any tips?

  5. Gavin Schmidt –

    “To summarize, some key climate statistics are easily predictable far beyond the scales at which weather forecasts are skillful”.

    Yes, yes, Gavin. I predict that winter will be colder than summer, the Sun will come up tomorrow, and you’ll continue to be an undistinguished mathematician claiming to be a climate scientist (whatever you’re defining that to be at the moment).

    Any fool can predict key climate statistics, and many frequently do. And to what effect? Precisely none. Let’s have a contest –

    Gavin –

    “Specifically, using data through July, I am predicting 1.25 degrees Celsius (plus or minus 0.09 degrees Celsius), and a better than 99 percent chance of a record.”

    Me –

    I’ll rely on the Flying Fickle Finger of Flynn –

    I am predicting 1.1937 degrees Celsius – I’m so confident I don’t need a margin for error, unlike wussy climatologists. Or a silly percentage giving a way out, if it turns out Gavin’s guess is wrong. When I climb on a plane, I assume a probability of 100% that it won’t fall out of the sky with me in it.

    Who would accept a 99% chance of survival? Climatologists, apparently. It’s good enough for them!

    I’ll even accept Gavin’s adjusted, massaged, kriged, interpolated or otherwise fabricated number. If I’m within say, one degree of Gavin’s prediction, I’ll expect a grovelling apology from GHE supporters who claim that there is any science needed to predict a completely useless number a whole month in advance.

    Actually, a month and a bit, but who wants to be picky?

    Talk about putting a bet on when the horses are about to cross the finishing line! It all seems like a desperate attempt at *ss covering. At least he’s stopped talking about scenarios or projections. Back to naive persistence forecasts – following a trend. Good luck with that. You’ll do wonderfully well, until the next turn in the road comes up.

    Cheers.

    • The tedious trend continues as predicted, despite not knowing the future

      • John Carpenter,

        Thank you for taking the time to read my most informative and authoritative comments.

        I appreciate your feedback, and agree that the future is unknowable (being the future, and all).

        If you accidentally stumble across a fact, maybe you could share it with any Wandering Wayward Warmist in your vicinity.

        Cheers.

      • John Carpenter

        I’ll share this with everyone… Fact: Flynn will continue commenting flawed ideas here at CE for the foreseeable future, despite the future being unknowable. The trend will continue. Please do proceed Mike Flynn.

      • I’m hoping President Trump selects Mike Flynn to be his science advisor. They’re a match made in heaven.

  6. Pope Francis better be ready for the list of climate questions from the Trump administration.

  7. Pingback: Week in review – science and policy edition – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  8. “Analysis of 1930s ‘Dust Bowl’ drought finds heat waves were preconditioned by unusually dry springs”

    Were the dry Springs pre-conditioners, or were they caused by the same circulation patterns that persisted through the Summer? And how would one distinguish?

    • Where I grew up we got about 22 inches of precipitation a year, most of it in the winter. So snow data would be one place.

      • No doubt changes in precipitation change energy budgets, but synoptic weather features migrate around the globe. I have difficulty imagining that a dry spring prevents waves from passing over the Great Plains.

        I think it’s more likely that the same lack of storm track that caused the dry spring persisted through the summer. But this was before even RAOBs so it’s difficult to say.

  9. Analysis of 1930s ‘Dust Bowl’ drought finds heat waves were preconditioned by unusually dry springs [link]

    For most of the 1930’s, there we no El Niño events.

    • Well, there probably was some kind of circulation change, but ENSO may not be the place to look. Here’s the extended MEI. Bad Dust Bowl years were 1930, 1934, 1936, and 1939. Could say there were La Ninas going into ’34 and ’39, but ’30 and ’36 weren’t La Ninas:

      • Bob Tisdale made a standard ONI index for the period before 1950. From memory, he showed an EL Niño ending in 1931; 2 La Niña events during the decade; and, an El Niño in 1940-1941. I can’t find it right now.

  10. Another article that fits with some of these. Climate Change Denial And The Rise Of Authoritarianism.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralf-michaels/climate-change-denial-and_b_13547636.html

    • Government regulation is Authoritarianism.

      The founding father, Alexis De Tocqueville, and Hayek warned us of this, but we seem to continue to seek it.

      • Authoritarianism is individual power, not what we have had so far for regulations. That is not to say that an authoritarian can’t add his own regulations too, and I am sure Trump will.

      • What Hayek wrote about was the tendency for socialism to lead to fascism.

        Certainly when fascists take charge of everything they necessarily take charge of dispensing social functions, so fascism leads to socialism.

        But the converse may also be true: as more things are done for the public good, like Saving the Planet, the greater the erosion of individual liberty, and the more authoritarian the state becomes in enforcing the social order. That’s why we’ve got police arresting parents for letting their kids play unattended in parks.

      • “Authoritarianism is individual power”

        Wrong.

      • > Government regulation is Authoritarianism. The founding father, Alexis De Tocqueville, and Hayek warned us of this, but we seem to continue to seek it.

        Or it could be that Austrian school economics simply doesn’t scale much beyond the Frontier West boomtown level, TE.

        I do agree with you that Tocqueville wasn’t big on Nanny States for reasons against which I have difficulty arguing.

      • T Eddie,

        ‘Government Regulation is Authoritarian.’

        -Yer can say that again! (Serf blog post pending.)

      • Beth, I humbly defer to you on the Road to Serfdom.

      • Authoritarianism is the opposite of democracy. It cedes power to those who don’t have to be elected or have sham elections. Usually the power resides in one person and their close clique. This has nothing to do with regulation unless they impose their own.

      • Here is authoritarianism in Trump’s interview on Fox. He admires how China can build coal plants quickly. They do this by trampling on local people, but never mind. Their needs would be just “regulations”.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-climate-change_us_584d5cf2e4b0bd9c3dfd3473

      • Have to say that having your own dictionary is a great tool for supporting your arguments and positions Jim.

        Lets you inform us that Authoritarianism is only an individual trait.

      • Curious George

        Autoritarianism is not an individual power. It is a bureaucratic power. A famous joke about a Party Secretary explaining a decision: Of course I don’t forbid you to sing your song. On the other hand, I can’t permit it either.

      • An unelected oligarchical bureaucratic power, if not an individual.

      • Curious George

        It is a question of a methodology. In a free world, anything is allowed unless explicitly forbidden. In an authoritotarian world, everything is forbidden unless explicitly allowed.

      • Trump is building his cabinet with people who are as far removed from ordinary Americans as you can imagine, many not even needing a government salary. They, including Trump, may not like the constraints of a job where the expertise is below them in the ranks of the long-serving civil servants. I think that the government is more bottom-up than top-down when it comes to listening to expertise for decisions.

      • Curious George

        Jim D – I fear you may be right. Unfortunately, B. Hussein Obama’s administration did not give us much more than the Black Lives Matter movement. I would like to feel that other lives matter as well. My life, or a policeman’s life.

      • Curious George

        Why is it wrong to work for the government for a symbolic $1.00/year salary?

      • BLM was more a response to some high-profile police shooting cases than anything Obama did or said. It could have happened under any presidency, but having more cameras around led to this uptick in realization. Hopefully even more cameras, body cameras on the police officers, will help. We’ll see.

      • Curious George

        Jim D you would rather live in a world where everything is forbidden unless explicitly allowed. I had to. I don’t want to go back to dark ages.

      • “Jim D you would rather live in a world where everything is forbidden unless explicitly allowed.”

        A Left wing affectation which is precisely the legal code in the EU, and one of the reasons why we British voted out of it.

        Funny how authoritarians like Jim D absolutely LOVE regimes like that – until they end up on the wrong end of them, of course.

      • They, including Trump, may not like the constraints of a job where the expertise is below them in the ranks of the long-serving civil servants. I think that the government is more bottom-up than top-down when it comes to listening to expertise for decisions.

        Good managers know how to listen. Do you know what the standard term in business is for when you’re subject to somebody’s supervision?

        You report to them. All of the CEO’s and other high-level business managers Mr. Trump’s bringing in know how to listen to their subordinates. So does he.

        They listen, then they decide. From what I’ve heard about him, Trump likes his subordinates to argue their departmental agendas against one another, then he decides.

        My guess is that the Obama “Presidency” has devolved into an imperial-style court: status is demonstrated by how much of the president’s time you can monopolize, whether there’s any need for it or not.

        I also suspect the current President doesn’t have a very good memory, and needs to be reminded of the entire national intelligence status every morning, lest he forget.

        I can certainly see why the CIA top people are uncomfortable with Mr. Trumps intended system. They’ll just have to get used to it. It suggests to me that the Trump presidency will be run by the president rather than a cabal of “advisors”.

      • CG asks “Why is it wrong to work for the government for a symbolic $1.00/year salary?”
        It is not wrong as long as they take on the job seriously and full-time even without pay and not just as a hobby. It is different from what they have been doing in many ways, so it will be a tough adjustment. They have to work with limited budgets and are not driven by making profits. They also have to know that they serve all the American people. This requires a different mindset.

      • It is different from what they have been doing in many ways, so it will be a tough adjustment.

        Wrong!

        They have to work with limited budgets and are not driven by making profits.

        Most departments within a large corporation have to work “with limited budgets”. Many are not driven by profits at a departmental level. (One of the worst mistakes a CEO can make, IMO, is to let a department be turned into a “profit center” when it shouldn’t.)

        Profits operate at a corporate level (and often in the future), so goals and milestones aren’t really that different from a large bureaucratic government.

        They also have to know that they serve all the American people.

        Not that different.

        Many departments in a large corporation serve the corporation as a whole, rather than being expected to make a profit as a department. It’s not that different to serve the needs a a number of businesses.

        There are differences, of course. But most of those are at the level of policy: actually running a large organization is pretty similar whether business, military, or government bureaucracy.

      • CG, the world I would like is one of laws that include those that protect the safety of the people against profiteers who don’t care about pollution, the environment, or the safety of their products or workers. What’s to argue against that?

      • Trump’s decisionmaking has been suspect, leading to billions of dollars of loss for his investors over the years and fraud cases by thousands of people victimized by him.

      • “Trump’s decisionmaking has been suspect, leading to billions of dollars of loss for his investors over the years and fraud cases by thousands of people victimized by him.”

        Bollocks.

      • His stock is today worth 6.5 cents and has flatlined because no one buys any anymore. He got most of his loans from overseas in the last decade or so probably due to his poor credit ratings. He’s no Apple or Google, for sure.

      • AK, even in your terms, it is a demotion of a CEO to be just another department head sharing a government budget. That itself is a big adjustment.

      • “Authoritarianism is individual power, not what we have had so far for regulations.”

        Methinks you are confusing figureheads with authoritarianism. Sure Francoist Spain (alternatively and more historically called Nationalist Spain) had Francisco Franco as the leader of Nationalist Spain, but the generalissimo had the Falange, the Alfonsine and Carlist monarchies and most of the Catholic clergy behind him. Together they made up what would be accurately called “authoritarianism”…as just one example.

        South Africa under apartheid would be another example, or King Salman of Saudi Arabia how has the Council of Political and Security Affairs and the Council for Economic Development Affairs to help bind the Suderi faction regime.

      • “CG, the world I would like is one of laws that include those that protect the safety of the people against profiteers who don’t care about pollution, the environment, or the safety of their products or workers. What’s to argue against that?”

        Plenty. The law will no more protect the safety of the people than will the law of gravity protect people from the consequences of jumping off a cliff. What the law can do is offer remedy for injurious actions. The trick you have to master Jim, is demonstrating your really very very scary climate change is injurious and then demonstrate that someone or some group knowingly caused that injury.

      • Since Turbulent Eddie mentioned Alexis De Tocqueville’s concerns about gummint regulations being authoritarian, I looked into it. He speaks more of despotism and tyranny being the killer of free societies. Witness:

        http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/detoc/ch2_04.htm

        DESPOTISM which by its nature is suspicious, sees in the separation among men the surest guarantee of its continuance, and it usually makes every effort to keep them separate. No vice of the human heart is so acceptable to it as selfishness: a despot easily forgives his subjects for not loving him, provided they do not love one another. He does not ask them to assist him in governing the state; it is enough that they do not aspire to govern it themselves. He stigmatizes as turbulent and unruly spirits those who would combine their exertions to promote the prosperity of the community; and, perverting the natural meaning of words, he applauds as good citizens those who have no sympathy for any but themselves.

        […]

        I may here be met by an objection derived from electioneering, intrigues, the meanness of candidates, and the calumnies of their opponents. These are occasions of enmity which occur the oftener the more frequent elections become. Such evils are doubtless great, but they are transient; whereas the benefits that attend them remain. The desire of being elected may lead some men for a time to violent hostility; but this same desire leads all men in the long run to support each other; and if it happens that an election accidentally severs two friends, the electoral system brings a multitude of citizens permanently together who would otherwise always have remained unknown to one another. Freedom produces private animosities, but despotism gives birth to general indifference.

        http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/detoc/1_ch18.htm

        It may be foreseen even now that when the Americans lose their republican institutions they will speedily arrive at a despotic government, without a long interval of limited monarchy Montesquieu remarked that nothing is more absolute than the authority of a prince who immediately succeeds a republic, since the indefinite powers that had fearlessly been entrusted to an elected magistrate are then transferred to a hereditary sovereign. This is true in general, but it is more peculiarly applicable to a democratic republic. In the United States the magistrates are not elected by a particular class of citizens, but by the majority of the nation; as they are the immediate representatives of the passions of the multitude and are wholly dependent upon its pleasure, they excite neither hatred nor fear; hence, as I have already shown, very little care has been taken to limit their authority, and they are left in possession of a vast amount of arbitrary power. This state of things has created habits that would outlive itself; the American magistrate would retain his indefinite power, but would cease to be responsible for it; and it is impossible to say what bounds could then be set to tyranny.

        It seems rather NOT like my experience of the United States at present, but then again we didn’t have the benefit of the Internets in the 1830s to enhance interpersonal animosities.

        It’s also interesting to note that in Tocqueville’s view, demagoguery and aristocracy were mainly European problems … but problems nonetheless.

      • > The trick you have to master Jim, is demonstrating your really very very scary climate change is injurious and then demonstrate that someone or some group knowingly caused that injury.

        You don’t think pollution damages the environment or otherwise causes injury, Jean Paul?

      • “You don’t think pollution damages the environment or otherwise causes injury, Jean Paul?”

        If you set light to a strawman as big as that Gates, I’m sure it would cause global warming.

        Carbon dioxide – which is the substance under discussion – is not a pollutant despite whatever you alarmist crackpots may have to say on the subject, very much the opposite in fact, if NASA’s recent paper on global greening is to believed.

        You just can’t help yourself, can you?

      • “You don’t think pollution damages the environment or otherwise causes injury, Jean Paul?”

        Brandon,

        I don’t think you’ve come anywhere close to demonstrating beyond a shadow of doubt that Co2 is a pollutant.

      • “I don’t think you’ve come anywhere close to demonstrating beyond a shadow of doubt that Co2 is a pollutant.”

        Dang, I was attempting to re-write that when I wound up somehow posting.

        Better said:

        I don’t think you’ve come anywhere near demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that Co2 at its current levels or at levels projected for the next hundred years is a pollutant.

      • David Springer

        Jim D | December 11, 2016 at 6:28 pm |

        “His stock is today worth 6.5 cents and has flatlined because no one buys any anymore.”

        Ok, I’ll bite. Where did you get a price quote for stock in a private corporation owned by one single individual?

        https://www.google.com/finance?cid=2566634

        Your stock just took a big nosedive with that brain fart about Trump “stock”.

      • “Where did you get a price quote for stock in a private corporation owned by one single individual?”

        The usual place Jimbo gets his information from, out of his back passage, where else?

      • It cedes power to those who don’t have to be elected

        Like the EPA?

      • Stock code TRMP. Look it up. Actually less than 6.2 cents.

      • “Stock code TRMP. Look it up. Actually less than 6.2 cents.”

        Hmmm…

        OK… Let’s try that…

        Yahoo finance: CHART UNAVAILABLE

        Stockcharts.com: Unable to find ticker symbol TRMP.
        Please make sure the symbol is valid.

        Heh, you’re making stuff up again, Jimbo.

        You really can’t help yourself, can you?

      • Trump Entertainment Resorts. Not surprisingly it tanked in the 90’s and that was it for his Wall Street cred. It was his attempt to borrow from the public. The public lost.

      • > I don’t think you’ve come anywhere near demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that Co2 at its current levels or at levels projected for the next hundred years is a pollutant.

        Nor do I think I’ll ever be able to do so “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, Jean Paul. For one thing, I don’t have any control whatsoever over what people don’t doubt. Thus, I don’t attempt to burden myself with demonstrating such subjectively-defined, if not impossible, standards of “proof”.

        Let’s read JimD’s comment again:

        CG, the world I would like is one of laws that include those that protect the safety of the people against profiteers who don’t care about pollution, the environment, or the safety of their products or workers. What’s to argue against that?

        CO2 was NOT *explicitly* named as a “pollutant” in his statement, was it.

        Let’s try this again: You don’t think pollution damages the environment or otherwise causes injury?

      • “Nor do I think I’ll ever be able to do so “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, Jean Paul. For one thing, I don’t have any control whatsoever over what people don’t doubt. Thus, I don’t attempt to burden myself with demonstrating such subjectively-defined, if not impossible, standards of “proof”.”

        Brandon,

        Perhaps you missed, or have since forgotten the point I was making to Jim D., which was a point of law. Under Rule 702 – Testimony by Expert Witnesses – of the Federal Rules of Evidence:

        “Consistently with Kumho, the Rule as amended provides that all types of expert testimony present questions of admissibility for the trial court in deciding whether the evidence is reliable and helpful. Consequently, the admissibility of all expert testimony is governed by the principles of Rule 104(a). Under that Rule, the proponent has the burden of establishing that the pertinent admissibility requirements are met by a preponderance of the evidence.”

        And:

        ““Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.”

        That’s under the assumption of what has been admitted as evidence. Since we’re merely assuming, it is not so implausible to assume that plenty of the evidence presented at the outset will be successfully challenged and not admitted.

      • Okay Brandon,

        Let’s try this again:

        “CO2 was NOT *explicitly* named as a “pollutant” in his statement, was it.”

        Let us consider Week and Review Science and Policy edition 12-10-16
        to be the trial, and Jim D., to be one of the expert witnesses in that trial (I understand some of you will want to guffaw at this consideration, but try none-the-less to go with it). His expert testimony is specifically in regards to “climate science” even if the testimony veers from that specific.

        Context is everything. This is why more than just I challenged your question as implicitly referring to Co2 as a pollutant. Because context is everything.

      • The sub-thread started with authoritarianism and then someone said they don’t need regulations, so that was my response that you do. They never came back.

      • “They never came back.”

        Jim;

        Who never came back?

      • It was addressed to CG, so I guess I was answering something he said, and it wasn’t about CO2.

      • > Context is everything. This is why more than just I challenged your question as implicitly referring to Co2 as a pollutant. Because context is everything.

        See Jim D’s comment in the middle this subthread about coal plants in China for additional context, Jean Paul.

        Third time’s the charm: You don’t think pollution damages the environment or otherwise causes injury?

      • “It was addressed to CG, so I guess I was answering something he said, and it wasn’t about CO2.”

        Yep. I’m guessing it was this comment from CG:

        “Jim D you would rather live in a world where everything is forbidden unless explicitly allowed. I had to. I don’t want to go back to dark ages.”

        This sub thread, however, was begun by your post linking to a Huffington Post article where you testified as such:

        “Another article that fits with some of these. Climate Change Denial And The Rise Of Authoritarianism.”

        Context is everything.

      • Man, and ppl tell me that *I’m* CO2-obsessed.

      • “Man, and ppl tell me that *I’m* CO2-obsessed.”

        Peas in a pod you and I Brandon. Twin sons of different mothers. Cain and Able only we get along better.

      • Which one of us is not our brother’s keeper I wonder, Jean Paul?

        Here, I’ll rephrase my question and remove the ambiguity: do you think pollution — other than that *putatively* attributed to CO2 — causes environmental damage and/or other harms?

      • Brandon,

        Given we get on so well, we take turns being each other’s keeper. Sometimes, when you’re not looking, I go through your baseball card collection and seeing some of your rookie cards, I think; now that’s a keeper!

        In regards to pollutants, you are being far too vague. You are going to have to offer up substances you believe to be pollutants and I can speak specifically to each substance listed, but it would be folly to simply answer your question as vague as it is.

    • “See Jim D’s comment in the middle this subthread about coal plants in China for additional context, Jean Paul.

      Third time’s the charm: You don’t think pollution damages the environment or otherwise causes injury?”

      Brandon,

      See Jim D’s initial comment and link to Huffington Post that sparked this sub-thread, so thank’s for your charm it is indeed infectious but I will keep my focus narrowed to Co2 and whether its classification as a “pollutant” would be admissible in a court of law.

      Nice try though, brother.

      • …and I linked to that as an example of Trump admiring authoritarianism when he says how China can build things quickly, which is mainly because they have no regulations to protect the people who live in those places.

      • “…and I linked to that as an example of Trump admiring authoritarianism when he says how China can build things quickly, which is mainly because they have no regulations to protect the people who live in those places.”

        Thank you for your testimony, Jim. Now, consider Wikipedia’s article on Authoritarian Leadership Style:

        “Ways to Properly Incorporate Authoritarian Leadership:

        Always explain rules- it allows your subordinates to complete the task you want done efficiently.

        Be consistent- if you are to enforce rules and regulations, make sure to do so regularly so your subordinates take you seriously. This will form a stronger level of trust.

        I offer you that basic primer Jim before I ask you to consider what Benjamin van Rooij, Rachel E. Stern and Kathinka Fürst think about the matter and specifically in regards to china:

        The Authoritarian Logic of Regulatory Pluralism: Understanding China’s New Environmental Actors

        Abstract (In part)

        “Over the last decade, Chinese citizens, NGOs, judges and prosecutors have started to take action against industrial pollution, pluralizing the regulatory landscape originally occupied by administrative agencies. Regulatory pluralism here has an authoritarian logic, occurring without the retreat of party-state control. Under such logic, the partystate
        both needs and fears new actors for their positive and negative roles in controlling risk and maintaining stability. Consequently, the regime’s relation to regulatory pluralism is ambivalent, shifting between support and restriction.”

        And this:

        “Why and how would a regulatory space to new actors open up in an
        authoritarian system? And how does the nature of authoritarianism influence the pluralizing processes or new actors’ ability to reduce risk? And what does the fact that regulatory pluralism can also occur in authoritarian settings mean for our existing ideas about decentered regulation?”

        And this:

        “China has developed a particular regulatory state with a bifurcated strategy of macro-liberalization and strong sectoral state regulation, that is quite unlike other developmental states (Hsueh 2011). Most importantly, for our analysis here, it is a one party state, with a remarkably resilient form of authoritarian rule (cf. Nathan 2003). And recently China has shown a remarkable shift toward what some call “responsive authoritarianism”

        Is it your testimony Jim, that authoritarian regimes don’t have regulations?

      • Aaack, you rethreaded, JP. Sorry I missed it. I did indeed see Jim D’s initial comment. I also saw his extension to coal plants in China in the middle of the thread.

        You may of course not wish to discuss coal particulates. OTOH, Jim D (and me) may also wish to discuss it. Since none of us own this blog (it’s Dr. Curry’s sole property last I knew) … so long as we don’t run afoul of her codes of conduct it would seem that we’re pretty much free to discuss whatever the hell topics we want.

        Wouldn’t you agree?

        As for whether classifying CO2 as a pollutant would stand a court challenge, the reason it IS classified as one by the EPA is because the EPA was sued by several US states and cities under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1) to make it so. This SCOTUS decision ruled:

        Finally, the Court remanded the case to the EPA, requiring the agency to review its contention that it has discretion in regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The Court found the current rationale for not regulating to be inadequate and required the agency to articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation.

        And now, the rrrrreeesst of the story:

        On remand, EPA found that six greenhouse gases “in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare.” On February 16, 2010, the states of Alabama, Texas, and Virginia and several other parties sought judicial review of EPA’s determination in the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. On June 26, 2012, the court issued an opinion which dismissed the challenges to the EPA’s endangerment finding and the related GHG regulations.[13] The three-judge panel unanimously upheld the EPA’s central finding that GHG such as carbon dioxide endanger public health and were likely responsible for the global warming experienced over the past half century.

        Note the EPA’s language: “may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare”, AND that it was upheld in court.

        So much for your “beyond a shadow of doubt” … which I frankly think is a bit extreme when the idea is to *prevent* harm from happening in the first place.

        One argument I could make is that it’s up to companies to reasonably demonstrate that their products (or by-products of their products) are NOT harmful. If you think for a moment, there IS US legal precedent for just that kind of standard.

      • > Given we get on so well, we take turns being each other’s keeper. Sometimes, when you’re not looking, I go through your baseball card collection and seeing some of your rookie cards, I think; now that’s a keeper!

        Dammit, Jean Paul! So THAT’S what happened to my Mickey Mantle rookie card!

        > In regards to pollutants, you are being far too vague.

        I’m thinking for purposes of discussing the gray area between onerous regulation and completely unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, sticking to the abstract might actually be more focussed and interesting. The only ground you need give is that there is some Y pollutant issued in production of X product which is harmful. We can use X and Y, they need not map to any real product or *putative* pollutant.

      • Brandon,

        Who took your Mickey Mantle card? That’s one of the ones I thought a keeper. Dangit. You should have kept that one.

        “The only ground you need give is that there is some Y pollutant issued in production of X product which is harmful. We can use X and Y, they need not map to any real product or *putative* pollutant.”

        I accept your stipulation and will only ask you clarify how Y is harmful specifically. Who is the injured party?

        I’m working on a reply to your most excellent citation of Massachusetts v EPA, I’ll post that shortly.

      • brandonrgates,

        Maybe you could define “pollutant”?

        ” The most common forms of chemical pollution are:

        • Rain water and snow melt

        • Seawater or water from rivers and streams

        • Dust, dirt, oil and grease tracked in by the building occupants as well as the crime scene team

        • Industrial and household chemicals”

        Hydrocarbon combustion creates H2O – water. Pollutant?

        Or are Warmist pollutants just anything you define them to be, from time to time?

        The followers of James Hansen seem to consider the by products of burning coal pollutants, but this seems more Hansenite anti-coal ideology than based on rational thought. In any case, the relationship to any supposed GHE seems non-existent.

        Maybe Hansen is a nutter, who created scare stories about seas boiling, apocalyptic storms, Venusian tipping points, because people weren’t taking much notice of his fixation that coal was evil.

        The GHE should properly be filed before Luminiferous Ether and Unicorns. Entertaining, but of little practical use.

        Cheers.

      • Brandon,

        First of all, good job on the case law, brother. Job well done. Secondly, I’m sorry about the re-thread, didn’t mean to do that.

        So now, let’s get down to Massachusetts v EPA a split decision of 5-4 which means it can be overturned. Considering that, let’s take a look at some of the dissenting arguments:

        “Apparently dissatisfied with the pace of progress on this issue in the elected branches, petitioners have come to the courts claiming broad-ranging injury, and attempting to tie that injury to the Government’s alleged failure to comply with a rather narrow statutory provision. I would reject these challenges as nonjusticiable. Such a conclusion involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem. Nor does it render petitioners without recourse. This Court’s standing jurisprudence simply recognizes that redress of grievances of the sort at issue here “is the function of Congress and the Chief Executive,” not the federal courts. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 576 (1992) . I would vacate the judgment below and remand for dismissal of the petitions for review.”

        Chief Justice Roberts (the “I” in this dissent) goes on to explain the limits of the federal judiciary:

        “If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or expounding the law in the course of doing so.”

        And:

        “Standing to sue is part of the common understanding of what it takes to make a justiciable case..”

        And:

        “A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.”

        And in answer to your assertion that the “companies” (in the case of Massachusetts v EPA it was the EPA that was the defendant):

        “Applying that standard here, petitioners bear the burden of alleging an injury that is fairly traceable to the Environmental Protection Agency’s failure to promulgate new motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards, and that is likely to be redressed by the prospective issuance of such standards.”

        And this:

        “Before determining whether petitioners can meet this familiar test, however, the Court changes the rules. It asserts that “States are not normal litigants for the purposes of invoking federal jurisdiction,” and that given “Massachusetts’ stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests, the Commonwealth is entitled to special solicitude in our standing analysis.”

        Case law that can and should be overturned, and given the new president-elect it very well may be that the make up of the SCOTUS after new appointment of Justice will allow for that challenge.

        I was going to offer more but I just saw the time and, as I am sure you know, am behind on my chores. (You told on me, didn’t you?) I’ll try to pick up later tonight, If not, see you tomorrow.

      • > I accept your stipulation and will only ask you clarify how Y is harmful specifically. Who is the injured party?

        Like water (yes Mike F., I see you and I was already there), can be toxic to the point of death in humans when ingested in sufficient quantities. But it’s not water, and the toxicity level is in a trace amount. We only have estimates of toxicity from experimentation in laboratory animals. It’s a substance required for an important and common industrial process, and there is no known good alternative.

        My Barry Larkin rookie card is missing too, Jean Paul. You wouldn’t happen to know what happened to that one, would you?

      • > First of all, good job on the case law, brother. Job well done.

        Fanks, Jean Paul.

        > Secondly, I’m sorry about the re-thread, didn’t mean to do that.

        The scroll was starting to get tedious, this is totally fine.

        > And in answer to your assertion that the “companies” (in the case of Massachusetts v EPA it was the EPA that was the defendant):

        I thought I was clear that the EPA was the defendant. Anyway. “Companies” wasn’t referring to this case specifically, it was me speaking extemporaneously as a setup to how I normally think about this problem: industry vs. the public (as often represented by gummint) or vice-versa I guess as is more often the case.

        Just to be clear, I’m not an anti-capitalist zealot. Ideological puritanism makes me itch.

        > Case law that can and should be overturned, and given the new president-elect it very well may be that the make up of the SCOTUS after new appointment of Justice will allow for that challenge.

        Clearly. So the discussion I’m interested in having is not whether he *can*, but *should*.

        > I was going to offer more but I just saw the time and, as I am sure you know, am behind on my chores. (You told on me, didn’t you?) I’ll try to pick up later tonight, If not, see you tomorrow.

        No worries, I’ll be around. Fun chat so far, thanks.

      • brandonrgates,

        You’ve told us what your mystery pollutant is not, but you haven’t mentioned what it is.

        Are you trying to change the discussion from pollution to toxicity? A pollutant may not be toxic – say in a chemical process, and a toxic compound may not be a pollutant.

        Maybe you’re a practised exponent of the the Wandering Warmist Weave-and-bob. Has any of this anything to do with global warming, or have you lost track of where you shifted the goalposts to?

        I’m certainly confused. If that was your initial intent, you’ve succeeded!

        Keep it up. Soon nobody will know what anybody is talking about, and care even less. Truthiness, factiness, and silliness will reign supreme. I look forward to the day. Anything for a laugh. I hope it will be restricted to the US.

        Cheers.

      • > You’ve told us what your mystery pollutant is not, but you haven’t mentioned what it is.

        It’s called “Y”, and does not represent any actual known substance, Mike F. This is called “abstraction”, not “mystery”. I’m not trying to set up a whodunnit.

        > Are you trying to change the discussion from pollution to toxicity?

        The discussion I’m setting up with Jean Paul is how society collectively manages risk, and deals with damages once they’ve occurred. One specific question is the role of gummint in representing the general public’s interests. Environmental pollution in any conceivable form falls under that broad topic.

        > A pollutant may not be toxic – say in a chemical process, and a toxic compound may not be a pollutant.

        Indeed. For purposes of the present discussion, handling all those permutations might tend to cause the conversation sprawl all over the place, which is why I believe JP asked me for a few specifics of my fictitious environmental pollutant Y.

        > Maybe you’re a practised exponent of the the Wandering Warmist Weave-and-bob.

        And maybe you’re overstepping your authority attempting to be Supreme Enforcer of what people talk about on a blog which you do not own.

        > Has any of this anything to do with global warming[?]

        It need not, but I’m fairly certain JP and I both understand that talking about local environmental pollution has some application to the *putative* global “pollution” in the form of CO2 emissions.

        The direct answer to your question is: yes, that’s where I’d like this conversation to lead eventually … since that’s where it got started to begin with.

        > […] or have you lost track of where you shifted the goalposts to?

        I should hardly need tell you the world is a large complex place. There isn’t only one goalpost.

        > I’m certainly confused.

        I doubt it.

      • Brandon,

        Apologies for the lateness in following up, and to my great frustration my follow up response for some reason cannot be posted. I’m not sure what the problems is, but I will attempt to shorten it and see if that is the problem. I guess I’m just testing the waters with this post.

      • Brandon,

        Apologies for the delay. Chores.

        “Like water (yes Mike F., I see you and I was already there), can be toxic to the point of death in humans when ingested in sufficient quantities. But it’s not water, and the toxicity level is in a trace amount. We only have estimates of toxicity from experimentation in laboratory animals. It’s a substance required for an important and common industrial process, and there is no known good alternative.”

        While I have no desire to undermine my irascible co-counsel’s cross examination, I am willing to stipulate that a toxicant is a potential pollutant and as such also can potentially act as a poison depending upon variables in regards to exposure which include the levels of concentration, the route of the poison; inhalation, oral or dermal, and the duration of the toxicity, either acute or chronic.

        I offer this stipulation in the spirit of reigning the conversation sprawl as best as possibly can be done. I would also suggest that perhaps *dioxins* can serve as a comparison to your hypothetical. According to Wikipedia, the EPA classifies *dioxin* as “Likely human carcinogen” which is a category below “Human carcinogen” and above “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential, Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential and Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans”

        I would also point out that while the carcinogenic quality of dioxins have been well established in animal studies, there is much uncertainty regarding the dose/response relationship as to just *how* toxic they are and to what degree, if at all, the toxicity bio-accumulates. This uncertainty has, as you might have guessed, paved the way for politicization of the matter.

        Further, there is the case law in regards to dioxin. Indeed, Kemner v. Monsanto was the longest running civil jury trial (according to Wikipedia) in U.S. history, ultimately ending mostly in Monsanto’s favor after appeal. The case was in regards to a train wreck transporting product of Monsanto’s that contained dioxin.

        Continued…

      • Brandon;

        Continuing….

        Brandon,

        My point with all of this is to demonstrate that even while stipulating a toxicant can be a pollutant, how likely that is matters, as does to what degree of toxicity, and if it can be viewed as poison what is the relationship between dose and response?

        I don’t mean to exasperate anyone, but even with my stipulations there are enough uncertainties and variables – I suspect you’ve done this on purpose to make it relevant to the Co2 controversy – to cause hesitation and ask for further clarifications.

        I’m not anti-government but I do think they are the fabled scorpion hitching river rides upon hapless frogs backs. So, (and perhaps this comes closer to answering your original question to me) while I do think government can have compelling reasons to regulate poisons and pollutants, I also think that if they are to hitch a ride on that frogs back they’re gonna have to demonstrate they are venom-less while crossing that river and only venomous once demonstrating the soundness of their arguments with direct evidence.

      • > Apologies for the delay.

        No worries, Jean Paul.

        > While I have no desire to undermine my irascible co-counsel’s cross examination […]

        lol. I mostly ignore Mike F. unless he writes something both interesting and that I’ve not seen him say before.

        > I am willing to stipulate that a toxicant is a potential pollutant and as such also can potentially act as a poison depending upon variables in regards to exposure which include the levels of concentration, the route of the poison; inhalation, oral or dermal, and the duration of the toxicity, either acute or chronic.

        Works for me. I’m not sure how adding dioxins into the convo at this point would tend to reign in sprawl, but language such as “likely human carcinogen” or “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” do have parallels to the CO2 as a pollutant argument.

        > This uncertainty has, as you might have guessed, paved the way for politicization of the matter.

        ;-)

        Kemner v. Monsanto noted.

        > My point with all of this is to demonstrate that even while stipulating a toxicant can be a pollutant, how likely that is matters, as does to what degree of toxicity, and if it can be viewed as poison what is the relationship between dose and response?

        With obvious parallels to the AGW question.

        > I don’t mean to exasperate anyone, but even with my stipulations there are enough uncertainties and variables – I suspect you’ve done this on purpose to make it relevant to the Co2 controversy – to cause hesitation and ask for further clarifications.

        You mean my original proposal of product X which requires Y toxic agent as an essential part of its production? Yes, clearly I was think it was relevant to the question of CO2, my hope was that the abstraction would help keep the discussion from getting bogged down in whether Y was really harmful or not. That could apply to anything from MTBE to coal particulates.

        > […] I also think that if [governments] are to hitch a ride on that frogs back they’re gonna have to demonstrate they are venom-less while crossing that river and only venomous once demonstrating the soundness of their arguments with direct evidence.

        There’s no such thing as “direct evidence” of *potential* future harms, nor the risks they entail. Empirical risk assessment works best when there’s a well-established baseline for damages which are infrequent, isolated and — most particularly in my view — lack a good mechanism to almost completely avoid them.

        AGW just isn’t that kind of animal, not by a long shot.

        The venomless test will always fail. No human institution is ever without self-serving corruption or error — whether due to negligence or intent to deceive … or unaticipated sh!t simply happening. Why we have courts is for those kinds of things to (hopefully) be argued in a formal, structured, rational way and sorted out.

        I mentioned to you earlier:

        One argument I could make is that it’s up to companies to reasonably demonstrate that their products (or by-products of their products) are NOT harmful. If you think for a moment, there IS US legal precedent for just that kind of standard.

        Now might be a good time to revisit this line of argumentation.

  11. Energy poverty worse for the poor than climate change but the new development plan of the UNDP is a masterplan to end poverty by fighting climate change.
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2812034

    • Well, you need to head over to WUWT to get the facts on this one. The request relates to employees to attended the COPs (political meetings) and who worked on the social cost of carbon document (which was rather a travesty).

      • Jim D

        This was part of a list of dozens of questions related to various activities in various programs. I was impressed by the depth and specificity of the questions indicating a grasp of issues and operations. There is nothing wrong with trying to understand how funding is used and how much redundancy exists. This kind of granular analysis should be part of the routine annual budget process. I bet the existing top management of the agency didn’t even think to ask many of the questions during the last 8 years.

      • David L. Hagen

        Re WUWT see Willis Eschenbach on The DOE vs. Ugly Reality

        Oh … you mean like say the Attorneys General of a bunch of states holding up their lists of known “denier” organizations and tacitly urging the public to go after them? You mean like government officials of a variety of stripes ranting about how “deniers” should be brought to trial or otherwise penalized? You mean like having sites like DeSmogBlog making ugly insinuations and false statements about every known opponent of the climate party line? You mean like Roger Pielke being hounded out of his job by the climate mob?

        Mr. Halpern, we have put up with just that treatment you describe for years now. Let me suggest that you take your inchoate fears and do something useful with them—you can think fearfully about how you have treated your scientific opponents for the last decade, and you can hope and pray that they are like me, and they don’t demand the exact same pound of flesh from you.

    • Jim D,

      From your link –

      “Unnamed employees at the DOE told The Washington Post that it seemed as if the Trump transition team was intentionally singling out individuals.”

      Malingerers, criminals, slackers, bludgers, frauds and other self servers who forget they’re supposed to be impartial servants of the public, are individuals.

      Who is being singled out, and why? Do you think there is some grand conspiracy to suppress scientific progress? Have you any evidence, or do you contend that individuals should be immune to the consequences of their actions?

      I assumed you would be happy to think that the US could reach the ISS without having to queue up and buy a ticket from a Russian organisation. Maybe my assumption was wrong. Maybe you advocate wasting money, making ever more expensive, useless toy computer games.

      Cheers.

  12. 538 by Gavin Schmidt: Why We Don’t Know If It Will Be Sunny Next Month But We Know It’ll Be Hot All Year

    I wonder if this is just sloppiness or intentionally misleading.

    Anomalously high mean temperature is not the same as Hot All Year. This exaggeration, intentional or not, misleads the public.

  13. The story about Houston should be that there are some places not conducive to building major metropolitan areas. Like New Orleans, for instance. There are 2,000 miles of natural Bayous in the county surrounding Houston. With or without climate change, flooding has been and will continue to be an everyday threat. That was true in 1800 and it was true in 1950. Since 1950, Houston’s population has nearly quadrupled to 2.4 million. During that same period Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit and Baltimore lost population.

    Within the city proper of each, Houston’s population is now greater than the combined populations of Buffalo, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Cleveland, Orlando and Minneapolis.

    Thousands of acres of pavement for roads and malls and businesses and homes tend to alter the drainage patterns that had evolved for thousands of years. And now the natural mechanisms that used to mitigate the flooding, if left to their own devices, have been neutralized.

    Man is at fault in this story. But not because of CO2 emissions.

  14. I lived in Houston for 16 year through two hurricanes and several of the flood events described. When I arrived, a geologist friend advised when buying a house to look at a topographic map before making an offer. I did so, bought it on relatively “high ground,” and stayed dry during these events.

    George Devries Klein,PhD, PG, FGSA

    • Yes, everybody should have bought a lot on Houston’s high ground.

      We had a condo halfway up a ~30-story tower on Hermann Park and a parking spot on the 3rd-floor of the garage. The hood of my Mercedes went underwater once but was unharmed… their SUV can navigate deep rivers.

  15. “Although the London Mayor has announced that funding for this problem will be doubled the challenges remain essentially the same faced by the Smoke Abatement Leagues in the 1800s: the causes are complex, some pollution is (thought to be) linked to economic growth and jobs..”

    The overwhelming problem is climate policy, the promotion of diesel car use, their numbers have risen tenfold on UK roads since the 1990’s.

  16. “Valentina Zharkova, professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in the U.K., warned that the Earth could be heading for another ice age in 15 years due to a drop in solar magnetic activity by 60 percent.
    Zharkova’s theory sparked a fierce debate with colleagues who support the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory after she presented her findings at the National Astronomy meeting in Llandinam, North Wales, in 2015.
    “They were trying to actually silence us. Some contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding that they withdraw our press release.”

    Phew! Worse than we thought! A real professor of mathematics predicts global cooling!

    So who’s the best mathematician? Schmidt, Zharkova?

    Based on NASA observations, too. Maybe they haven’t been adjusted yet. Who knows?

    Cheers.

  17. ARCTIC CRISIS:

    The science is in a pickle, Arctic and AMO warming is negative NAO/AO driven, because of declining solar wind strength since the mid 1990’s. Rising greenhouse gases increase positive NAO/AO, the same as stronger solar does, so it’s completely the wrong sign to be causing Arctic warming.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html

    • Exactly
      I will add low solar — sunspot numbers less then 40 solar flux sub 90 will cause overall sea surface temperatures to decline , due to less UV light which is the light which penetrates the ocean surfaces to the greatest degree thus warms/cools the oceans depending on it’s intensity..

      • With a continued warm AMO and increased El Nino conditions, sea surface cooling wouldn’t be happening fast. It would show most when the AMO shifts to its next cold mode.

  18. The piece about the Greenland ice sheet had not a peep about the effect of geothermal activity under the ice sheet and the basal melting that is occurring driving the vigorous subglacial hydrology as outlined in Rogozhina et al, 2016. But since articles never seem to mention geothermal activity in the West Antarctica peninsula, this should be no surprise.

  19. It has been suggested that El Ninos increase sea level rise. This is supported by this plot from the University of Colorado:

    An El Nino would release warmth from the IPWP into the atmosphere. Lowering the thermosteric component of sea levels. But the plot.

    Sea level rise causes El Ninos. The Pacific Ocean has a preferred temperature. If it’s too warm it will release warmth to the atmosphere.

    What about sea level fall? The Pacific Ocean then tries to retain warmth causing La Ninas. This might be visualized by looking at the IPWP building warmth during La Ninas.

    During La Ninas, upwelling takes some of the coldest liquid water the Ocean has and places it in an equatorial region and then as it is blown to the West the Sun warms it. And then stores it. If one were to want sea level rise, that is how you’d do it. Take stuff that will expand the most and give it lots of Sun.

  20. Weather Channel creates fake news and Business Insider promotes it.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/weather-channel-breitbart-climate-change-2016-12

    All of this is ignoring and distracting from the fact the change in land lower tropospheric heat is a major event that will likely have major weather impacts going forward. Other data sets also show a record change, and the land lower troposphere shows it best for two reasons: it has the most comprehensive geographic coverage of land, it also covers a larger portion of atmosphere than surface station. It suggests a major change in heat flux and heat distribution. And the weather channel should be very aware of this.

    On the other hand, it could be an error in RSS. Spencer suggests a bias in new RSS diurnal adjustment exaggerated land cooling in RSS. Here is UAH http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2016-0-45-deg-c/. In the comments Spencer mentions land and NH land values (.43 and .35, didn’t mention delta previous months). It would be good to see graphs to see how changes comp historically.

    Even though the cooling may not be as large as the RSS data set says, the WC post totally mischaracterizes what the Breitbart post says. The weather channel post is a horrible piece of fake news/propaganda.

  21. As a simple layman in climate science, I started coming to CE years ago because I felt news coverage was lacking in objectivity. In reading Dr. Curry, I thought she made a lot of sense as a so-called lukewarmer alternative to the world of binary arguments.

    Increasingly though, CE appears to be losing this objectivity and becoming an “Echo Chamber”. How could Dr. Curry not even mention and comment on the Breitbart and Daily Mail story that’s been all over the news and social media this week? (especially since Daily Mail stories are cited all the time here at CE)

    Below is Zeke Hausfather’s response to this “CE non story”: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-newspaper-claim-about-global-temperature-is-deeply-misleading

    • Stephen –

      I assume that you know that Judith was quoted in the story?

    • Fact check –

      Zeke Hausfather –

      “He received a bachelor’s degree from Grinnell College, a master’s degree in environmental science from Vrije Universiteit in the Netherlands, and another master’s degree in environmental management from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.”

      or –

      “Zeke is an energy systems analyst and data scientist with a strong interest in climate science and policy.”

      A data scientist? A scientist at all? Vrije Universteit doesn’t actually seen to offer a master’s degree in environmental science – maybe he meant Environment and Resource Management.

      Oh well, I suppose it appears that you don’t need to be a “real” scientist to be a climate scientist. Just claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer place on the Earth’s surface will make the thermometer heat up. Nobody will bother to point out that you’re talking nonsense, will they?

      Cheers.

    • Stephen

      As someone else says I do not think you realise that Judith was quoted in the daily mail story so think your remark about her silence is somewhat off the mark.

      What is far more interesting than the recent warming is the long term warming we can observe over the last 300 years, the periodic cooling prior to that and the 300 year long warming circa 850 to 1150 AD. What caused those?

      Tonyb

    • This has been a topic of conversation for years here. JCH is often involved. What is of interest with the ENSO activity is whether we will see a step change in GAT like we did with recent ones , or we will return to flat or even lower temps after this event. And what happens with sea over the next several years is interesting to me. We had warm NP waters like the blob in the late 50s and early 60 before artic sea ice surged. We won’t know for several years, as Judith has said before.

      See my comment just above. The weather channel and Zeke’s post rather misrepresent the point of the ENSO posts. The point is that satellite land data tends to lead other data sets. The decline in temps is large, the big movement of north pacific warm water into the arctic will likely affect weather in coming years (maybe even this year).

      Look at 98, the land temp decline wasn’t quite so big, and it’s not even winter yet. Interesting things are happening in the weather right now. Zeke and other major news outlets are wrong to brush is off and chant their global warming jingoism.

      We are talking about the weather and all they do is chant AGW.

      • And heat flux over and temp data for the poles is a weak spot. We need to get some satellites over the poles.

      • satellite land data is the worst.

        Going from UAH version 5.6 to version 6

        They changed the trend in australia from .17C per decade to .24C pr decade

        there is a SIMPLE REASON why satellite estimates will get the temperature over land WRONG.

      • Curious George

        Steven, speaking of satellites, how confident are you of their sea level measurement with the accuracy under 1 mm? Does your mistrust of temperature satellite data extend to the sea level data? (I don’t trust either; I am not familiar with temperature measurements, but in case of sea level measurements, it boils down to a small difference of two very large numbers, and we are not very sure what these large numbers represent.)

      • There’s a big difference. Sea level is a direct measurement, so more measurements reduce the uncertainty. It takes probably many steps to get from a satellite measurement of radiation emission to a global temperature, each introducing uncertainty.

      • Curious George

        Jim D – I write this foe 64th time; maybe you missed it 63 times. There is nothing direct in a sea level measurement; there are waves up to 29 meters tall, how can you measure the true sea level to the accuracy of 1 mm, from the satellite orbit? How much of your measurements is due to wave-tops? To the satellite orbit? Have you seen a much-fanfared NASA video showing sea level peaks spreading west from California coast?

      • CG, have you heard of time-averaging? Time-averaged waves and tides are zero. They likely take millions of measurements into account for annual sea levels. You can also look at this page.
        https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

      • Curious George

        Jim Dear – how many measurements do you need to time-average the 29,000 mm waves to an accuracy of 1 mm? Are you a statistician? Do you believe in a Baynesian interpretation?

      • CG, how big an area are the satellites looking at compared to the average wave length? I expect it is much larger and a lot of the averaging is done spatially.

      • Curious George

        Exactly. And you don’t feel stupid.

      • Exactly, now you see. They measure sea-level rise to 1 mm per year. That’s the uncertainty of the effects you mention.

      • Curious George

        I just love the exact averaging of the unknown. Until recently they did not even know how big the rogue waves can get.

      • OK, so maybe a satellite averages across a few kilometers. How big an effect will one wave have on that average? Then it averages that region with millions of others. How much effect is left? Think.

      • Jim D,

        Low Earth orbit satellites take around 100 minutes per orbit. The sensing footprint moves at around 70 km/sec (from memory – correction welcomed). The wavelengths transmitted by the satellite are physically incapable of high precision ranging measurements, for a number of reasons.

        As well –

        “. . the problem with the typical oceanographic viewpoint that all of the changes in SSH are due to changes in dynamic topography is that neither the geoid nor the ocean’s crust is stationary, and SSH changes can be driven by their motion. These geoid and crustal changes, while typically small compared with the tens of centimetre changes driven by oceanographic processes on shorter time scales, become increasingly important as the time scale of interest increases and the size of the dynamic ocean signal decreases.”

        Gee. The Earth moves. Who’d have thought it? Certainly not anybody who believes the nonsensical claims of mm precision for sea levels around the jiggling, wobbling, pulsating oblate spheroid of molten rock that we live on.

        The ocean surface varies in reflectivity and height from moment to moment, and precise calculation of tide variations and heights on a moment to moment basis etc is impossible, being based on naive persistence forecasts of past data. And don’t mention gravity variations and changes affecting the geoid.

        Averaging cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

        Wouldn’t you agree?

        Cheers.

      • MF, so the agreement I linked above with tide gauges should be impossible by your reasoning.

      • Jim D,

        If you say so, Jim D.

        If you say so.

        Cheers.

      • Steven,
        New phrase, just for you. Alt-skeptic. Explains much.

      • Steven Mosher,

        From one of your links –

        “Outside the mooring deployment window, the tide gauge data can be tidally corrected to best fit the ensemble mooring series.”

        Corrected to best fit the ensemble mooring series?

        Sound familiar?

        I’m not sure what you’re trying to establish, but in another link precision to 0.01 mm is presented. This is about one eighteenth of the thickness of a thick human hair. Maybe somebody got carried away with the power of averaging, without stopping to think.

        GHE enthusiasts are an enthusiastic lot, that’s for sure. Maybe not so realistic.

        Cheers.

      • Flynn.

        Put down your pizzagate studies and actually read the papers.
        There are more.

        When you can actually pick a relevant quote or make a substantive comment Then and only then can you speak.

        Why?

        Because hell would have frozen over by then

      • Satellite land data is wrong.
        Example. UAH version 5.6. Australia, th trend is .17C decade
        Version 6, the trend is .24. C

        How the heck????

        easy.. its wrong.

        Ocean is much better.. Ask yourself why

      • Steven Mosher,

        You provide links. I quote parts back to you. You get upset and start talking about pizzas. Not my problem, I think.

        Have you considered actually reading the material you link to?

        Maybe you could delete the information you find inconvenient before providing the link. I should cut you a little slack, I suppose. Just calling yourself a scientist doesn’t give you instantaneous understanding of physics, metrology, and so on. Common sense also comes into play, from time to time.

        Maybe you could provide a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2. A scientific starting point. No need for pizza fixation, or deceptive URL’s. Just consideration of facts, experimental results, and all that inconvenient stuff.

        I understand your reluctance, but that’s life sometimes.

        Cheers.

    • Since you mention the subject, I was wondering if Dr. Curry could take a look at the “the authoritative Met Office ‘HADCRUT4’ surface record” mentioned in David Rose’s latest Mail article and explain how it justifies her “The record warm years of 2015 and 2016 were primarily caused by the super El Nino” remark quoted in his previous one:

      Post-Truth Global and Arctic Temperatures

  22. From pole to pole, twin sea ice records have scientists stunned

    Scientists are stunned because they really do not understand climate and when normal natural and necessary cycles occur, they are broadsided by simple stuff that they really do not understand.

    A natural sea ice record would not ever stun a scientist who understood the natural cycles. They don’t really understand, they don’t even have a clue.

  23. Are there any models showing new coastlines given a 10 to 12 foot sea level rise?

    • There are numerous websites that will let you enter a sea level change and show you the resulting map.

      It makes much less of a difference than the press would have you think.

    • Robert

      Here is a link to the real world sea level trends

      https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

      As can be seen many places Also have a sea level that is dropping but the biggest factor is the rise or fall of the land.

      If you want to examine the scenario you describe I suggest a trip to the science fiction section of your local book shop

      Tonyb

    • Robert

      Go to tonyB’s link and tap global stations on the left and then Australia and then Sydney. Whenever discussion here turns to purported acceleration in SLR rates, I go to Sydney and as much as I try, I’m still not able to see it. The alarmist denizens have not been able to point out a reason that Sydney is not a good proxy. And if the very low rate is due to geologic factors, isn’t it interesting that the rate of acceleration found by altimetry readings is perfectly offset since 1990 by the geology.

      • No, it’s not interesting.

      • “No, it’s not interesting.” quips JCH, but it is very inconvenient.

      • Very, very inconvenient since he has not come up with a plausible rebuttal. But hope springs eternal and I know little brain cells around the globe are burning up trying to come up with an answer.

      • Ceresco kid

        these global averages are very problematic things. sea level changes vary enormously according to the ocean basin and geography. as a result, in some places sea level is rising rapidly whilst in others it is falling. To get an idea of what is happening on the coast so defences can be planned if necessary-reference should be made to tidal gauges.

        we had a high water stand around the year 300AD, 1150AD, around 1550 and a low level around 1750. sea levels have been generally rising slightly since then IN SOME PLACES but are not back to the MWP levels.

        Similarly, a global average for temperatures is meaningless as we miss the nuances by bundling together all data. this fails to show the one third of global temperature stations that are cooling-to which I linked yesterday..

        These stations are not significant according to mosh with whom I have discussed this frequently, but was of sufficient interest to Richard Muller that he remarked on it.

        There is no evidence of a rapid rise in sea level caused by melting ice/warming waters and the 12 foot referenced above is sheer fantasy

        tonyb

      • Hilarious… how do you know that. who are the scientists who figured out SLR is variable? It’s just hilarious. Try one… Mitrovica. He won’t even talk to you. Because what you are saying is ridiculous.

      • “No, it’s not interesting.” quips JCH, but it is very inconvenient.

        One tide gauge is not interesting, nor is it inconvenient… despite what the deluded may think.

        Jevrejeva, Professor Curry’s go-to sea level scientist, says several meters by 2200.

      • jch

        take up your complaint that sea level changes are not globally consistent with NOAA-a little known organisation apparently

        https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

        as for pronounced acceleration, try fasullo et al-referenced to you twice in recent days.

        tonyb

      • jch

        As well as NOAA you also might like to take it up with church et al 2013 regarding varying rates and spatial distribution of sea level change.

        Jevrejeva generally confines herself to 2100 projections.

        http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4635

        please provide a link to the predictions by her of several metres rise by 2200.

        tonyb

      • I have no complaint that SLR is variable. The science is, including Holgate, multiple meters by 2200.

      • jch

        But it was only a few minutes ago that you were splitting your sides at the notion of variable sea level rise.

        As regards multiple meters of rise by 2200 please link to the studies you tell me are available by Jevrejeva and also from Holgate. ‘Several’ is around 2 meters. By multiple you presumably mean at least 4 or 5.
        Thanks

        tonyb

      • What you are you talking about. I bet you I linked to Mitrovica on the website long before anybody else.

      • jch

        its you who introduced mitrovica. then you introduced two more squirrels but didn’t back up your claim. please answer my post (below) asking you for the links regarding multiple meters sea level rise

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/10/week-in-review-science-and-policy-edition-4/#comment-829584

        tonyb

    • These models are called topographic maps. However, you have to interpret them carefully – otherwise you may conclude that Death Valley, Salton Sea, Dead Sea, and a big chunk of the Netherlands have been flooded a long time ago.

  24. Why are scientists scared of Trump? Because he knows they’re perpetrating a scam and he will drain the warmist swamp. The honest scientists are happily whistling. I bet Elizabeth Kolbert was 100% sure Hillary would win. Gee these people are out of touch with reality. In psychiatry it’s called psychosis

    • Really:
      So it’s logical in your mind that climate scientists are perpetrating a scam is it.
      Were the Exxon climate scientists?
      Do you think that NASA landed on the moon?
      Really, really down the rabbit-hole, my friend.

      Your hero Trump is not just a threat to the climate – he’s a threat to the world ……

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38282533

      “Mr Trump also said in the interview he did not need daily intelligence briefings.
      “I’m a smart person, I don’t need to be told the same thing in the same way for eight years.”

      You couldn’t make it up.

    • Nice try Tony barton.

      Please realize that Trump said in the very same conversation: “I will get the info when I need it. if something changes, I am available on one minute’s notice”.

      Seems perfectly reasonable to me. A fixed daily meeting to rehash the same stuff as yesterday? Why?

  25. people at the DOE got upset about questions being asked by the Trump team and leaked the questions to the MSM who then published them.

    Lots of interesting questions. If this sort of thing is happening at all agencies, things could be very interesting in the next few months.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/the-doe-vs-ugly-reality/

  26. The science list seems like just a lot of scary speculation disguised as research. I wonder if this will change under Trump? I offer this:
    https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/29/refocusing-the-usgcrp/

  27. What is next for climate will be dictated in large part on what the climate does in the next few years.

    I think cooling is now going on and I state some of my thinking below.

    Solar is now at very low levels and if it stays at these levels climate impacts should materialize.

    I believe weak magnetic fields both solar/geo magnetic fields dictate the climate trends to a significant degree.

    As I have said (I think) the days of AGW theory being viable are going to end as global cooling which began earlier this year will continue to evolve. First stage was the ending of El Nino and one can see OLR increasing now as a result of this.

    My solar theory in one sentence is– Extremely low solar conditions that are persistent will push the terrestrial items which control the climate toward modes which will result in the albedo of the earth to increase therefore promoting cooling.

    The 500 mb level in the N.H. seems to be showing an overall cooling trend of late. What I want to see is for this trend to continue but for the poles to be warm relative to the lower latitudes at this level.

    This time in the climate is at a crossroads to my way of thinking and this next 6 to 12 months could be very telling.

    I also like the overall snow coverage in the N.H. and it looks like it will be going more above average within the next few days, from a level very slightly above average as of today.

    Sea surface temperatures overall are on the decline as far as I can tell.

    • Blue blobs in the North Atlantic and Pacific shrinking. Emergence of a lot of orange and red. Best of all, the ever so second coming of the prolonged, post 1998 La Niña limps along as a patch of anorexic blue in the equatorial Pacific.

      • jch

        ‘best of all’

        why would you WANT the oceans to continue warming?

        tonyb

      • Jive talkin’ JCH:

        taunt or sneer at:
        “Willy kept jiving him until Jimmy left”

      • Where’s ‘Wee Willy Willard’ when you need him?

      • Each day an amount sunlight is drilled into the oceans. Each day a roughly equivalent amount of energy has to leave. If not, Houston, we have a problem. It is never equal. If a little less leaves than came in, the heat content of the oceans goes up; if a little more leaves than came in, the heat content of oceans goes down.

        Progressively increasing atmospheric CO2 means OHC should progressively increase. It’s not a matter of want. Versus want fantasies, it’s just physics:

      • JCH – if a “little bit” of energy isn’t returned to space on a given day, how many degrees Centigrade does the first 500 feet of the worlds oceans rise?

      • If a roughly equivalent amount does not leave, call Houston…

      • No they are not shrinking and as far as AGW the basic premises this theory has been based on are all wrong.

        No tropospheric hot spot.

        No decrease in OLR.

        No +AO evolving.

        In addition increasing CO2 has zero to do with ocean heat content.

        What controls ocean heat content are changes in UV light via solar activity.

        All the warming which is now ending was due to the terrestrial items which control the climate pushing the climate into a warm mode. This is changing and will continue going forward along with the global temperatures which have fallen since early summer.

      • Curious George

        Regarding a radiative balance measurement, do we have anything better than CERES data with an unexplained 5W/m2 imbalance?

      • JCH
        So the profound ice age at the end of the Ordovician with 4000 ppm CO2 – that was also physics? It seems physics was different then.

      • CG, the OHC gives tighter constraints on the same quantity.

      • ptolemy, the sun was a few percent weaker back then and that is enough to compensate high CO2 levels.

      • JCH,

        Maybe you’ve overlooked a small physical fact when you talk about sunlight being drilled into the ocean, even disregarding the misuse of plain English.

        When water is heated in the ocean, it becomes less dense. It floats, in other words. The heated water sits on top of denser, cooler water.

        During the hours of night, the hotter surface water radiates its heat to space (dependent on temperature, albedo, and couple of other things).

        Having cooled, the water becomes denser, and sinks until it is surrounded by water of equal density. The process is continuous. No insolation heat is retained or stored, any more than a rock or water bottle stores heat during the night. Complete nonsense.

        The only thing that keeps the abyssal water above its freezing point is that a few kilometres below the sea floor, there are a few thousand kilometres of molten rock. This also accounts for the thermal profile in some Antarctic ice, which range from -50 C at the surface to only -9 C at approximately 2800 m.

        Even climatologists are increasingly forced to accept physics, albeit with extreme reluctance in many cases.

        Maybe you could bring some facts to the discussion, rather than fantasy and fanciful notions.

        Cheers.

      • Curious George

        Jim D, I googled OHC. Oral History Center? Other Health Coverage? Why the hell should I take you seriously?

      • CG, to those who read here it is the Ocean Heat Content, specifically Argo.

      • Curious George

        Jim D – are you saying that oceans are absorbing most of the heat that you propose and no one measures? Great, we agree.

      • Mike Flynn for President Trump’s science advisor. It’s a match made in heaven. Idot and Idoter.

      • The oceans absorb a significant amount of heat. The rate of OHC rise is the imbalance, which is the amount by which the emission, basically surface temperature, lags the forcing change. Note that a positive imbalance has persisted meaning that all the warming so far has not caught up to the forcing. This is important in understanding attribution because the forcing is anthropogenically dominated making the warming attribution >100%. The imbalance, or OHC rise rate, is important in demonstrating this with observations. It is also known as warming in the pipeline.

      • Curious George

        “All the warming so far has not caught up to the forcing.” Are all models wrong? Am I wrong? Are you confused? I would certainly be, if I wanted to believe everything at the same time.

      • Tonyb. Its a case of wishful thinking methinks. Confirmation bias seeking sustenance?

      • CG, you are very confused. I am just talking about observations and the energy budget.

      • PD… well, ya thunk wrong. I think the big guy upstairs created the hiatus as a test of faith. A puzzle for his flock. So far, a whole bunch of believers have flunked it.

      • JCH
        before you get too excited, there are two sides to La Nina. You should really be cheering it on, since it is the La Nina part of the El Nino cycle that pumps equatorial warm water polewards and elevates global temperatures. This happened big time at the end at the 1997-1999 event, raising global temperatures about half a degree. If the same happened after a post 2016 el Nino La Nina, there would be a similar step up. So you should be cheering it on.

        Actually it wont happen since the 2016 was not an el Nino of the 1997 type, it was “Modoki”. Read up about the Bjerknes feedback to find out why. So there will be no global temperature step up this time, possible the reverse. The Pacific ground state has changed. The weak equatorial cold pulse is actually bad news for you warmists.

        But hey – if you’re still stoked to celebrate global warming, and you live in North America, how about taking a walk in a park new you this weekend, and feel how warm the globe is becoming.

      • Jim D

        You can’t hide behind a dim sun. It doesn’t solve the problem that CAGW is utterly refuted by the palaeo record of CO2 concentration and its weak and sporadic relationship with temperature.

  28. “Take the time and effort to correct misinformation
    Scientists should challenge online falsehoods and inaccuracies — and harness the collective power of the Internet to fight back,” argues Phil Williamson.

    “The rising tide of populism threatens the future of evidence-based governance.”

    During the primaries at a debate Ted Cruz was telling the story of how Trump was trying to turn an old lady out of her house so he could build a Casino. Trump interrupted him and said Cruz was the biggest liar of all. Thereinafter Cruz was known as lying Ted. Trump has pointed to climategate as an example of lying scientists. Once again Trump wins even if he loses the popular vote.

    “Take the time and effort to correct misinformation.” Ha Ha Ha you think these lying scientists will do better than lying Ted?

  29. 17 GOP competitors, lying in the dust, who spent billions and Billary who spent 1.2 billion and … Trump beat them all. Amazing.

    http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/hillary-clintons-losing-campaign-cost-a-record-1-2b/

  30. Moral of the story beware of sycophant scientists (ie the biggest liars of all 1.) a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage.

  31. After all the disingenuous Dimowit finger-pointing at Russia, we now get this:

    The Department of Homeland Security told members of congress Friday that a rogue federal employee may have been responsible for a November hack-attack that targeted the Georgia secretary of state’s system, LifeZette has learned.

    On Friday afternoon DHS initiated a conference call with members of Georgia’s congressional delegation to discuss the cyber-attack, a Capitol Hill staffer with knowledge of the call told LifeZette.

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/exclusive-dhs-admits-georgia-hack-may-inside-job/

  32. Another funny thing. During the campaign, Trump was criticized for not understanding foreign policy. He now has appointed Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Tillerson was awarded a medal by Putin for his work in the oil industry there. The US government was all for this work.

    So the upshot is that Tillerson has known and worked with Putin for about 15 years. He has an intimate understanding of Russia. But of course now, the Dimowit press sees this as a very bad thing.

    These id-eee-ots can have it both ways.

    • (Tillerson hasn’t been confirmed as Trump’s pick yet, so the Dimowit hand-wringing is permature – and id-eee-ot-ic.

    • It does sort of point up the fact that current “foreign policy” is mostly about gas/oil.

      • You wouldn’t know it by observing Obummer’s “actions” in the Middle East. If anything, he has put a world-class oil resource at risk, having inflamed several countries there.

      • It’s about gas pipelines. It’s a mistake to think that because things turned out bad that’s what they had in mind.

        I doubt they really expected things to turn out like this. That’s what happens when your diplomatic intelligence services believe their own propaganda and wishful thinking.

        Hopefully, it’s only a layer of scum floating on the top, with the rank&file still more realistic.

        Hopefully.

    • Rex Tillerson, an Aggressive Dealmaker Whose Ties With Russia May Prompt Scrutiny NYT

      Trump expected to nominate ExxonMobil CEO Tillerson Secretary of State sources say. Fox.

      A Lawyer for a Lawless EPA: Scott Pruitt can restore respect for the states in environmental policy.

      As Donald Trump rolls out his domestic-policy nominees, Democrats are discovering to their horror that more often than not he meant what he said. The latest evidence is the President-elect’s intention to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to run the Environmental Protection Agency.

      • David L. Hagen

        The 64-year-old Tillerson began his career at Exxon in 1975 as an engineer, rising through the ranks and becoming president and director in 2004 and CEO two years later. He was born in Wichita Falls, Texas, and studied civil engineering at University of Texas.

        Speaks of pragmatic common sense and knowing how to only use validated models!

      • He also sees the seriousness of climate change and believes in a carbon tax, so some people here may be a bit upset by him having Trump’s ear.

      • “so some people here may be a bit upset by him having Trump’s ear.”

        But not one tenth of one per cent as upset as you will be when Trump takes up residence in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

        You are assuming you have some idea about how Tillerson will carry out his duties under Trump.

        You haven’t.

      • It won’t be long before America is upset with him.

    • On the plus side, Tillerson turned Exxon round from the Raymond days where they funded denialist thinktanks, and he is now funding the AGU and getting climate change recognized as the real deal while also supporting a carbon tax. Businesswise, he worked up from the bottom and his resume makes Trump look like a privileged lightweight. On the minus side, buddies with Putin.

      • Actually, Lee Raymond had a change of mind on the issue. Tillerson was instrumental in lifting the ban against gays in the Boy Scouts of America. He appears to be a member of the Congregational Church. They’re generally very liberal.

      • I wonder how he squares that with Russia’s treatment of gays, because that is now a human rights issue he should be concerned with in his new job.

      • “I wonder how he squares that with Russia’s treatment of gays, because that is now a human rights issue he should be concerned with in his new job.”

        After a decade of opposing gay marriage, Hillary Clinton finally changed her tune in 2013 with a Tweet supporting it. She was Secretary of State between 2009 and 2013.

      • Times are changing. They managed to redefine marriage into something that made this possible, but I think there is still some opposition left.

      • At least the Russians don’t kill gays like Muslims do.

      • The state may not, but they do turn a blind eye to anti-gay violence and bigotry. They don’t have those protections that we see here in the western world.

      • I think you can expect the US to pay a lot more attention to its national interests, and a lot less to foreign cultural values.

        The US (and EU) have neither the power nor the right to impose their cultural fantasies on the world at the expense of their own citizens.

        And speaking of cultural values, how about all the Russians living in Crimea, the majority? By what right are US interests sacrificed to place them under the rule of a totally corrupt bunch of Ukrainians?

        Putin has done a lot more against corruption than anybody in the Ukrainian kleptocracy. A government that was installed by a CIA-sponsored revolution, similar to all the right-wing “death-squad” based “governments” in South America in the ’80’s.

      • I wonder if they will recognize Putin’s incursions into eastern Europe. Good way to make friends with Putin.

      • The more you rattle your sabres at somebody, the more they rattle back.

      • Trump isn’t rattling back at Putin yet. We are still waiting for words in that direction.

      • Putin’s rattling back at Obama and Merkel.

      • I think it was aimed at Ukraine because he felt insecure about their population looking more to the west and throwing out his puppet.

      • “I think…”

        No, not really.

        You just fantasise because your predictions about Trump were so far off beam that he made you look a total fool, and you just can’t let it go.

      • Putin acts out of insecurity, especially when a country on his borders is looking to the west and throwing out his crony, along with Trump’s buddy, Manafort. Ukraine was a major failure for Putin, and he tried to scrap a piece back for compensation. His incompetents even shot down a passenger plane in the process.

      • Putin acts out of insecurity, […]

        Not really.

        Ukraine was a major failure for Putin, and he tried to scrap a piece back for compensation.

        You’re clueless again.

        Go study the history of Russian geopolitics for yourself, since you consistently ignore my statements and links.

        His incompetents even shot down a passenger plane in the process.

        Perhaps. In combat, mistakes happen. It’s called “collateral damage”.

        He could reasonably say it was the EU/CIA’s fault, since they pushed him to moving in Crimea and Donbass. If he preferred to avoid trouble by denying it, when eveybody knew what happened, well that’s the fault of the Western MSM for their totally dishonest behavior.

      • Putin would say it was the fault of the Ukrainian people who wanted freedom from Russian influence. He doesn’t particularly respect their independence, nor that of a few other border countries.

      • I think it was aimed at Ukraine because he felt insecure about their population looking more to the west and throwing out his puppet.

        If Putin could be pinned down to some sort of commitment about everything but the Ukraine, I suspect it would be universally acclaimed as progress. Even by him. Assuming Merkel didn’t throw a spanner in the works.

        The Ukraine is more difficult: it’s too close to Russia for them to be comfortable with it as part of NATO or the EU. Crimea belongs to Russia, and has for centuries. The moment the Ukraine was at risk of joining the EU/NATO, Russia took it back.

        If the EU (i.e. Germany) would back off on Crimea and allow the Ukraine to sort of float between without firm commitments to either side, I’d guess that Putin would be amenable. Just a guess,

        As long as the risk of the Ukraine joining the EU or NATO remains, I suspect Russian ethnic nationalism in the Donbass (East Ukraine) will continue.

      • There is an interesting uptick in Republicans liking Putin. It seems to occur about the time of the RNC convention. Prior to that he was less popular with them than among the Democrats, both being rather negative, with the Dems not shifting recently except towards slightly even more negative. I am not saying Republicans are pinkos yet, but that is the trend.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vladimir-putin-popularity-republicans_us_58518a3ce4b092f08686bd6e

      • That’s how an authoritarian works. He tells his crowds who to like and not like and they follow like sheep. Lately he has turned his “lock her up” chanting crowd into people who sympathize with Hillary, and has told his Ryan-booing people that he actually likes Ryan very much. He just has to say things like “We love Hillary” or “We love Paul” and they switch. It’s the power of suggestion in action. Amazing to watch.

      • “That’s how an authoritarian works”

        More totally uninformed pig ignorant drivel.

        You wouldn’t recognise an authoritarian if one scuttled under your bridge, jumped up, and bit you in the snout, Jimbo.

        I visited real authoritarian regimes in the 1960s – Admiral Horthy’s Hungary and Generalissimo Franco’s Spain – and nothing you can remotely imagine compares with those.

        Donald Trump looks like Mother Theresa by comparison.

      • Trump’s following just wants someone to tell them what to do. This is the diagnosis of authoritarianism. Most often these people don’t have enough background to judge Trump’s knowledge or lack thereof, and just follow based on a cult of personality. This type of thing is seen through the ages. It is no surprise to me that they can turn on a dime if Trump does. These supporters who show up at his rallies are not ideologists, but want someone to tell them what to think. He says who he likes and doesn’t like, and they follow. Similar things happen with celeb-followers on Twitter. If their idol likes something, it means a lot of them automatically will do the same.

      • Most often these people don’t have enough background to judge Trump’s knowledge or lack thereof, and just follow based on a cult of personality.

        Like you?

        Or no, I know. The difference is that you have no idea about science, climate or any other, you just follow people with the right ideology. How is that better than personality?

      • They are just sheep, like Twitter-followers. They don’t go by objective facts. They have been told not to trust 90% of the media too, which is a master stroke if you think about it.

      • I visited real authoritarian regimes in the 1960s – Admiral Horthy’s Hungary and Generalissimo Franco’s Spain – and nothing you can remotely imagine compares with those.

        Anyone who claims to have visited Admiral Horthy’s Hungary in the 1960s is delusional. He ceased being prime minister when the Red Army invaded in 1944. And compared to absolutist Stalinist rule, which Putin publicly admires, these authoritarian regimes were almost benign. The foreign-policy “expertise” claimed here is absolutely Mannian!

      • Bad lapse of memory there – it was over six decades ago, and my memory isn’t what it was!

        The leader was in fact Dobi.

        But “And compared to absolutist Stalinist rule, which Putin publicly admires, these authoritarian regimes were almost benign.” clearly indicates you have no experience of either.

        Both regimes were run on extremely authoritarian lines with plenty of armed police who had literally power of life and death, and made damn sure you knew it.

        In Spain there was far more raw poverty than Hungary, basic huts with no running water, no electricity and roofs made from flattened oil drums, and a brand new moped parked outside. Nothing like that in Hungary, and full employment – or else! There was basic health care in Hungary, unlike Spain.

        However, there was one very big difference. The first thing you noticed when you arrived at the border was the array of fences, with raked sand, dog runs and minefields, goon towers with machine guns and searchlights at regular intervals. It was clearly NOT designed to keep the Westerners out, but to keep the population of the Glorious Socialist Workers’ Paradise IN.

        And yet Spain, despite superficially worse conditions for the population, had no such barrier.

        Difference was, the Spaniards had HOPE. It was possible for Spaniards to believe their lot would improve, that was not the case in Hungary.

        Another striking aspect of Hungary was the massive destruction of buildings in towns and cities. I was used to seeing bombed sites in England, but they had been tidied up and the roads cleared. In Hungary, the damage inflicted when the Red Army had chased the Wehrmacht through hadn’t been touched in large areas, it looked exactly like the images of Germany after the bombing raids. The Russian suppression of the 1956 revolt which was put down with considerable violence had not helped.

        One interesting comment from a gentleman in Budapest – “you can easily tell the Communists, they’re the ones in the big black cars”. Plus, they had dedicated traffic lanes – Zim lanes – in parts of the capital too.

        I have extreme difficulty in believing that a Putin regime could be worse than that, especially after seeing the aftermath of the Hungarian revolution. And then there was the ‘Prague Spring’ of 1968, and the self-immolation of Jan Polak.

        I had a tendency to Socialist political beliefs until I was fortunate enough to actually see Socialism in its wild state, that soon cured me.

        But all that is by-the by.

        My comment was directed at Jim D, whose assertion was that Trump was an authoritarian, a patently ridiculous assumption.

      • Actually, the Red Army invaded in 1945, shortly after Horthy was removed by from his post as “regent” in October 1944 after he declared that Hungary was leaving the Axis.

      • But “And compared to absolutist Stalinist rule, which Putin publicly admires, these authoritarian regimes were almost benign.” clearly indicates you have no experience of either.

        A tourist’s impressions of Hungary and Spain from the 1960s hardly changes the present nature of Putin’s regime or his admiration for Stalin. The issue here is not Trump’s “authoritarianism,” but his ill-founded admiration for Putin. It’s your hyperbolic personal presumptions that clearly indicate who has no real knowledge of present realities.

      • ==> There is an interesting uptick in Republicans liking Putin. It seems to occur about the time of the RNC convention. ==>

        It’s like the data on the value of the Electoral College. Republicans who think it is the way to go has skyrocketed along with the results of the 2016 election, in line with Trump’s 180 from when he thought that Romney won the popular vote and lost the EC.

      • Polls on wikileaks also show much more Republican favorability now than they used to.

  33. Regarding

    Scientists just affirmed a major (and long feared) climate feedback involving the Earth’s soils

    So, it sounds like the planet heats up, and micro-organisms in the soil turn plant roots into CO2. But not any CO2, CO2 with more C12 in it.

    Wasn’t this part of Salby’s theory? Temperature goes up, and natural sources start producing more CO2? Wasn’t his claim that C12 rich CO2 would be naturally produced by increased temperatures, explaining one of the arguments against his theory?

    • Edbarbar, the soil study is not particularly persuasive despite the PR attention it got. Particilarly when that same soil supports all the C3 plants who green and increase biomass including in that same soil.

      Salby is wrong. Details depend on which of the three youtube versions you pick. He gets facts wrong, he gets analytic methods wrong, he confuses bombspike dwell time (individual molecules) with average comcentration dwell time (carbon sinking), just an awful mess. You can work it through yourself by carefully checking his definitions, his graphical facts, and his analytic logic. The soil study doesn’t save the Salby mess

      • Hi Rud. It’s close to the end of 2016. Are you still calling for $80+ oil? You have a shot if the production cuts stick.

      • ristvan,

        What makes Salby’s argument interesting to me is the idea that the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 uptake should be related to the rate of increase of anthro produced CO2.

        Since you are certain Salby is wrong, maybe you can explain this to me. The rate of increase of anthro produced CO2 between 2000 and 2010 is 3 times that of 1990 to 2000, yet the rate of increase of CO2 increase in the atmosphere is about the same. That doesn’t make sense.

      • From what I’ve heard, oil is unlikely to stay above 60 anytime in the near future. Has to do with the financing structure and property value. If oil climbs, contracts reset based on property values, operating costs decline and production becomes cheap again.

      • If it falls. Property values decline, lease prices reset. Operating costs fall.

  34. ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! From the article:

    Current dietary advice says foods containing high levels of saturated fats such as cream, butter, red meat, eggs and cheese should be avoided because they increase the risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and cancer.

    But a study published in a leading medical journal has found the opposite is true, with a diet full of natural fats improving the health of people taking part.

    Professor Sherif Sultan, a heart specialist from the University of Ireland, said: “We urgently need to overturn current dietary guidelines.

    http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/742143/fat-is-good-for-you-eat-up-says-new-dietary-research

    • jim

      ok, I am confused here as I thought the high levels of saturated fat being good for you had become an accepted notion a year or so back and we were all to avoid even looking at sugar as that was now thought to be as dangerous as climate change.

      So, surely nothing has changed?

      tonyb

      • True, true… we learned long ago that eggs got a bad wrap and then we learned saturated fats were a healthy choice and that the continually changing, government approved, ‘food pyramid,’ was about as credible as wrapping cars in bacon to improve health and wellbeing.

      • I am just glad we got butter back.

  35. Re The Corn Ethanol mandate (link): when pork goes bad, you throw it out. The author Emily Cassidy tweeted, “There are better ways to improve energy independence than the corn ethanol mandate. The United States could have achieved the same reduction in oil use (~11 billion gallons of oil per year) by simply improving (average fleet) vehicle fuel efficiency by just over ONE MILE PER GALLON.”

    • I like the idea of a self-driving car powered by ethanol.

      • I like the idea of you using your money to make a self-driving car powered by ethanol. And your own money for the ethanol too. And when it is a big hit, you can get all the profits you want from it.

    • Hi Danley,
      I like number crunching, so tried to check out the numbers you are quoting. Isn’t the average fuel efficiency for all autos/light trucks about 25mpg this year? Isn’t the gasoline usage yearly about 140 billion gallons? Isn’t 11 billion gallons about 1/13th of 140 billion? Isn’t 1/13 of 25mpg about 2 mpg? I’m not sure if I’m right, as the author Emily Cassidy, may be talking about different figures than I could find. However, if an authority misses a number by half, that’s not a good sign they know their business. Could you clarify this and point out my error. Thanks.

      • John Vonderlin – I agree and would use a “number cruncher’s” numbers over Emily’s. But I think the point still holds – it’s equivalent to very small increase in fuel economy vs. the present level i.e., from 25 to 26.-or- 27 mpg – especially considering that the current president’s unrealistic target is 55 mpg. . .

  36. Over 200 years of deadly London air: smogs, fogs, and pea soupers [link]

    Does the suggestive nature of the Guardian article qualify it as an example Fake News? I can’t believe coal is still being burned in Londoner’s fireplaces?

    World Bank research ranked the quality of Londoner’s air, finding as follows: “If we rank the 3,226 cities with a population greater than 100,000 according to their pollution levels, from high to low, London comes 2,516th.” (https://www.londonair.org.uk/LondonAir/guide/London.aspx )

    • Wagathon

      There are smokeless zones in London so coals of a certain type only can be burnt and I would doubt many households indulge in this.

      However ironically wood burning stoves are now wildly popular amongst the urban chic. A clean and efficient burn for these would assume the wood was of the right type and was well seasoned.

      Being in a basin/thames valley, poor air can tend to be trapped. its a large city so there will be pollution even though there is a high charge for visitors to drive their cars in.

      tonyb

    • They are campaigning for a diesel ban in London. That would help.

      • jim

        That’s all very well but the govt had spent years amid much propaganda to persuade people to buy diesel cars over petrol because of lower co2. Now they have turned that completely around leaving the half of the population that listened to them high and dry.

        tonyb

      • Clean diesel technology — i.e., not the VW ‘clean’ diesel approach — takes care of the NOx.

    • Mosh

      This link won’t go anywhere and as regards your 12.04 it seems you have now perfected your persona of enigmatic inscrutability by not actually posting anything

      tonyb

      .

      • The URL http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/ is interesting. Lbl.gov is a Fedreal laboratory, a true home of CAGW, including Santer et al and CMIP. But clicking on it switches over to the NGO site.

      • Curious George

        Ben Santer works at Livermore. Berkeleyearth.lbl.gov is a funny website; try to click on “About us”. Probably a hacked website.

      • here tony

        http://berkeleyearth.org/air-pollution-overview/

        you can zoom in on London and get hourly.

      • Thanks mosh, that’s an excellent facility. Fortunately here in Devon we get prevailing westerly winds blowing in clear air from the ocean but London is in a basin and is noticeably less windy so bad air stays.
        Tonyb

      • “a Fedreal laboratory, a true home of CAGW, including Santer et al and CMIP. But clicking on it switches over to the NGO site.”

        It’s not that hard to understand. unless like Flynn you believe in pizzagate

        http://berkeleyearth.org/funders/

        Over the course of time we are migrating all of the web related to stuff
        to a new location off of lbl. Much of the work is done, but there are still questions about how best to organize and serve up the data. The global hourly air quality data just made the problem a lot harder.

      • Curious George

        Steven – I have an experience in Information Technology. At one time, a software gaffe (a botched system update) created a line of trains 20 miles long at San Pedro harbor.

        That was 20 years ago. Maybe the Feds be a little further now?

      • Steven Mosher,

        Migrating to LBL? Looking for respectability?

        Are you going to ensure (in large type, of course,) that everyone knows that the .gov at the end of your misleading link doesn’t signify anything of note?

        With any luck, you might explain that Steven Mosher – scientist is about as realistic as Gavin Schmidt – climate scientist. One an undistinguished mathematician, the other a Bachelor of Arts.

        You don’t need educational qualications to be a scientist. Just enquiring into Nature, seeking increased knowledge by applying the scientific method, will do.

        Writing pointless yet expensive toy computer programs doesn’t seem like science. Endlessly readjusting and averaging historical temperatures doesn’t seem like science.

        Maybe I’m wrong. If so, I’m sure you will produce something like a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2.

        You keep denying the need for the scientific method, (which generally starts with an hypothesis to explain some natural behaviour), and then endlessly divert and confuse, with talk of pizzas and other irrelevancies.

        Cargo Cult Scientism. Keep it up. It might make phrenology or economics look respectable – who knows?

        Cheers.

      • Mosher ;” Over the course of time we are migrating all of the web related to stuff to a new location off of lbl.”

        Flynn:

        Migrating to LBL? Looking for respectable

        %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

        This is why Flynn is Alt Science, Alt Fact Alt Literacy

        MIGRATING to a NEW location OFF of lbl

        In the begining we used lbl supercomputer. Now we have moved away from that system and the lab. you dont follow the news, clown

    • Steven Mosher,

      Another attempt to mislead people into thinking that you are associated with the US Government, or even a reputable scientific organisation.

      From LBNL –

      “Using the “lbl.gov” domain may imply the website is from an LBNL only research project, when in fact it may be from a collaboration between researchers at LBNL and other labs.”

      And –

      ” . . . we CANNOT register myawesomescienceproject.gov, but of course you can still register myawesomescienceproject.lbl.gov.”

      The Wily Weaselly Warmist attempts at deception continue. Maybe you could focus attention on devising a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2, rather than wasting time trying to convince people you’re a scientist, involved in serious scientific work.

      Correct me if I have erred with any facts.

      Cheers.

      • Wow, I suggest you look up the word subdomain, read up a little on TLD’s in general, look up how .gov TLD’s are issued, and also look up the technical term “off of”.

      • charlesthemoderator,

        Take as much offence as you like, but I’m declining your suggestions.

        Are you correcting any facts, or just being silly? Are you trying to make a point? There is no technical term “off of”, of course.

        Just more Warmist foolishness. Organising a deceptive website address doesn’t make nonsense any less nonsensical.

        Still no GHE, .gov URL notwithstanding.

        Cheers.

  37. Pingback: Week in review – science and policy edition — Climate Etc. | Friends of Science Calgary

  38. From the article:

    9 DECEMBER 2016 • 5:16PM
    Britain will pay almost £130m in subsidies to keep dirty old coal plants running through the winter of 2020-21, after they proved a cheaper option for keeping the lights on than building big new gas plants.

    The Government on Friday awarded £1.2bn of subsidy contracts through its capacity market auction to companies that could help ensure Britain has the power it needs in four years’ time at the lowest cost.

    The subsidies, the lion’s share of which went to existing gas, coal and nuclear plants, will cost a typical household £14 on their energy bill in 2020. However, ministers estimate the scheme will also save households £12 in wholesale energy costs by avoiding price spikes that could have been seen if power supplies ran low.

    The Government is keen to see new gas plants built as a cleaner replacement for old coal plants, which it wants to shut by 2025. It hailed the capacity market as a success after securing the construction of two mid-sized gas plants, as well as a raft of new battery storage projects.

    But analysts at Barclays said they believed the auction “will largely be viewed as a disappointment by the UK government in terms of securing the significant levels of new gas generation capacity they hoped for”.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/09/old-coal-beats-new-gas-subsidy-cash-keep-lights/

  39. Here is my take on how the Trumpers might treat the emerging US Public Access Program, which will make all scientific journal articles flowing from Federal research freely available 12 months after publication:
    http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/tracking-trump.html
    The future is very uncertain.

  40. From the article:

    The tech giant is investing in the Chinese wind power industry, turning to the world’s most populous country to help it achieve its goal of getting 100% of its energy from renewable sources.

    The iPhone maker struck a deal this week to buy a 30% stake in three subsidiaries of Goldwind, China’s biggest wind-turbine manufacturer.
    The companies aren’t saying how much money is involved. But it’s Apple (AAPL, Tech30)’s largest clean energy project to date and the first of its kind in the wind power sector, Lisa Jackson, vice president of Apple’s environment initiatives, told state-run newspaper China Daily.

    Many Apple (AAPL, Tech30) products are made in China, and the country accounts for about one fifth of the company’s sales.

    Environmental group Greenpeace has warned that electronics manufacturing uses a lot of energy in China, drawing on the country’s high number of polluting coal power stations.

    Apple’s moves into renewable energy are an attempt to compensate for this. Last year, it announced a series of solar projects, including one in the mountains of Sichuan Province where the panels were designed so that the local yak population could graze among them. It’s also pushing its Chinese suppliers to use more clean energy.

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/09/technology/apple-wind-turbine-china-investment/index.html

    • Lisa Jackson is the same one who was EPA’s chief, now at Apple. Is it Trump’s worst nightmare that an American company is working with China on renewable energy? Will he try to stop it somehow?

      • Curious George

        Jim D, I expected the worst of Donald Trump. So far, he disappointed me badly. You never do.

      • He hasn’t started yet. He is going to be piloting America’s plane by the seat of his pants. It is worrying.

      • Jim

        I am no lover of trump but he can not be worse than Obama. As the Sunday times says today in its comment

        ‘the fact is that obamas tenure has been one in which Americas enemies have had a field day. Mr Putin has made Hay in the US foreign policy vacuum of the past eight years and been emboldened by it.’

        It also mentions China walking all over your contry.

        Obama has given up the role of global policeman and as a result the west is beset by problems on all sides. Clinton would surely have been more of the same in continuing the same non policies.

        Trump may surprise us all, hopefully in a good way.

        Tonyb

      • America has extracted itself from the Middle East turmoil, which was a bad idea to be involved in in the first place, especially for making them a terrorist target. America’s economic recovery has been one of the best in the world from the recession disaster left from the previous administration. Obama has pulled America out of these two big holes. Let’s only hope Trump doesn’t start digging more holes to sink America in.

      • America’s economic recovery has been one of the best in the world from the recession disaster left from the previous administration.

        Actually, this has been one of the worst “recoveries”.

        Hopefully the Trump administration will see most of the stifling regulations from the Obama administration remove and/or replaced with more business-friendly ones.

      • Compared to other countries, it is better. The recession was bad, and Congress insisted on austerity, which put a big constraint on rebuilding.

      • Jim D,

        Flying by the seat of one’s pants is how mankind got of the ground in the first place.

      • So, Trump is like all those people who crashed before the Wright brothers. How reassuring.

      • “Compared to other countries, it is better. The recession was bad, and Congress insisted on austerity, which put a big constraint on rebuilding.”

        Comparing the recoveries of other countries recessions to the United States doesn’t put food on the table, pay the rent or mortgage or other necessities for people in the U.S.

      • Globalization and modernization have also led to labor-intensive job loss in wealthier countries. This is a background trend that would be hard to reverse, but the governments will be blamed anyway.

  41. Yes Jim … not even going to listen to the security services (well he says that now anyway).
    Putin must be lovin it.
    So “post-truth” keeps winning.
    For now.

    • [… N]ot even going to listen to the security services (well he says that now anyway).

      That’s not what he says. Stop making thing up.

      • AK,
        It’s so very simplistic to state ‘not what he says’. For our edification, please inform what he does say. Thanks so much.

      • It is true that he doesn’t currently listen to many intelligence briefings. He also appears not to trust what they say, so it makes sense he doesn’t want to listen to them. Once his own appointees are at the top, he will have a suitable filter, the way Tenet and Rice were for Bush/Cheney, who will only tell him what he wants to hear, and not any contrary information. The intelligence agencies had all kinds of red flags about 9/11, but Bush never got any urgency from his top people, similarly they trumped up WMD with weak to no evidence because the higher ups knew that was what Cheney wanted to hear. Filters/blinders are a dangerous thing.

      • It may be taking it too far to infer that he will never listen the his security services.
        But:
        What does it say about the man that he is prepared to dismiss what they say out of hand because of his own ideological confirmation bias.
        That ring a bell around here?

      • Still not what he said. Perhaps you should stop reading sources that talk about what people say he said, instead of the ones that report what he actually says.

    • Charles:
      Sorry it just was….

      “In an interview days earlier with Time magazine, Trump flatly rejected intelligence agencies’ preliminary finding that Russia had hacked Democrats’ computer and email systems to influence the election. “I don’t believe it. I don’t believe they interfered,” he said. Asked directly if those conclusions were motivated by partisan politics, he replied: “I think so.”

      http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2016-donald-trump/

      • 1. The context I was discussing was concerning listening to intelligence briefings daily.

        2. Nine words quoted or three are extremely likely to be lacking context.

        3. I like to maintain the decorum here, but you are simply a moron if you think that article remotely satisfies the criteria of writing what he says.

  42. Scientists just affirmed a major (and long feared) climate feedback involving the Earth’s soils [link]

    “Fear” – how exciting! Don’t you just love climate fear, especially the way it smells of grant money.

    This is exactly the wrong way to do science, it is no science at all. This is inductivist pre-renaissance armchair theorising without any connection to the real world. This dysfunctional epistemology is what Karl Popper exposed as false and useless. Popper showed that science should be deductive, start with observation then make deductions.

    “THERE ARE NO INDUCTIVE INFERENCES”.

    The logical dysfunction here is so profound that these authors actually believe that their “discovery” and publication are going to change the carbon cycle in the real world. Maybe they believe the world they inhabit is a Matrix-style simulation based on a GCM. CO2 will now warm the earth faster as a consequence of their publication and narrative, than it would have done otherwise.

    Galileo challenged science by inductive narrative unconnected to the real world. He showed how science should be done, deductively (Popper-style). He climbed the tower of Pisa and dropped the two stones of different size, defying the 97% consensus that the heavier one would fall faster.

    Climate scientists have become so talebanically fanatical about crushing resistance to a flawed hypothesis that they want to be a fact that they do not care how much damage they do to science. Even to the extent of reversing the renaissance, destroying the scientific method and bringing back the dark ages.

    “I’ve found a mechanism now let’s make up some data to fit it.”

    Yes, the heavier stone will obviously fall faster than the lighter one. Why even bother to test it?

    • Ptolemy2 – I am not into “inductive inferences”, whatever they may be. The “science” was doing just fine spreading fear without a new substantial effect … Why the hell would it need it? It might look as it was overlooking something substantial; then – how many other substantials it might be overlooking?

  43. The death of facts: the emperor’s new epistemology [link]

    An infantile rant by Joe Pierre who says simply “everyone who disagrees with me and my mob is lying.” Endless diatribe on epistemology with no mention of Karl Popper? And the claim of a monopoly on truth puts him way into scitzofrenic territory. Get help Joe.

  44. Ronald Bailey: Energy poverty is much worse for the poor than climate change [link]

    America’s left ditched the poor years ago. That’s why they now have Donald Trump as president.

  45. Trump “open minded” on environment
    Trump says ‘nobody really knows’ if climate change is real

    “President-elect Donald Trump said Sunday that “nobody really knows” whether climate change is real and that he is “studying” whether the United States should withdraw from the global warming agreement struck in Paris a year ago.”

    “Donald Trump remains ‘open minded’ on environmental issues despite appointing climate change skeptic as EPA head”
    Is it statistically possible to prove anthropogenic global warming?
    Statistician Douglas Keenan posted a $100,000 prize to show climate temperature data is not random
    See: Global warming fails the random natural variation contest.

    Those people assert, in particular, that they can determine, via statistical analysis, whether global temperatures are increasing more that would be reasonably expected by random natural variation. Those people do not present any counter to my argument, but they make their assertions anyway.
    In response to that, I am sponsoring a contest: the prize is $100 000. In essence, the prize will be awarded to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

    Nobody (including scientists, statisticians, and mathmaticians?) was able to win the $100,000 prize for proving a trend with random noise set by Douglas Keenan. See: Global warming fails the random natural variation contest.
    Could Trump really be the one who holds the true statistically valid position on anthropogenic global warming?!
    Is there any climate alarmist able to statistically disprove Keenan’s statistical challenge?
    Recommendation to Trump EPA team.
    Engage red team of statistical experts to “kick the tires” and challenge the assertions.

    • I think Trump appointing ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to Secretary of State position is a pretty clear signal about what’s going to happen with the Paris Agreement…

    • It’s frankly silly to state ‘no one knows if climate change is real’. Typical poor word choice for our prez to bee. When is climate static?

      Looking forward to improvement to a 9th grade level of communication by Trump. Hoping it takes less than 4 years.

      • He makes these answers up as he goes along.Clearly he has given no thought to this issue and had nothing to offer on the subject. He is still saying he will “study” Paris, and that was a year ago.

      • JimD,
        My study of Paris leads me to suggest Musee d’Orsay. Mona Lisa is much smaller than expected. Sacré-Cœur is a must see and hear when choir in chamber. Outstanding food everywhere. Art on the Seine. Didn’t take more than a couple of weeks.

        Apparently Trump is slower than most. But I’ll admit I too just made up this comment.

      • We’ll give him credit for knowing something related to long-term climate policy happened in Paris, but I am not sure he knows much more than that. In-depth answers are just not his thing on what we have seen so far. He usually ends up with repeating slogans, and I think he may have up to ten of those.

      • “We’ll give him credit for knowing something related to long-term climate policy happened in Paris……….”

        Naw. Been informed he’s not prez yet so not ‘doing’. Knowing involves ‘doing’ some sort of effort. Can’t credit where not due. (Coulda resisted. Chose not to.)

      • He’s not the kind to cram for knowledge. He’s more the kind that gets others to do his homework for him.

      • Let’s go down the Bill Clinton “It depends on what the meaning of is is.” road.
        What is the meaning of “really knows?

        What is the meaning of “climate change”?

        What is the meaning of “real”?

        Seemed to work for Bill.

      • Ceresco,

        Okay. Along those lines. Are you suggesting Trump is therefore emulating good behavior or bad? (Sometimes a road less traveled?)

      • David L. Hagen

        Danny Thomas The fault is the UNFCCC redefinition of “Climate Change” as only due to humans. Consequently you have to test if that is so. Statistician Douglas Keenan posted a $100,000 challenge to distinguish a +/- 1C trend on top of a random time series from those without – no one was able to. He shows the IPCC’s methods to be statistically invalid. THe problem of equivocation – compared with the scientific definition of Climate Change. When you distinguish between those, your comments might be coherent and worth commenting on. Note no scientist/statistician was able to win the $100,000 prize for proving a trend with random noise set by Douglas Keenan
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/08/global-warming-fails-the-random-natural-variation-contest/

      • David,

        You’ve shown capability to exceed the communication level Trump chose. That, in part, helps make my point.

      • David L. Hagen

        Danny Thomas. You equivocate on “climate change”!


  46. Ask not for whom the globe warms, it warms for thee…

  47. Trump’s EPA pick is just what this country needs.

    The New York Times labeled Pruitt pejoratively a “Climate Change Denialist.” Pruitt, a “close ally of the fossil fuel industry,” the Times reporters wrote . . . the Times selectively quoted Pruitt from a piece he authored for the National Journal in May: “Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.” . . .
    Pruitt has sued the EPA and so have a couple of dozen states. But it wasn’t over some personal agenda, it was over what he saw as regulatory overreach and violations of the rule of law. He was doing his job. Pruitt was the duly elected attorney general of Oklahoma, the state’s top law enforcement officer, and he is committed to the rule of law.

  48. brandonrgates,

    You wrote –

    “You don’t think pollution damages the environment or otherwise causes injury, Jean Paul?”

    What the heck is the relevance to the non existent GHE?

    Are you so desperate to avoid looking like the complete fool that you are trying to emulate, that you assume that people don’t realise that CO2 damages nothing of importance? It’s actually food for plants!

    It’s a mark of delusional psychosis that reality cannot be accepted by its sufferers. They will come up with ever more fanciful reasons to justify their delusional beliefs. Fear of seas swamping the land, boulders being sucked from the sea floor, generally being boiled, fried, roasted or toasted! Gee!

    Complete nuttiness, I know. Hence your attempts to switch concerns to pollution. Hopeless, just as most Warmist attempts to spread alarm and fear. Keep trying – you might succeed one day. The future is unknowable. Just ask any pollster or political pundit.

    Cheers.

    • “Are you so desperate to avoid looking like the complete fool that you are trying to emulate…”

      Mike, who would be the complete fool that Brandon is desperate to avoid looking like yet also trying to emulate?

    • > Hence your attempts to switch concerns to pollution.

      Since you haven’t lived in my own head for my entire life, Mike F., I can hardly blame you for not knowing that my desire to see fossil fuels phased out in favor of alternatives began during the oil crises in the 1970s. The “alternatives” included nuclear fission by the time I reached high school. (I had to undo some stereotypical environmentalist programming to get there, but get there I did.)

      I didn’t first hear about AGW until I was at university, and I didn’t accept its veracity until a decade after that. So for me, there’s no “switch” here, more like a progression of *additional* reasons to move away from burning carbon fuels for energy.

      No delusional psychosis here either, I’m afraid. My neuroses have neuroses, but that’s a common enough problem which doesn’t preclude me from correctly understanding the reason why Thermos bottles are mirrored on the inside.

      I don’t really think we need to have that discussion again. It’s still there if you require a refresher.

    • brandonrgates,

      Maybe you think if you place a thermometer inside a Thermos flask, its temperature will magically rise. Possibly due to radiation reflected from its mirrored surfaces? Maybe filling the flask with pure CO2 will cause the temperature to shoot up. Hot enough to boil water, or at least heat up your cooling beverage, surely!

      Complete nonsense, of course, but GHE followers believe that insulators increase temperatures of thermometers – as in “Hottest year EVAH!””

      If you believe that sort of rubbish, you might be capable of believing that hot water in the ocean sinks, denser water floats, that Michael Mann received a Nobel Prize, or that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist!

      The Wonders of Warmism! Factiness and fantasy supplant facts. Truthiness triumphs over truth.

      Maybe you could try marketing your preferred alternative to fossil fuels. Have you suggested a Thermos flask charged with CO2 as a heat source? Or is that merely a fantasy to support the non-existent GHE?

      You say you’re not delusional. You would say that, wouldn’t you?

      Cheers.

  49. It would be big of me to not gloat but I’ve been waiting for climate change bullshiit bluff to get called for 15 years and it’s finally happened. Maybe I’ll only gloat for the 8 years Trump is in office instead of the full 15 I’m owed.

  50. The AMO is going negative!. Global cooling is under way!

  51. “1979
    US National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming.”
    http://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
    That’s some progress you’re making.
    You’re Fired.

  52. “538 by Gavin Schmidt: Why We Don’t Know If It Will Be Sunny Next Month But We Know It’ll Be Hot All Year [link]”

    Tomorrow has been a “snow day” so all State schools will be closed until the roads are cleared for school buses and the sidewalks cleared for children to walk to school. Tomorrow will be 13 days before Christmas and 9 days before the official start of Winter. Later in the coming week, the high temperatures will be in the mid teens, and, if there is a substantive wind, the wind chill will be below 0 degrees F, whereby, school officials will again close schools to prevent children from suffering frostbite waiting for the school bus to arrive.

    What in heaven’s name is Gavin thinking? Where in the world is he living? His nose is stuck in his computer models and doesn’t get out to see what life is all about, let alone, knowing that it is snowing and very cold.

    To he** with his notions of climate catastrophe. To he** with his notions of a world of CO2’s unspeakable harm. To he** with is notions of man’s culpability in the trace gas radiative transfer hypothesis. It is he who has doomed so many of the 2.8 billion people to burn wood & dung to cook their meals or heat their yurts, or suffer ignorance and isolation and live lives without electricity.

    Judith raises the uncertainty monster. Gavin is the embodiment of the climate monster actively destroying efforts to bring “equity” to the real world.

    I have no further words to describe my view of this alien.

    • The article indicates it was published in September 2016… approximately 3 months ago.

      You’re talking about weather. He says 3-day forecasts are pretty good, and that 10-day forecasts are not very good at all, but getting better (I believe Professor Curry fully agrees with him on those two conclusions.)… they are now approaching the level of accuracy seen in 5-day forecasts from the mid 1980’s.

      So he was saying on September that he had no way of knowing what the weather would be this week, but he knew 2016 was going to end up the warmest year.

      Roy Spencer just said it is basically impossible that 2016 will not be the warmest year in his UAH series.

      • JCH

        Frostbit. Shivering cold. Heating bills at astronomical heights. Decisions made by low income families whether to pay the utility bill or eat the next day.

        This last election answered the question about the residents of “fly over states’s” priorities. Dress our children warmly. Go to the “food bank” for cheese and bread. Heat our homes with whatever fuel is available. Stuff the window sill cracks with paper. Do whatever you have to do to survive. Gavin Schmidt is the incarnate of, well… let me not go further.

      • Curious George

        JCH, a bet: The average temperature in California will not be higher than 2 degrees F in 2100 than in 2015. I bet $100,000.00 (one hundred thousand dollars) payable to you if the average temperature in California is higher in 2100 than in 2015. I’ll pay you the amount of the bet on March 31,2100 if I am still alive. You promise that your heirs will pay my heirs at that time if it so happens.

        Please feel free to specify a temperature series to be used in resolving the claim. No adjustments taking effect January 1, 2016 or later are acceptable.

      • Curious George

        JCH, sorry, an obvious gaffe: I’ll pay on March 31,2101 (not 2100). Or please feel free to get paid on 3/31/2100 with the terms of the bet changed to 2015 to 2099.

  53. In regards: Time lapse of land use change and natural variation.
    I have a question. Being a lukewarmer, skeptical of CAGW, alarmism, etc. I’ve tended to doubt that a parts per million gas could be the “control knob” of our climate. This last week I’ve been mulling over something posted earlier about the global greening over the last few decades observed from satellites. The wonderful timelapse photo link Dr. Curry provided got me thinking about it again.
    My question is: If a quantity (100?) of parts per million increase of CO2 in our atmosphere can increase vegetation significantly, so much so it is visible and quantifiable from satellites, why couldn’t it also change our climate?
    While thinking about this I remembered as a youth in the late 60s I worked at a Drug Crisis Intervention Center. It was quite memorable to deal with a naked youth running down the road, screaming incoherently for his mother, after the effects of ingesting just 100 micrograms of LSD. That was about one part part per billion of their mass.
    Of course, even that out-of-balance effect was dwarfed when I started working in the Hi-Rel department at National Semiconductor in the early 70s, testing the parts that would go into ICBM control systems. It was easy to visualize that a faulty transistor gate could shunt an insignificant weight of electrons on the wrong pathway, produce a 1 instead of a 0, and send a missile to destroy my hometown, instead of a bunch of Godless Commies.
    I just wish I could be as sure of carbon dioxide’s irrelevancy as some of the posters here. Any reassurance you can offer would be appreciated.

    • @johnvanderlin asked “why couldn’t it also change our climate?”

      The answer is that it does, but the effect is small compared to the noise
      of other forcings, cycles, and variabilities.

      CO2 has some effect on reducing the lapse rate. The magnitude is roughly logarithmic in concentration and shows substantial saturation even at 300 ppm. The presumed increase in temperature is < 2oC for doubling of CO2 from 300 or so.

      The total effect of CO2 is about 1% of that of water, and is well within the variability due to water. If you average temperatures over a long enough period you might see some change in the statistics. So far, not so much.

      @538Gavin Schmidt (above) notwithstanding, we have not proven that all variations are of the sort that can be averaged out on time scales of human lifetime. There may 1/f noise down to frequencies on the order of cycles per century. (On this, see work by Koutsoyannis.) I think Gavin is about half right; some measurements can be averaged, some not.

      The worst evils of CO2 arise from "positive feedbacks" which exist primarily in semi-empirical engineering models called GCM's. One such feedback might exist if, as assumed in some models, relative humidity is constant, so increasing the temperature has the positive feedback of increasing the water vapor.

      We lukewarmers believe that if such feedbacks existed to the significant extent presumed by many, we would have seen some sign either in the historical records or in the recent runups to 400 ppm. In particular, radiative transfer theory as used in GCM's predicts measurable warming of the troposphere that has not been observed. Grant Petty's book "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" might prove interesting to you.

      The CO2 cycle itself is very complicated in that the majority of what we emit seems to disappear. The anthropogenic component of the flow is in single digit percentages.

      CO2 is certainly a limiting nutrient for many plants who, if sentient, would
      likely consider that oxygen is the pollutant. The early earth probably had a dominant CO2 atmosphere.

      CO2 or sun, note that the entire temperature increase in the last hundred years is the rough equivalent of moving your house from central North Dakota 75 miles south, and that the 2C temperature increase of international concern is roughly the equivalent of moving from North Dakota to a corresponding location in South Dakota, or from New Hampshire to Massachusetts– interesting but hardly deadly.
      http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/02/us-temperature-trends-in-context.html

      And if you look at Coyote's chart you do not see noticeable increase in variability, so there is not justification for scrapping "global warming" for "climate change". There may in fact be way less than the <2oC for doubling CO2. Gerald North has discussed mechanism.

      If there is a problem, and this has yet to be proven, there
      is plenty of time to deal with it by building lots of nukes from which
      we can get electricity and thus hydrogen to build fuels. If we were
      desperate, we could use nukes to pull CO2 out of the air. It might even
      be cheaper than present wind turbine lifetime costs.

    • johnvonderlin,

      If the atmosphere behaves chaotically, and it seems to do so, there is no minimum change to an input which can be guaranteed not to induce arbitrarily large changes in the future.

      A change in position or velocity of a single electron in some part of the Earth’s system may have completely unpredictable outputs.

      A single photon/electron interaction in a single atom in a single CO2 molecule might result in the extermination of humanity. Or hopefully, not.

      Or a cold snap. Or a heat wave. Or flood, fire, famine, boils or haemorrhoids for all left handed lesbian light footed leapers! The future is unknowable.

      No GHE due to CO2, however. Not even a falsifiable hypothesis stating how such a thing might exist.

      It’s about as silly as “back-feeding” 2 V of a 12 V battery “back”, and claiming you’ve created a 14 V source. After all, 12 + 2 most assuredly equals 14, does it not?

      I have no trouble with rising temperatures over the last 100 years. Many simple reasons. None involve an unfalsiable GHE.

      Cheers.

  54. 538 by Gavin Schmidt: Why We Don’t Know If It Will Be Sunny Next Month But We Know It’ll Be Hot All Year [link]

    I wonder if Gavin is watching the weather news right now.

    • In September he said the weather in December cannot be forecast. 2016 is hot as heck through November; it’s impossible it will not be a record shattering warmest year.

      Why would watching the USA weather make a bit of difference?

  55. How is this even in conversation: ““Cover crops are an attempt to make the system more perennial,” says Weil. “They capture the sun’s energy during the rest of the year and put it into the soil food web. They can more than double carbon inputs into the soil.””
    https://ensia.com/features/sustainable-farm-crop-insurance/

    How does mother earth ‘do it’? Really? Is it necessary to even discuss?

    Sometimes it’s just made entirely too complex for such simple issues.

    If Trump doesn’t do anything else, I hope for a ‘land use’ czar.

  56. View story at Medium.com
    Agreed. Yet viable replacement oxygenates?

    Certainly a dilemma.

  57. The banquet joke letter is seriously concerning. We now have confirmed a big group of young people who have no skill at understanding humor and language. I’m seriously concerned.

  58. I got my wish. Trump appointing Rick Perry as Secretary of Department of Energy. Rick campaigned on abolishing the Department of Energy. Trump is appointing wrecking balls to head each of the agencies. Perry won’t abolish the agency but he’ll do everything he can to reduce its regulatory reach and bring about national energy policy that supports economic growth and energy independence. Just like Rick did as longest-ever serving governor of the State of Texas. Keep in mind Texas is the only state in the union to have its own power grid and generates FAR MORE electricity with wind than any other state including 2nd largest wind generator California. Wind power done right has a place in energy infrastructure. Not a big place but it makes sense in limited use.

    Go Trump! Go Perry!

  59. Anyone want to tell him and Gavin that the steepest decline happened before big forcing increase?

    Or ask about the change in mass?

  60. The one stark fact about this post is the link after link after link of non-science. Simply gather a few “facts” & construct them into a narrative that says “it (choose issue) is worse than we thought”. This kind of useless, scare-mongering “science” is exactly what needs to be unfunded and put to a stop.

  61. Over 200 per day are viewing the Abstract of this important new paper: “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis” https://ssrn.com/abstract=2884148

  62. From the article:

    Billionaire Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates traveled to Trump Tower on Tuesday afternoon for a visit with President-elect Donald Trump.
    Earlier in the day, Gates praised Trump on CNBC for his message to make America a better place economically, and compared him to former President John F. Kennedy.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/13/bill-gates-visits-trump-tower-compares-jfk/

    • Posted on another tread but repeated here just for jim2.

      There is more to these Gates and Trump meetings that is much more interesting…

      Trump suggested that Microsoft founder Bill Gates, could possibly help censor parts of the online world. “We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet,” Trump said. “We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way.”
      “Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech,’” he added, dismissing the objection with an arm wave. “These are foolish people.”

      Well at this point I have to agree with Trump. He won fair and square with the greatest landslide victory in US history so what ever he does he will have the complete support of all loyal Americans.

      • I can’t get too worked up if the internet is denied to ISIS. Nice try though.

        One thing I don’t like about Trump, however, is his commitment to continued spying on US citizens at large. Well, no candidate was perfect, but Trump is far better than the 18 left behind.

  63. Extreme global warming, no doubt due to CO2 (or not) –

    “Coastal regions, such as Albion Park near Wollongong, reported remarkable temperature movements. That site recorded a 10-degree jump in an hour soon after midnight – including 5 degrees in just three minutes.”

    Sure beats 0.2 C per decade!

    Cheers.

  64. Prof. Judy gently admonishes David Rose for not wearing his “lukewarm” heart on his sleeve in his recent “El Niño spike” propaganda pieces:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/post-truth-global-and-arctic-temperatures/#comment-216659

  65. From the article:

    EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails – they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for ‘disgusted’ Democratic whistleblowe

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

  66. Pingback: Week in review – science and policy edition | privateclientweb

  67. Looking at the new Google time lapse spoken of by JC above I wondered about Chernoble…that was interesting – select “Explore The World” type in ‘Chenoble’ to “Type Location Here”, then zoom in and see the difference between 1986 and 1987. It looks like someone is applying whiteout to the images from 1987 and on…to stay on topic it must have changed the climate there…

  68. From the article:

    FOX News’ Judge Napolitano charged that U.S. intelligence is behind the leaking of Hillary Clinton’s emails to WikiLeaks, not Russian hackers. From Thursday morning’s broadcast of FOX & Friends on the FOX News Channel:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/15/judge_napolitano_us_intelligence_behind_leaking_clinton_emails_to_wikileaks_not_russian_hackers.html

    • “NAPOLITANO: Whose agents had their real identities and locations exposed by the reckless manner which —

      DOOCY: U.S. intel!

      NAPOLITANO: There you go.

      Who had access to all this material —

      DOOCEY: U.S. intel!

      NAPOLITANO: — without having to steal any codes?

      United States intelligence agents who did not want this woman in charge of the federal government and exposing more agents and more resources and undercover access in the Middle East to who they truly are and where they were…

  69. I don’t see any mention of the need for extra transmission lines, storage, or a “smart” (dumb idea) grid. At any rate, from the article:

    World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar That’s Cheaper Than Wind
    Emerging markets are leapfrogging the developed world thanks to cheap panels.
    by Tom Randall
    December 15, 2016, 12:00 AM CST December 15, 2016, 12:04 AM CST
    A transformation is happening in global energy markets that’s worth noting as 2016 comes to an end: Solar power, for the first time, is becoming the cheapest form of new electricity.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind

  70. Looks like lefties around the world use the same playbook. This just makes the whole Russia meme look even more like a scam. From the article:

    Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage has blasted remain-supporters for blaming their woes on “hate figure” Vladimir Putin, who it has been recently suggested influenced the British referendum on leaving the European Union.
    The accusation was levelled in the House of Commons this week by Exeter Labour MP Ben Bradshaw who said although he had no evidence to back up his claims, felt Russian hackers “probably” swayed the Brexit vote.

    Telling the chamber “we have got to wake up to this”, Mr. Bradshaw was mocked from some quarters for his unusual accusation, not least by Mr. Farage who joined Tucker Carlson on Fox News who noted that “blaming the Russians is not a uniquely American phenomenon, as Brexit is now being blamed on Russian interference”. Speaking on the show, Mr. Farage remarked: “I think it’s the most hysterical thing I’ve yet seen.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12/16/farage-remoaners-blaming-russia-reached-new-low/

    • While the left have not changed their attitude to Putin in the past year, the right has seen a significant growth in Putin apologists according to popularity polls in the US. I wonder how to explain this.

      • Unrelated is that Trump works by the power of suggestion. Nowadays he is telling his crowds that they are “mellow”, despite chants from them that belie that. We’ll see if that works. Perhaps he can soothe them with his words. He’s giving it a go, at least.

      • I’m sure the Russians try to hack just about anything of value to them. They may have even hacked the DNC and Podesta. But even if they did, and it hasn’t been demonstrated they did, that does not prove the Russians handed over emails to Wikileaks. An ex-British ambassador said he got the emails from a disgruntled DNC Dimowit and gave them to Wikileaks. One who probably was fed up with Cr000ked Hillary, I’m guessing.

        The Head Dimowit (Obummer) and other Dimowits are pushing this Russian Hacking narrative for a couple of reasons. First, they would like to make it easier for electors to vote for anyone other than Trump. Secondly, they want to lower Trump’s prestige and mandate (a 306 Elector mandate, plus many governorships, Congress, and some other state offices in the last 8 years, including many in this last election). I believe they will fail considering failure is their chief claim to fame.

      • “An ex-British ambassador said he got the emails” also doesn’t ‘prove’. But it does fit an alternative narrative to that which you ascribe to “The Head Dimowit (Obummer) and other Dimowits”.

        If one is ‘convenient’ a true skeptic would consider the other equally so. Still hard to find true skeptics.

      • Trump doesn’t think it happened. He is still in denial. Not a good look for a president-elect. He only accepts evidence or even rumors he wants to believe, which is not a way to govern in the real world.

      • “Still hard to find true skeptics.”

        Harder still to find true Scotsmen. Not that I’m Scottish. My mother was Irish, so I guess that makes my Irish lineage half-true.

      • JPZ,

        Yes. But what is your ‘skeptical’ lineage?

        And thank you for the confirmation that finding ‘true’ skeptics is hard if not as much so as finding that even you’re not a ‘true’ Scotsman. :)

      • Why is he using words like “unpresidented”. Didn’t he get an educashun?

      • Why is he using words like “unpresidented”.

        Freudian slip?

        I must admit that made me wince.

        Somebody should show him how to use a spell-checker.

        OTOH, I doubt any of his base care. I’m anal about that sort of thing, and it didn’t really make even me wince that much. (Of course, I’ve done worse. Here.)

      • It’s like George the W with his “nucular”. These sons of privilege can just coast through school, and it shows.

      • If one is ‘convenient’ a true skeptic would consider the other equally so. Still hard to find true skeptics.

        More fake balance. I’m very sure Mr. Trump has qualified advisors to tell him that there’s no proof the Ruskies dunnit. No proof has been shown yet.

        OTOH, we have here two pieces of testimony that would require outright lying to be untrue.

        So who to believe? An Obama appointee 2nd and 3rd hand whom nobody in the “intelligence community” will back up?

        Or two people who claim to have been personally involved?

        Remember, the “CIA” claim simply says they’ve concluded from the “evidence”. There’s not even any credible claim that there’s new evidence.

        Simply, there’s no “beyond a reasonable doubt” involved in convicting “Putin” even without the conflicting testimony. It’s all just MSM fake news.

      • It’s not just the Putin connection, it is Russia as a whole that Trump won’t have any part of. Actually I think he does believe it, because he has asked Russia to hack Clinton’s emails, so he knows they have a capability. But he has to leave doubt in the minds of his supporters because otherwise they may not trust Putin like he wants them to. It is all manipulation, of which he is a master.

      • It’s not just the Putin connection, it is Russia as a whole that Trump won’t have any part of.

        Quite properly. There’s no evidence who leaked anything except for the WikiLeaks stuff which was apparently an insider.

        Actually I think he does believe it, because he has asked Russia to hack Clinton’s emails, so he knows they have a capability.

        He never asked Russia to “hack Clinton’s emails”.

        He made the assumption that they already had, along with everybody else and their kid sister. I think everybody familiar with the situation had already come to that conclusion.

        But he has to leave doubt in the minds of his supporters because otherwise they may not trust Putin like he wants them to. It is all manipulation, of which he is a master.

        It’s pretty unlikely that Putin was behind the leaks. Most likely it was some private party, perhaps a Russian with a grudge:

        There is nothing about the attacks against the DNC, the DCC, high profile email accounts like Podesta’s, or even election data bases like those in Arizona and Illinois (that the ODNI/DHS statement specifically excluded) which preclude them from being attacked by any individual hacker or hacker team from anywhere in the world, on their own, and without any government control or direction.

        The CIA has allegedly determined that the Russian government acted to help Trump win because they didn’t release any Republican emails. However there’s a simpler explanation. The Russian people, and that includes Russian hackers, love Donald Trump and hate Hilary Clinton. So the hackers involved in this attack only released the Clinton emails.

        Is this really so surprising? After all, the French people love Jerry Lewis. If Jerry Lewis were running for President against Hilary Clinton, French hackers might very well have done the same thing as Russian hackers: attack Hilary’s campaign and hope that Jerry wins. Would that have mean’t that the French government directed the attacks? Not at all. Would it be possible that the French gov’t directed the attacks? Sure, but you can’t just claim it. You have to prove it to a level of reasonable certainty.

        OTOH, if it was the Russians:

        Here.

      • He is already on bad terms with Intelligence, the DOE, EPA and China, but at least he has like-minded people like Putin, Assad and Duterte as buddies when in power.

      • He is already on bad terms with Intelligence, the DOE, EPA and China, […]

        He ran against the DOE and the EPA. He’s only on bad terms with the top (appointed and sycophants) CIA people, AFAIK. Those are headed out.

        As for China, negotiations are proceeding.

        [… A]t least he has like-minded people like Putin, Assad and Duterte as buddies when in power.

        Sheer smear.

        Putin came to power in a desperate situation for Russia. Much of what he did would be an unacceptable abomination in America (well, maybe Mexico…).

        But Russia has never had more than a Potemkin democracy, any more than they had more than a Potemkin Capitalism.

        After their crash, things got really bad there, from what I hear.

        Judging Putin’s behavior cleaning up this mess by that of a leader of, say, France or Germany, is a total straw man.

        Assad is like Saddam Hussein: bad, but better than the alternative. And a highly dependent client, at that.

        Duterte? I dunno. The MSM is clearly ly1ng about him, piling on the slander the way they did to Trump. How much fire behind the smoke, if any? I dunno.

      • He ran against whole government departments and is now rallying his people against intelligence efforts. Has he said anything bad about the Russians or what Assad is doing to Syria allied to the Iranians? No. On the good side, perhaps it means that the Iran deal is safe. However, this is a sign that he is more likely to join their side in that war to keep Assad in power, even though they have bombed hospitals and generally acted against humanitarian efforts. Similarly for eastern Europe, we don’t know what side he is on yet. His interest in Russia may be from his own financial interests and conflicts of interest that he won’t show. Tillerson only doubles down on this sense.

      • He ran against whole government departments and is now rallying his people against intelligence efforts.

        No he isn’t.

        He’s “rallying his people” against a single Obama appointee who seems to be badly distorting the truth. Just like Iraq.

        Has he said anything bad about the Russians or what Assad is doing to Syria allied to the Iranians?

        What makes you think there’s anything bad to say?

        However, this is a sign that he is more likely to join their side in that war to keep Assad in power, even though they have bombed hospitals and generally acted against humanitarian efforts.

        Have they? What makes you think that besides the hysterical yelling of a bunch of proven l1ers?

        His interest in Russia may be from his own financial interests and conflicts of interest that he won’t show.

        Or it may be preventing WWIII.

        Tillerson only doubles down on this sense.

        Tillerson is an excellent choice. None of your objections to him hold water.

      • Trump is weak on Putin, basically greenlighting his actions and saying America won’t oppose him. You may think it is OK for Putin to annex territories and eliminate troublesome journalists and politicians, or perhaps you don’t believe those reports either. If Trump has a weakness through his financial ties, Putin can exploit that. This looks like a very conflicted President-elect, just from his behaviors.

      • Trump is weak on Putin, basically greenlighting his actions and saying America won’t oppose him.

        Doubful.

        Can’t be ruled out, but doubtful. I suspect you’re judging by the nice things Mr. Trump has said about him, but he always does that. Even when he’s going to rake somebody over the coals the next day.

        As for opposing, I doubt the Trump administration and state department will engage in knee-jerk opposition every time Russia does anything.

        You may think it is OK for Putin to annex territories […]

        Crimea was OK.

        The rest: it depends. Russia’s geopolitical situation is very different from ours. Having their immediate neighbors to the west as part of the EU and/or NATO justifiably makes them nervous. Sabre-rattling makes it worse.

        Right now, the US’s best interests are served by calming the tensions. This would mean letting Crimea go (but trading it for something valuable), a neutral Ukraine, and less sabre-rattling from the EU.

        IMO the best thing to ask Russia for in return is guarantees WRT gas availability and price for the EU.

        My guess is that a neutral Ukraine could be made acceptable in return for Russian backing off on their support in Eastern Ukraine. Once the US gives up on its STUPID demands over Crimea a trade of lifting sanctions in return for Russian cooperation in the Ukraine could be worked out.

        [… A]nd eliminate troublesome journalists and politicians, or perhaps you don’t believe those reports either.

        It’s customary in that part of the world. Progress could be made, but “journalists” need to be careful. Russia’s not the US, and isn’t going to turn into it in the near future.

        This looks like a very conflicted President-elect, just from his behaviors.

        Nope.

        Best guess: you’re just looking for bad things to say about him because you don’t like him.

        It’s possible, I suppose, that you’re just imposing too many of your preconceptions on what you see him doing. Whatever, he’s almost certainly working to a single coordinated plan. If you don’t see it, that doesn’t mean it’s not there.

      • AK, since you are an example of a Putin apologist, it would be interesting to find out if your opinions about him were the same before Trump. The polls show the biggest pro-Putin switch among Republicans came around the RNC convention in July. Is that when you switched? What convinced you to change?

      • AK, since you are an example of a Putin apologist, it would be interesting to find out if your opinions about him were the same before Trump.

        More or less.

        Given the situation after the 1998 collapse, he seems to have done as good a job as anyone could. I wasn’t tracking Russia very closely after 1998 till the Trump/Putin thing arose.

        I’d say he’s done a good job, and done it in the face of ign0rant stupidity from the Obama administration. The US has been responsible for the majority of its major problems in the world, mostly by ign0rantly jumping into horrible complex “human-rights” situations and making them worse.

        I don’t see any reason why the US shouldn’t be on good terms with Russia.

        The polls show the biggest pro-Putin switch among Republicans came around the RNC convention in July.

        Well, I suppose the majority of Republicans simply “defaulted” to the government position until Mr. Trump inspired them to look more closely.

        Is that when you switched? What convinced you to change?

        Since I didn’t switch/change, those questions are moot. I did do a lot of research, which refined my position.

        But I’ve never considered Mr. Putin some sort of fount of evil. Like most powerful movers and shakers, he’s faced a number of complex problems, and solved most of them reasonably well.

      • It is best for the US not to take sides in the Middle East, except to be helping eliminate IS, which is what they are doing, and getting WMD capabilities out of places like Iran and Syria, which is what they have done under Obama even opposed by the Republicans. These both needed Russian help, but the end-goal was worth it.

      • It is best for the US not to take sides in the Middle East, […]

        And yet your beloved CIA, and the Army, have done just that.

        Worse yet, both have supported Islamic radical terr0rists, different groups, who’ve gotten into many firefights with each other.

        [… E]xcept to be helping eliminate IS, which is what they are doing, […]

        No they’re not.

        They’re actually making things worse, setting the stage for more ISlS growth.

        These both needed Russian help, but the end-goal was worth it.

        The Russians wanted stability.

        The Obama administration wanted to overthrow the leaders who offered stability. Just like Bush 43. And with similar results.

      • It looks like the US forces are only supporting the fight against IS and militants of that kind, so I don’t know what you are referring to. Who else are they fighting that you would prefer them not to?
        The Russians want a form of stability where they have influence in or on foreign governments. They don’t feel safe without that kind of control. They would hate an independent Syria without their chosen puppet leader, and are doing everything they can to make sure that doesn’t happen.

      • It looks like the US forces are only supporting the fight against IS and militants of that kind, so I don’t know what you are referring to. Who else are they fighting that you would prefer them not to?

        CIA-backed rebels fight Pentagon-backed rebels in Syria

        CIA and Pentagon Bicker While Russia Wipes Out U.S.-Backed Rebels

        In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA

        Syria – CIA Vetted “Rebels” Chase U.S. Forces Out Of Town

        Just for example.

      • Do you think they were wrong in trying to stop Assad’s genocide too? That may have been a valid cause, but the US support ended up being minimal to none because they could not train anyone they trusted if you read what ended up happening there.

      • Do you think they were wrong in trying to stop Assad’s genocide too?

        What “genocide”? Anyway, before deciding to overthrow him, it’s a good idea to have a plan for after. Something with a little more substance than Bush in ’02.

        That may have been a valid cause, but the US support ended up being minimal to none because they could not train anyone they trusted if you read what ended up happening there.

        Just like every other time the US has gone in and trained somebody to overthrow an existing regime, it ended up being an Islamic organization. ISlS in embryo.

        You “liberals” just need to realize that the Muslim fanatics know how to game you. You just aren’t going to create a Muslim rebel group against somebody you don’t like without most of it being Islamic fanatics wanting to restore the Caliphate.

        The more you destabilize things, the more you set the stage for another attempt at the Caliphate.

        That’s what every single Islamic fanatic wants, Sunni or Shi’a. They may not agree about details, or which sect, or timing. But that’s what they’re after.

        And that’s what decent Humanity cannot allow. Because once the Caliphate exists, it can authorize terrorism in the rest of the world. The people who do it are heroes and martyrs, not criminals. Because they’re justified by the Caliphate.

        This is what happened in 2001: those who did this had been authorized by the Caliphate in Afghanistan. Despite what many Western blatherers said, they were not criminals. What they were doing was legal warfare under the laws of the Caliphate in Afghanistan. That’s why it had to be destroyed.

        Evey single “moderate Islamic” group the US supports wants the Caliphate. They just differ on methods and timing. They’re all our enemies, and arming them to overthrow a secular dictatorship such as Assad is ultimately to the US’s harm. Just as the ones the CIA trained against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

      • In fact, I now remember that part of the reason they had trouble getting people to sign up was that they were sworn to fight against IS and not Assad as a condition for getting weapons. They ended up with only about 5 people for various reasons. Focusing the effort, while good, was its downfall with so many enemy factions in that region. The US did not want to take part in the rebellion against Assad mainly because those people were not clearly US-friendly. By being careful not to supply IS, the US effectively eliminated its own contribution, which is as it should be.

      • In fact, I now remember that part of the reason they had trouble getting people to sign up was that they were sworn to fight against IS and not Assad as a condition for getting weapons.

        So the WaPo is fake news? CIA begins weapons delivery to Syrian rebels

        The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

        […]

        The delays prompted several senior U.S. lawmakers to chide the Obama administration for not moving more quickly to aid the Syrian opposition after promising lethal assistance in June. The criticism has grown louder amid the debate over whether Washington should use military force against the Syrian regime, with some lawmakers withholding support until the administration committed to providing the rebels with more assistance.

        […]

        Ward said he hopes the assistance efforts will position the United States to have strong relationships in a postwar Syria.

      • That was the 2013 effort by the CIA to fight Assad. The Pentagon were trying to fund people to fight IS. It didn’t end well, as I mentioned. Very confusing fighting on two fronts alongside amorphous factions. Anyway, this is training and supplies, not troops.
        http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/overhaul-syria-rebel-training-programme-151009133250518.html
        “Fake news” is things like pizzagate or twitter-based rumors, not this stuff. There are many independent sources.

      • JimD,
        ““Fake news” is things like pizzagate or twitter-based rumors, not this stuff.” You’re making it more challenging to fit (or not) a narrative.

      • “Fake news” is things like pizzagate or twitter-based rumors, not this stuff.

        Fake news” is calling Trump “openly racist”, “misogynist”, etc. I agree the stuff about Syria isn’t “fake news”, I was being sarcastic.

        But “Pizzagate” isn’t “fake news”. Except that part claiming it’s been “debunked”. That’s “fake news”.

        And “twitter-based rumors” aren’t “fake news” either. If people are saying stuff, it’s news. Now, whether it’s true or not is another story. But either way the fact that a lot of people are saying something on Twitter is real news.

      • You have to separate opinion from news. I know it is hard for those who watch right-wing media to do that, because it is 99% opinion on Fox and Rush. The MSM may have op-eds or CNN may have talking heads where a person calls Trump a racist or fraudster. Are opinions news? No. You can take a person’s opinion for what it is. News is clearly separated in the MSM, but some are confused because the news does attribute opinions to people too. Like when Trump has the opinion that Obama founded ISIL. Was that news? Only that Trump said it was news. No one took it as a fact. See the difference?

      • You have to separate opinion from news.

        There was plenty of fakenews” calling him that. Not just “opinion”.

        Here’s another example of fake news. (Because I’m not going to waste time digging up examples of “news” as opposed to “opinion”.) All of these seem to be “news” (as opposed to “opinion”) to me:

        Trump’s baseless assertions of voter fraud called ‘stunning’

        Donald Trump on Sunday used his platform as president-elect to peddle a fringe conspiracy theory to justify his loss of the popular vote, claiming without evidence that millions of people voted illegally Nov. 8.

        Trump falsely claims ‘millions of people who voted illegally’ cost him popular vote

        President-elect Donald Trump alleged Sunday, without evidence, that “millions of people” voted illegally for Hillary Clinton and otherwise he would have won the popular vote. It’s an unprecedented allegation by a president-elect.

        Trump Claims, With No Evidence, That ‘Millions of People’ Voted Illegally

        President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Sunday that he had fallen short in the popular vote in the general election only because millions of people had voted illegally, leveling the baseless claim as part of a daylong storm of Twitter posts voicing anger about a three-state recount push.

        All the above are fake news.

        There was evidence, even if it’s been disputed. And even if evidence isn’t already publicly available, the people making those statements had no reason to believe that he didn’t have evidence.

        After all, a 140-character Twitter text doesn’t have much room. And perhaps he wanted to keep it to himself until he was ready to go to court.

      • Distinctions vs. ‘fake’. Headlines are ‘clickbait’, content explains.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/18/a-new-poll-shows-an-astonishing-52-of-republicans-think-trump-won-the-popular-vote/?utm_term=.bd488dfbe71e

        Results of misleading information, IE Trumps unsubstantiated suggestion that ‘millions of fraudulent votes were cast’ feeds the ‘fake news’ meme. Then the media reports associated results. NOT the fault of the media. They’re businesses vying for eyeballs.

        “These results align with something social scientists have long recognized: We choose facts to be consistent with our prior beliefs. In this case, Republicans are more likely to endorse erroneous claims about Trump’s victory because it aligns with their partisanship.”

        Goes to ‘did you find what your sought?’.

      • There is no evidence. They traced it to someone called Glenn on Twitter who made the claim (a red flag in itself), but he showed no evidence on requests from the media, and as far as we know he is still looking for it, and tellingly no one went to help him with looking at 120 million votes in whatever database he was using, which no one knows. His number was really out there, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

      • There is no evidence.

        Yes there is. Two peer-reviewed articles, one making the claim, one disputing it.

        Both were from 2014, and were accompanied by a bunch of non-peer-reviewed articles. This one has links to most or all of the original pieces.

        Thus there was evidence. The fake news media l1ed when they said there wasn’t, or used the word “falsely”.

        They may not like the evidence. You may not. But it’s there and they l1ed when they said “no evidence

        They traced it to someone called Glenn on Twitter who made the claim (a red flag in itself), but he showed no evidence on requests from the media, and as far as we know he is still looking for it, […]

        He’s not required to show it to the fake news media. Technically he’s not required to show it to Mr. Trump, but even if he did, only fake news media would say “no evidence” just because they weren’t allowed to look at it.

        Anyway, as I mentioned above, his is not the only evidence.

        His number was really out there, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

        Proof” isn’t necessary to tweet a claim, much less “extraordinary proof.

      • It was false because it was stated to apply to 2016, and not an extrapolation from a faulty local study years ago. The extrapolation was invalid, and the study is still being awaited for 2016. I guess Glenn is still singlehandedly on it, but no one expects him to state a result based on actual 2016 data. Trump stated it as fact for 2016. False. Not at all fact. Not even data for the “millions” claim.

      • AK,
        ” I’m very sure Mr. Trump has qualified advisors to tell him that there’s no proof the Ruskies dunnit.” You’re sure? Gotta link?

        ‘Qualified’ is an informative modifier. Ever served in a capacity where some ‘underlings’ state that which the boss prefers to hear vs. that which might be more representative of objectivisim?

      • Ever served in a capacity where some ‘underlings’ state that which the boss prefers to hear vs. that which might be more representative of objectivisim?

        Of course.

        And we had a perfectly clear example over Iraq: the top (appointed and sycophants) CIA people talked about “proof of WMD’s” even though the rank and file knew better.

        Another likely example is the top (appointed and sycophants) CIA people talking about how the Russians dunnit. Just about everybody with any real qualifications in the matter knows there’s no proof. In fact, the CIA admitted there was no proof.

        But everything about the Trump Administration shows that’s not how he runs things. He encourages his subordinates to speak their minds, and pursue different agendas and opinions. Then he decides.

        My guess is that this was why the MSM/Clintonistas thought his campaign was in “disarray”. The socialist/leftist/Democrat party approach is to get everybody singing from the same hymnal.

      • Entirely too entertaining that you choose to write these words:
        “But everything about the Trump Administration shows that’s not how he runs things. He encourages his subordinates to speak their minds, and pursue different agendas and opinions. Then he decides.” (pursue different agendas……really?)

        Followed by:
        “socialist/leftist/Democrat party approach is to get everybody singing from the same hymnal.”

        When one takes any sort of balanced view of the make up of membership of the ‘Trump administration’.

        Gather you’ve never viewed a season of the ‘Apprentice’. Hint, each episode’s denouement initiated with the catchy phrase “you’re fired”.

        “Most turned out to be chumps.”

        “Indeed, Trump excels at picking people who will do pretty much anything to hold on to their 15 minutes of fame, experts say.” (Maybe he’s just not a ‘substance’ focused kinda guy?)

        http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/09/30/trump-sure-pick-em-apprentice-winners-sorry-track-record.html

        Probably should insert something about here about MSM, that is if Fox fits that bill.

      • Gather you’ve never viewed a season of the ‘Apprentice’.

        Nope.

        And I don’t see why we should expect his performance as President to much resemble his performance on “reality TV”.

        I did see the coverage of Kellyanne Conway’s public statements about Mitt Romney for Secretary of State.

        That told me more about How Mr. Trump is running his transition, and will run his administration, than all the “Reality TV” in the world. (It also confirmed a bunch I already knew about the MSM.)

      • That Kellyanne was concerned that ‘backers’ would feel ‘betrayed’ if Romney was chosen as S.O.S. should lead a ‘real’ skeptic to question which ‘backers’ and what’s meant by ‘betrayal’.

        As far as confirmation of that which you ‘knew’ of MSM, did you find that which you sought?

      • Her own words: ““People feel betrayed to think that Gov. Romney, who went out of his way to question the character and the intellect and the integrity of Donald Trump now our president-elect would be given the most significant cabinet post of all,”

        Different opinions, agendas, and all.

      • As far as confirmation of that which you ‘knew’ of MSM, did you find that which you sought?

        Yes, as I said.

        See this for instance: Trump Is Reportedly “Furious” with Kellyanne Conway After Her Anti-Romney Tweetstorm and Sunday Show Character Assault. And many more like it.

        All l1es. Trump was in no way displeased, as his subsequent statements made clear.

      • Trump being ‘furious’ is unknowable. Stating as so is unfortunate. Presuming he’s not is equally unfortunate, statements not withstanding. He’s the ‘boss’ and might indeed not have been told that which he wished to hear.

        Presuming l1es is and uninformed assertion.

        Guess you missed the subtlety? ” did you find that which you sought? “

      • Trump being ‘furious’ is unknowable.

        We don’t have any reason to think he was beyond the fantasies of MSM l1ers.

        He’s the ‘boss’ and might indeed not have been told that which he wished to hear.

        Good ‘Bosses’ want to hear the truth.

        The assumption that he isn’t is nothing but MSM propaganda.

        Guess you missed the subtlety? ” did you find that which you sought? “

        I saw it. But it also applies when I sought true answers, rather than confirmation bias.

        If you’re going to assume that whatever I see is just what I expected, then you might as well stop interacting. It’s clearly projection: i.e. that’s what you do, so you assume that ‘s what I do.

        Otherwise, you might try being honest. I know it’s difficult and unusual, but who knows? You might get some respect.

      • AK,
        “projection: i.e. that’s what you do, so you assume that ‘s what I do.” Or is that vice versa?

        Honest? You’re going to have a tough time showing where I’ve not been honest but if you’re up for the challenge please do so. Consider that a challenge. Now, of course, not taking up that challenge would be more evidence of ‘projection’ but not on my part.

        As far as ‘true answers’, when it comes to Kellyanne and if: backers would feel betrayed, and or if Trump was furious (or not) those are strictly assertions. Early in this back and forth I asked for a link and none was forthcoming. There is no way for you to ‘know’. Assertions to the contrary don’t reflect on any level of honesty on my part.

        An assertion of mine is that your tendency is to find ALL wrong with MSM and nothing wrong with Trump and associated. AK, that is not reality. MSM has it’s flaws and it’s accuracy. Trump is the same as are his associated. So if you wish to toss ‘honesty’ out and ‘taking folks seriously’ this might be a good place to begin.

      • That Kellyanne was concerned that ‘backers’ would feel ‘betrayed’ if Romney was chosen as S.O.S. should lead a ‘real’ skeptic to question which ‘backers’ and what’s meant by ‘betrayal’.

        So, as “a ‘real’ skeptic”, did you track down the tweets and interviews to find out?

        Or are you just complaining that I didn’t go to the trouble of tracking it down for you? That’s t troll, not a skeptic.

        I did at the time, and satisfied myself. I’m not going to do your homework for you.

      • AK,

        “Or are you just complaining that I didn’t go to the trouble of tracking it down for you?” I feel quite confident that you didn’t ‘track it down’ for yourself or for me. I don’t ask for anyone to do ‘my’ homework. But I can recognize applied biases. If you weren’t ‘in the room’ or privy to inside information ALL the ‘sources’ would be ‘media’.

        Which backers, AK? Voters? Financial contributors? Republicans? Disenfranchised swing voting Democrats? Inner city blacks? Hispanics for Trump? Conservatives? Veterans? Border Patrol Unions? NRA? Yes people? Family? Mercers? Putin? Assange?

        Silly and unsubstantiated assertions.

        If I had to guess (unsubstantiated) I’d suggest some ‘backers’ (hidden Mormans?) of Trump wished for Romney to become S.O.S.

        Too subtle? : “did you find that which you sought?”

        “I did at the time, and satisfied myself.” No surprise there.

      • I feel quite confident that you didn’t ‘track it down’ for yourself or for me.

        Well, you’re clearly too ign0rant to be worth responding to.

      • The WMD thing was the top-level government falling for a conspiracy theory and trying to fit facts to it. Trump and Mike “pizzagate” Flynn are just more conspiracy theorists. We learned that lesson once. Now Trump has set off China, one of our biggest trading partners. Diplomacy is not his strong suit and it costs.

      • The WMD thing was the top-level government falling for a conspiracy theory and trying to fit facts to it.

        Nope.

        It’s a clear parallel to Obama pressuring his appointed head of the CIA to push this “Russians dunnit” nonsense.

        Trump and Mike “pizzagate” Flynn are just more conspiracy theorists.

        Wrong.

        Now Trump has set off China, one of our biggest trading partners. Diplomacy is not his strong suit and it costs.

        You don’t have the faintest idea what you’re talking about.

        All you’re doing is echoing what the ly1ng, fake news MSM says.

      • He’s taking a wrecking ball to years of diplomacy and trade deals, mainly through ignorance. He hasn’t talked to the experts at the State Department or Intelligence before making his international phone calls. He has a simplistic cartoon view of the world which does not fit with the complexities that exist in reality and that he is just discovering, seemingly mostly through blundering about. It’s like learning chess as he goes along.

      • You simply don’t have the faintest idea whether that’s true. Your understanding simply isn’t sufficient to know what he’s doing and/or what he effects are.

        You’re just parroting the outgoing losers and the lying fake news MSM. Problem is, they don’t know either. They’re too immersed in cognitive dissonance and their agenda to have any idea.

        They’re just a bunch of brats squalling about having their toys taken away.

      • Danny;

        I come from a long line of skeptics. You should have seen the look on my dad’s face when I was a teenager insisting I didn’t touch that beer, or that I didn’t inhale I was just around people who were. Years later my dad would tell me stories about his teenage years where his Da, my grandfather apparently had that same look.

        I was hoping you would take away from my true Scotsman crack that the bar for skeptics tends to move back and forth depending upon whose defining it. So, technically speaking, it’s only half-true that I agree with you. My Irish side is in agreement because…well, ya know; the Irish. My Scandinavian side not so much…or more skeptical, if you will.

        In fairness to you and in relation to my true Scot crack, as a skeptic in this game, I’m not a scientist and have no obligation to act as a scientific skeptic. My skepticism is concerning the politics and legality of it all, and while I may not be a “true skeptic” I would like to think I am a full blooded one, even if I may stumble now and then.

      • JPZ,
        Ah. Sounds like your father might have been a bit ‘skeptical’ and you were playing politics.

        “My skepticism is concerning the politics”. Lacking the scientific background myself makes my delving in that realm rather amateur. But when it comes to politics some make the application of ‘skepticism’ a tool of convenience. While I agree that that bar is mobile that is provided by both the ‘observer’ and the ‘observee’.

        Funnily enough, most of my effort is to apply my skepticism to both sides and many ‘observers’ here find that objectionable. Methinks that relates more to the ‘ee’ than the ‘er’. That you’re willing to offer a ‘half true’ rating seems appropriate as that’s largely the goal. And I thank you for that.

        Regards,
        Formerly (?) known as Double Deal….Danny

      • Danny,

        Everyone plays politics. As to half-true, that’s in regard to my Irish lineage. As my full blooded Irish cousins are fond of saying; “You ain’t Irish, you’re just half-Irish.” I may stumble as a skeptic of climate change policy and fall prey to bias, but I work hard to correct it when I recognize it. There’s no point in playing ball if fumbling disqualifies, no point in running a race if stumbling disqualifies. Even the best runners stumble.

        It seems pointless to me to get all dogmatic about skepticism. One can question or doubt all accepted opinions and still come to a conclusion. Doubt as a philosophy is problematic at best. Shakespeare, in my opinion, made the best argument with the problem with doubt in Hamlet. Doubt can be deadly and cause many harm if one never decides what can be called justified belief. This might please CAGW advocates, and isn’t this, for many of those advocates, their argument in terms of policy? That it is better to act even in the face of doubt?

        Doubt is useful as a starting point, but doubt demands investigation. Isn’t that why you and I are here? Of course, investigation can often times only lead to more doubt and at some point one has to fall back on what can reasonably be called justified belief.

        Doubt can also be used to gain insight into the advocates you doubt. If someone claims to be a scientist and is using that term as credentials in a priest class manner, this tells us something about that person. It gives reason to doubt the person when they are claiming the priest class status of scientist and advocating…oh, I don’t know…say, correlation and causation while dismissing questions raised about the dubious nature of causality.

        What becomes reasonable is to doubt the credentials regardless of how much you or I may understand in terms of the science. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that science has not yet enlightened (if it ever can) anyone enough to reject valid questions out of hand and declare them resolved by the priest class, just trust them, it has been resolved.

        When this demanded trust is then argued to justify painful policies – sold as mitigation, no less – and even more concentration of power, just how much knowledge of the science being sold do you need to smell the miasma surrounding that science? The science may very well be sound but some of the advocates? Not so much. I’ve read and heard interpretations of Hamlet insisting that what killed the Danish prince was his failure to act. A reading of that play both forwards and backwards undermines that interpretation. Hamlet acts more in five acts than some people act throughout their lifetime.

        What killed Hamlet was his own doubt. Understandable doubt when he is told to assassinate his uncle the king, by his dead father the former king…a ghost. Hamlet is also aware of his own bias and is attempting to avoid confirmation bias by swearing his friends (who saw the ghost too) to secrecy while he investigates further. Hamlet’s search for the truth involved feigning madness, alienating his girlfriend to the point of suicide, killing his girlfriends father accidentally on purpose, and hiring a troupe of actors to act out a play of murder in an attempt to ferret out Claudius the kings guilt

        In the end, Hamlet didn’t kill Claudius because his father the ghost told him to do so, he killed Claudius immediately after Laertes informs him that the cut from Laertes foil was poisoned and it was Claudius who made him do it, At about this same time his mother has dropped dead from drinking poison Claudius had intended for Hamlet. Understanding all of this, Hamlet finally kills Claudius. It wasn’t Hamlet’s failure to act that killed him, it was his failure to make up his mind.

        The more the climate wars insist on more war, sooner or later ya gotta decide which side you’re on, even as you remain skeptical.

      • JPG,

        Doubt is persactly what brought me here.

        ” Isn’t that why you and I are here?” It is indeed why I’m here and indications of good faith support the conclusion of mine that it’s what leads you here also. Having said that, ‘skepticism’ is a process not a conclusion. Even in the politics discussions, being the most (unbalanced?) balanced commentator (greatly disturbed by both sides but subject to my own biases) is a seemingly ‘indefensible’ position.

        “The more the climate wars insist on more war, sooner or later ya gotta decide which side you’re on, even as you remain skeptical.” IMO, no. There is sufficient evidence for concerns. There is sufficient reason for skepticism based on the science (and my knowledge level) alone. (This leads to my ‘lukewarmerism’). Policy = politics and is a side discussion. But I’m not a ‘believer’ (in ‘my’ religion) that the pendulum must swing so drastically. In fact my hope (polyanna) is there is and or will be common ground.

        So called ‘skeptics’ (doubters?) are often quite environmentally aware and friendly. Engagement, trust, cost and benefits are the issues, IMO.

        The more climate concerned with whom I engage are often unwilling to recognize that ‘average Joe’ is just trying to make it in this world. Future climate concerns pale when the basics of food and a roof are daily concerns. Even a modest ‘carbon tax’ is a volunteer method of increased pressure. Most don’t vote counter to their personal needs. And in turn, those more climate concerned are often flying around in jets telling others how to ‘sacrifice’ yet cannot see the (appearance of) hypocrisy.

        Unfortunately I’m not in a position (and potentially lack capability) to ‘fix it’. I live with great fear that our soon-to-be wears shoes just like I. But I’m willing to give him a chance, with the understanding of a highly focused magnifying lens will be ever present.

        I don’t self perceive as a ‘Hamlet’. I have ‘a position’ subject to change based on input. That current position is one of concern with room for a level of risk management. However, those more capable of contribution should be incentivized to innovate (often times involves side benefits) with ‘punitive’ approaches being a last resort and increased only with greater evidence.

        The insistence of more war is IMO due to momentum. Equal and opposite just generates momentum in some alternative path. Friction, to reduce the momentum is my great hope.

        Hoping this makes some sense to you. It’s a blog comment after all. Detail is sparse.

      • “JPG,

        Doubt is persactly what brought me here.”

        That’s JPZ for you, fella!

        “Having said that, ‘skepticism’ is a process not a conclusion.”

        Exactly…or as you might put it persactly! What good is a process that leads nowhere?

        “Policy = politics and is a side discussion”

        It is the only discussion that matters, particularly given what you said preceding your equation.

        “In fact my hope (polyanna) is there is and or will be common ground.”

        Mine too. My hope is the advocates back off of lobbying government, stop suing people for not buying into the horror stories and find a reasonable way to sell their goods. That is, in my opinion, a common ground with the surest footing.

        “Unfortunately I’m not in a position (and potentially lack capability) to ‘fix it’.”

        We do what we can where we can. We do what we can to persuade.

        “However, those more capable of contribution should be incentivized to innovate (often times involves side benefits) with ‘punitive’ approaches being a last resort and increased only with greater evidence.”

        If you want government to do the incentive’s the punitive approaches are sure to follow. Henry David Thoreau say’s take from the government what you can and ignore them for the rest. It is my experience that even if you don’t take a dime from the government you have no hope of ignoring them.

        Your argument would have made much more sense if it was addressed to me instead of that JPG ;poseur.

        Your brother, JPZ

      • JPZ,
        (Apologies for the prior JPG).
        “What good is a process that leads nowhere?” Apparently I write poorly and don’t transfer the ideas well. When it’s suggested that ‘skepticism’ is a process I intended to mean much like ‘climate’ is a process. At no point, from my modest comprehension, is there stasis. Having to ‘take a side’ is counter to my impression of the concept. So the question posed has no real application to that concept in my feeble mind.

        “My hope is the advocates back off of lobbying government, stop suing people for not buying into the horror stories and find a reasonable way to sell their goods. That is, in my opinion, a common ground with the surest footing.” Yes. Lobbying is an indication, IMO, of a lack of sufficient concrete reasoning for ‘consensus’. The evidence is the evidence and should (again, IMO) stand alone. But as you’re suggesting that politics is the ‘only discussion which matters’ (being politics) it can entail brute force due to sheer positioning, or give and take. Compromise does not mean capitulation except in our current circumstance. My more climate concerned ‘advocate’ friends I’ve reasoned with for my 3 short years more deeply involved in this conversation to be more ‘inclusive’ and to consider the concerns of those ‘less climate concerned. No avail. They were in a different position then. Now, who knows? But we’ll soon begin to learn.

        “If you want government to do the incentive’s the punitive approaches are sure to follow.” Again, poor communication efforts. Government has a place as some will use ‘my back yard’ as their dumping ground as evidenced by the need for regulation such as the Clean air and Clean water acts. My river is your repository if an entity (let’s call it ‘government) does not oversee. Mission creep is a concern, however. CO2 is a pollutant as water is a pollutant. Water use is regulated and has associated expense for ‘users’. Additionally, it has benefit as the greatest solvent, the carrier of life, and alternatives such as recreation. While I’ve not yet grasped the recreational benefits of CO2 (unless one considers maybe recreational…..uh…….vegetation) all is not negative. The definition (legal) of pollutant is likely more your bailiwick.

        Maybe JPG will chime in with with something coming closer to making sense.

        Right here, it’s appreciated that ‘common ground’ and ‘unicorns’ are not one and the same.

      • Danny:

        “Apparently I write poorly and don’t transfer the ideas well.”

        It’s not your writing, which is fine. Some ideas are just difficult to express through mere words alone. As Mosh said; “language is chaotic.”

        “When it’s suggested that ‘skepticism’ is a process I intended to mean much like ‘climate’ is a process. At no point, from my modest comprehension, is there stasis. Having to ‘take a side’ is counter to my impression of the concept. So the question posed has no real application to that concept in my feeble mind.”

        Shermer calls skepticism a process and that is fine, but that ain’t all skepticism is. Shermer likes to “debunk” and likes to go after low hanging fruit to appear as some debunker supreme, but Danny, debunking is a process that leads to somewhere. It is a position. The point of skepticism should not be to disprove or debunk, and frankly; if the advocate of a scientific theory hasn’t worked and doesn’t keep working to disprove their theory this is gonna generate a lot of skeptics. It ain’t about debunking the advocates, it’s about pointing towards directions not considered or misconstrued. It is about study and evaluation of evidence, or lack thereof, and if it is evidence the skeptic seeks to find valid testing that theory was derived from.

        “Compromise does not mean capitulation except in our current circumstance.”

        Respectfully, compromise is a guaranteed lose-lose. Ain’t no win-win coming out of compromise. Compromise makes more problems than it solves. I’ve heard and read countless people dismiss the value of the U.S. Constitution because of the “three-fifths compromise”, and that compromise did nothing to put an end to slavery. It ultimately took a civil war (yet another lose-lose) to do that. compromise does mean capitulation. It means capitulation to our current circumstance. If that circumstance is intolerable then why capitulate?

        “Government has a place as some will use ‘my back yard’ as their dumping ground as evidenced by the need for regulation such as the Clean air and Clean water acts.”

        Indeed, government has a place just the same as scorpions have their place. From the frogs perspective it isn’t a good idea to let that place be on their backs. Government can have a compelling argument for regulation, but government has a mandate to provide for the seeking of a redress of grievances. I would suggest if people are using your back yard as a dumping ground there is a system already put in place to facilitate your own regulation of that problem. You can use the courts to seek remedy.

        Why impose what will inevitably become capricious and arbitrary regulations in regards to back yards imposed on all? Before ya know it your neighbors volleyball flying into your back yard becomes an excuse to raise revenue for government even if you protest against it.

        “Clean air and Clean water acts.”

        Even when government has a compelling reason to regulate the outcome can and all too often does lead to capriciousness and even gross incompetence. Using scorpions to regulate means more than bad guys are gonna get stung, just ask Coloradans how much faith they have in the EPA’s job of protecting waterways.

        Danny, it is my sincerest hope people lay off the “Double Deal” insult. Your attempts to keep an open mind shouldn’t generate such derision as far as I’m concerned. That said, keeping an open mind might lead to your thoughts flooding out in uncontrollable gushes. As Zen masters like to point out, only empty cups can be filled but maybe those wacky Buddhist monks have never known the satisfaction of a full cup. A satisfying cup filled to the brim will empty out soon enough.

        P.S. If you want to listen to what that JPG guy has to say it is your prerogative, but his cousin RPG is a little too explosive for me.

        Peace brother,

        JPZ

      • Not addressed to RPG. :)

        “Respectfully, compromise is a guaranteed lose-lose. Ain’t no win-win coming out of compromise. Compromise makes more problems than it solves.”

        Not sure I agree. Compromise, under ‘uncertainty’ allows for contingency approaches. If one ‘chooses’ a position under uncertainty and that position turns out opposite future greater certainty this would lead to greater loss. The former position might indeed lead to loss but to a lesser extent.

        My perception is that you’ve implied but not fully stated some background in legal. IMO this is a win/lose (guilty/not) world so by training I can see how that might be an expectation. My world comes from negotiation. Of course a position (Arts of deals) of winning a bit more than the other side is considered a victory but there’s a built in expectation that when one has what another desires, unless force is the chosen method, give and take is the process.

        Those Zen masters may have begun with empty cups, but not all cups are so. Some are indeed partially filled. The question then becomes is it better to have two half full in case one turns out to ‘spring a leak’ or have all in one cup risking a 50/50 chance of losing it all? Interesting to consider while thinking it’s less likely both cups will prove defective. The latter is my perception of the climate discussion.

        My thanks.

  71. “What has been less clearly observed is the effect of progressive government upon the governing class itself. Training, expertise, and administrative experience, progressives argued, would be in the service of the entire nation and would reflect the good of the whole. Progressive authors and intellectuals did not foresee, or did not care, that bureaucrats and experts would develop a set of interests distinct from the American people they served.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-liberal-ideological-complex/article/2005894

    As they’re told this, climate scientists place their hands over their ears and scream at the top of their lungs; “La-la-la-la-la I can’t hear you la-la-la-la-la

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