NY Times Seems Upset That A Climate Skeptic Will Be Included In A Climate Change Panel

Resident Warmist Coral Davenport highlights why the media is not trusted: this is an opinion piece masquerading as a straight news story. She also manages to highlight that ‘climate change’ believers are not happy with using science

White House Panel Will Study Whether Climate Change Is a National Security Threat. It Includes a Climate Denialist.

President Trump is preparing to establish a panel to examine whether climate change affects national security, despite existing reports from his own government showing that global warming is a growing threat.

According to a White House memo dated Feb. 14, Mr. Trump’s staff members have drafted an executive order to create a 12-member committee, which will include a White House adviser, William Happer, whose views are sharply at odds with the established scientific consensus that carbon dioxide pollution is dangerous for the planet.

The memo casts doubt on multiple scientific and defense reports concluding that climate change poses a significant threat to national security, saying they “have not undergone a rigorous independent and adversarial peer review to examine the certainties and uncertainties of climate science, as well as implications for national security.”

The effort to establish the panel appears to be the latest step by the Trump administration to question the science of climate change, as Mr. Trump rolls back Obama-era regulations on planet-warming pollution from vehicle tailpipes and power plants. It also appears to be the latest example of Mr. Trump’s propensity to ignore the findings and recommendations of his own intelligence and defense officials.

If you’re relying on “consensus”, you’re talking about politics, not science. Science is testable and replicable. It isn’t looking into crystal balls, er, computer models, and prognosticating the future. Science is skeptical. Nor is carbon dioxide a pollutant. Thinking it is is anti-science.

At least to some extent, the matter may not entirely be in Mr. Trump’s control. Congress added language to the annual defense policy bill it passed with bipartisan support in late 2017 stating that climate change “is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and is impacting stability in areas of the world both where the United States Armed Forces are operating today, and where strategic implications for future conflict exist.”

The bill, which Mr. Trump signed into law, specifically required the Pentagon to produce a report on climate change’s impact on military installations and encouraged department leaders to consider the effects of climate change when planning for current and future missions. The report was issued last month.

Is climate change a danger? Of course it is. Changes to the climate can always have good points and bad points. The question here, though, is not any dangers, but causation. And the Cult of Climastrology cannot prove scientifically that mankind is mostly/solely responsible.

Critics of the effort to create the new panel, which was first reported by The Washington Post, pointed to the inclusion of Dr. Happer, a Princeton physicist who serves on the National Security Council as Mr. Trump’s deputy assistant for emerging technologies. Dr. Happer has gained notoriety in the scientific community for his statements that carbon dioxide — a greenhouse gas that scientists say is trapping heat and warming the planet — is beneficial to humanity. The memo did not name other officials to be appointed to the panel.

Yes, that stuff called “plant food” is apparently Bad or something.

Anyhow, the rest continues to look more like it was published by Mother Jones or MoveOn.org rather than a the “paper of record.”

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

85 Responses to “NY Times Seems Upset That A Climate Skeptic Will Be Included In A Climate Change Panel”

  1. alanstorm says:

    Congress added language…stating that climate change “is a direct threat to the national security of the United States…

    Congress also has a collective IQ roughly similar to a bowl of lukewarm oatmeal. What’ her point?

  2. Kye says:

    She really means “The leftist partisans in Congress added language to promote their latest money making scheme as a direct threat to national security which any fool can see it is not unless the change is drastic and instant”.

    OT. What have you guys heard of the Chi-Com spy who worked for HRH Nazi Pelosi for twenty years? Has she been brought up on charges of sedition yet? I’m sure Trump would have been.

    And where is the investigation of the ongoing Coup by leftist Deep State operatives to over throw the American government? The Coup moves forward and our Republic needs defending and Revenge against the traitors.

  3. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: If you’re relying on “consensus”, you’re talking about politics, not science.

    That is correct. Policy is generally driven by scientific consensus. If scientists indicate that it is likely a hurricane will slam into the Carolinas, then policy-makers will take appropriate action. This is similar to how personal decisions can be driven by scientific consensus. If several oncologists agree you have cancer, it would behoove you to take appropriate action.

    William Teach: cannot prove scientifically that mankind is mostly/solely responsible.

    That is incorrect. The scientific evidence strongly supports anthropogenic global warming due to emissions of greenhouse gases. We know this from fundamental physics, from the role of greenhouse gases in Earth’s climate history, and from verified predictions based on global warming models.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      Again the kiddiez espouse scientism not science. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • StillAlive says:

      There is no scientific consensus on AGW. There is only YOU telling us there is a consensus. In fact the lastest polling among Scientists show that there are more scientists who disbelieve in AGW that Believe. That is hardly a consensus.

      However if those that control the policy narrative are paid to reach a certain conclusion then it cannot be considered science.

      In fact there is nothing sciency about temperature data at all. It has been faked. It can be shown repeatedly that the temperature data is controlled by a very few scientists and that these scientists then peer review each other and use the fact that peer reviewed research says………….

      Says what? AGW is real? According to a couple dozen scientists who refuse to release their data and when we look at the data of Noaa, Nasa and NCAR we can see that the data has been altered to show warming.

      Yet when you look at what Hansen said in 1987 he said the earth has warmed by 2 degrees and will warm by 4 more degrees by 2020 yet the graphs he was working with at the time. His own graph showed no such thing. In fact the warming was barely .5 degrees using his time frame.

      Now these wise guys use 1979 as the starting point of their graphing because according to them that was the start of satellite data. Why 1979. In 1979 the temperature was really cool for that year. therefore any rise in temperature will make the graph totally skewed.

      but lets take that a step farther. Hanson also declared that The arctic would be ice free in 10 years. This was in 1987. Today the arctic is holding its own with the 100 year average of 7 foot of ice completely covering the Arctic.

      In fact if you look up posts from the NY Times and the Washington post you will see the biggest concern in the 50′-80’s was the planet is definitely cooling at a time in which CO 2 was in a runaway state and pollution was unabated.

      A point of fact is that in 1898 reports of sea ice in the Arctic were measured to be just seven foot thick. In the 70’s the USA and Russia combined in a joint project to evaluate the ever thickening ice in the Arctic because their submarines could not surface if the ice continued to thicken.

      Now we know that the sunspot cycle is cyclical and is 11 years in nature. Give or take a few months. Right now we are in cycle 24. the sun is silent. The inverse square rule applies 1 percent cooling results in 4 percent cooling on the earth.

      To this end Greenland has added 550 billion tones of new snow. The arctic has its usual 7 foot of ice covering most of the sea and where there is a loss of ice it it not because of CO2 but rather the fact that the jet stream has pulled polar vortexs south while allowing warmer air to inch northward creating a warmer as in 5 degrees warmer arctic.

      I don’t expect you to read this. You will cherry pick one thing and rebut. Because your intellectually lazy as are all AGW liars.

      Nasa themselves refuted AGW with a post to kids about how the greenhouse effect works. They said the earth uses trapped heat to warm the earth just like the planet venus totally ignoring atmospheric pressure. The greater the pressure on a gas the warmer the gas becomes. Hence the reason why NOAA took down their readings and made the stratosphere much cooler because it did not jive with the Greenhouse theory.

      IN short TL:DR for those of you on the fence. Just do some research. There is so much of it out there but the best case I can offer you is this”

      Why does NASA, NOAA and all these supposed climate experts refuse to turn over their data when they publish? Why did the DOJ and FBI refuse to turn over information mandated by congress if they had nothing to hide? Why do the rich who are die hard AGW proponents jet set around the world, live in giant mansions and drive gas guzzing SUVs yet demand that the rest of us give up our lives to the AGW LIARS who want to rape this planet of its energy sources? Thats what you need to ask yourself when you hear the Zachs of the world talking about the science behind AGW.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        SA,

        One “fact” at a time.

        Is the Earth warming or are all data faked, as you claim?

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          Scientism look it up, nignorant, and learn something. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Do you actually believe that measuring air and water temperatures, atmospheric CO2 levels, and ocean currents are beyond the limits of the scientific method? How about the absorbance of infrared radiation by CO2?

          Either because you lack the skill, or are insecure, you tend to cast pseudo-portentous bon mots (e.g., Look up scientism!), rather than trusting yourself to make an argument.

          Do you think that climate scientists rely on their data and evidence too much? Are there other equally valid conclusions to be made from the evidence? Is that what you’re trying to type?

          Did you form nignorant from nigger + ignorant? Is it a noun?

          If you have an argument you should just make it.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Do you actually have a point besides asking inane questions, little fella?
            https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • formwiz says:

            Apparently, they’re beyond the Left’s ability to measure them honestly. And Bugs is the3 last one to talk about the scientific method.

            Do you think that climate scientists rely on their data and evidence too much? Are there other equally valid conclusions to be made from the evidence? Is that what you’re trying to type?

            No, he’s typing that “their data and evidence” is all a pack of lies.

        • formwiz says:

          Of course, it’s faked.

          At least anything you cite.

      • Zachriel says:

        StillAlive: There is no scientific consensus on AGW. There is only YOU telling us there is a consensus.

        Well, that, and every major scientific organization in the world.

        Scientific Consensus: “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.”

        StillAlive: In fact the lastest polling among Scientists show that there are more scientists who disbelieve in AGW that Believe.

        Cook et al., Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming, Environmental Research Letters 2016: “The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper.”

        • Zachriel says:

          StillAlive: It can be shown repeatedly that the temperature data is controlled by a very few scientists

          Well, that’s false. The historical instrument data is held by hundreds of independent facilities around the world. It took years to consolidate that raw data, which is now publicly available, but it still exists at all the independent facilities around the world.

        • Zachriel says:

          StillAlive: In fact there is nothing sciency about temperature data at all. It has been faked.

          And yet, satellite atmospheric observations and ocean heat content observations support the same warming trend. Odd that.

        • Zachriel says:

          StillAlive: Yet when you look at what Hansen said in 1987 he said the earth has warmed by 2 degrees and will warm by 4 more degrees by 2020 yet the graphs he was working with at the time.

          You really need to support your claims. In any case, here is a comparison of Hansen’s predictions and observations. You will notice that this is quite close to scenario B. However, Hansen was using a climate sensitivity of 4°C per doubling of CO2, when current estimates are closer to 3°C.

          StillAlive: Hanson also declared that The arctic would be ice free in 10 years.

          Again, please support your claims so we can see his comment in context. Here’s is the Arctic’s September ice extent. Notice it has been declining rapidly.

          StillAlive: Now we know that the sunspot cycle is cyclical and is 11 years in nature.

          Now? The solar cycle has been known since 1843. See Schwabe, Solar Observations During 1843, Astronomische Nachrichten 1843.

          StillAlive: The inverse square rule applies 1 percent cooling results in 4 percent cooling on the earth.

          The variation in insolation during the solar cycle is about 0.1%.

          StillAlive: To this end Greenland has added 550 billion tones of new snow.

          Again, you need to provide citations. Greenland has been losing ice mass.

          StillAlive: Nasa themselves refuted AGW with a post to kids about how the greenhouse effect works. They said the earth uses trapped heat to warm the earth just like the planet venus totally ignoring atmospheric pressure.

          It’s silly to think that climate scientists don’t consider atmospheric pressure, when how the atmosphere acts at different elevations is essential for calculating the greenhouse effect. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

          StillAlive: The greater the pressure on a gas the warmer the gas becomes.

          Only during compression. After compression, the temperature of the gas will reach an equilibrium with its surroundings.

          Consider if there were no greenhouse effect. Solar radiation would pass through the atmosphere, warming the surface. Infrared from the surface would radiate directly to space without absorption by the atmosphere. The only heat the atmosphere could absorb would be through conduction at the surface. Also, the only way the atmosphere could cool would be by conduction with the surface. The warmer air would initially rise, but once the atmosphere reached equilibrium, it would be roughly the same temperature as the surface throughout, and most convection — and weather — would stop.

          You can determine the greenhouse effect by calculating the equilibrium or gray body temperature of the Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a chilly -18°C rather than the balmy +15°C that it is. The result of the greenhouse effect is a warm surface, a cold stratosphere — and weather.

          StillAlive: Why does NASA, NOAA and all these supposed climate experts refuse to turn over their data when they publish?

          All the data is publicly available.

      • Zachriel says:

        StillAlive: In fact there is nothing sciency about temperature data at all. It has been faked.

        And yet, satellite atmospheric observations and ocean heat content observations support the same warming trend. Odd that.

        StillAlive: It can be shown repeatedly that the temperature data is controlled by a very few scientists

        Well, that’s false. The historical instrument data is held by hundreds of independent facilities around the world. It took years to consolidate that raw data, which is now publicly available, but it still exists at all the independent facilities around the world.

        StillAlive: Yet when you look at what Hansen said in 1987 he said the earth has warmed by 2 degrees and will warm by 4 more degrees by 2020 yet the graphs he was working with at the time.

        You really need to support your claims. In any case, here is a comparison of Hansen’s predictions and observations. You will notice that this is quite close to scenario B. However, Hansen was using a climate sensitivity of 4°C per doubling of CO2, when current estimates are closer to 3°C.

        StillAlive: Hanson also declared that The arctic would be ice free in 10 years.

        Again, please support your claims so we can see his comment in context. Here’s is the Arctic’s September ice extent. Notice it has been declining rapidly.

        StillAlive: Now we know that the sunspot cycle is cyclical and is 11 years in nature.

        Now? The solar cycle has been known since 1843. See Schwabe, Solar Observations During 1843, Astronomische Nachrichten 1843.

        StillAlive: The inverse square rule applies 1 percent cooling results in 4 percent cooling on the earth.

        The variation in insolation during the solar cycle is about 0.1%.

        StillAlive: To this end Greenland has added 550 billion tones of new snow.

        Again, you need to provide citations. Greenland has been losing ice mass.

        StillAlive: Nasa themselves refuted AGW with a post to kids about how the greenhouse effect works. They said the earth uses trapped heat to warm the earth just like the planet venus totally ignoring atmospheric pressure.

        It’s silly to think that climate scientists don’t consider atmospheric pressure, when how the atmosphere acts at different elevations is essential for calculating the greenhouse effect. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

        StillAlive: The greater the pressure on a gas the warmer the gas becomes.

        Only during compression. After compression, the temperature of the gas will reach an equilibrium with its surroundings.

        Consider if there were no greenhouse effect. Solar radiation would pass through the atmosphere, warming the surface. Infrared from the surface would radiate directly to space without absorption by the atmosphere. The only heat the atmosphere could absorb would be through conduction at the surface. Also, the only way the atmosphere could cool would be by conduction with the surface. The warmer air would initially rise, but once the atmosphere reached equilibrium, it would be roughly the same temperature as the surface throughout, and most convection — and weather — would stop.

        You can determine the greenhouse effect by calculating the equilibrium or gray body temperature of the Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a chilly -18°C rather than the balmy +15°C that it is. The result of the greenhouse effect is a warm surface, a cold stratosphere — and weather.

        StillAlive: Why does NASA, NOAA and all these supposed climate experts refuse to turn over their data when they publish?

        All the data is publicly available.

      • Zachriel says:

        Jl: Actually, the models are deficient.

        He’s all over the place, but with regards to satellite observations, he basically claims they are faked. Not sure that is persuasive as we now have surface temperature, atmospheric radiation, and ocean heat content showing the same warming trend.

        • Jl says:

          Yes, the satellite temps were “adjusted” to more closely match the land temps, as he predicted they would. The point is, the satellite temps were fine for a while until they diverged from the land temps, and then they conveniently adjusted to match

          • Zachriel says:

            Jl: Yes, the satellite temps were “adjusted” to more closely match the land temps

            You can’t determine whether the adjustments are justified or not without looking at the specifics, rather than simply waving your hands.

            If you are referring RSS, they had incorrectly accounted for diurnal drift. UAH already showed close agreement with the surface records. Then there’s ocean heat content. Oh, and the loss of ice mass on Earth’s ice caps. They all point to warming. Once you are clear on this, then we can talk about the cause of the warming.

  4. Kye says:

    The Smallotte saga continues.

    https://youtu.be/-RVRAVwbeFg

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The 80 year old denier William Happer has never published a scientific paper related to climate. His expertise is in MRI physics. Happer has a long association with Heartland, fossil fuel industy, the CO2 Coalition, The George C. Marshall Institute and the Kochs.

    He claims CO2 can not be a pollutant, and claims that between 150 ppm and 5000 ppm it benefits humanity. But of course, CO2 can be a pollutant. In medicine, the saying is “The Dose Makes the Poison” as Dr. Frank pointed out. The body naturally makes the free radicals nitric oxide and superoxide but too much of either one will kill you. The oceans are chockablock with NaCl, as is the human body, but too much in rivers and lakes can kill fish and plants. Do you consider NaCl a potential pollutant as it runs off treated roads? There are many all natural “pollutants”.

    Trump is not going to assemble a board or committee that reaches a conclusion different from his. Why would the NYT assume otherwise?

    Here’s last month’s mandated Deep State report from the Deep State DoD based on the bill that Trump signed.

    This likely prompted the administration action to assemble this panel.

    Teach: The question here, though, is not any dangers, but causation.

    That’s just not true. The DoD is describing the dangers of global warming to the US military, independent of cause. You certainly aren’t advising that the US military bury its collective heads in the sand and ignore, as you’ve recently started admitting, that the Earth is rapidly warming. Are you? Shouldn’t the military be looking ahead to what it might face in the future?

    https://www.reed.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Sec%20335%20RTC%20on%20Effects%20of%20a%20Changing%20Climate%20to%20DOD2.pdf

    • formwiz says:

      The 80 year old denier William Happer has never published a scientific paper related to climate.

      He lets the fakes do that. He relies on common sense and proven fact.

      He claims CO2 can not be a pollutant

      Well, of course not (Notice Crusader Rabbit never goes near photosynthesis?)

      Do you consider NaCl a potential pollutant as it runs off treated roads? There are many all natural “pollutants”.

      And Harvey is the worst.

      Here’s last month’s mandated Deep State report from the Deep State DoD based on the bill that Trump signed

      He also denounced it as a crock. 3 guesses who wanted it put in there.

  6. Kye says:

    It’s all lies and a grift only believed by idiots and ideologues. No thinking person can believe this sh!t and no moral person would foist upon their fellow man the economic and cultural destruction these leftists attach to “fixing” man made global warming.

    Here are some of the brilliant prognostications of the “experts” over the years. All bullsh!t:

    May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”
    1988 Rob Reiss asked official Climate Scientist Dr. James Hansen how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years, whereupon Climate scientist James Hansen issues this prediction, to be fullfilled in 20 years, which is to say, doom by 2008: “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
    Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”
    June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’” (prediction for 2006)
    June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

    Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”

    April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: “I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”
    November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Niños are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Niño upon El Niño, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Niño, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”
    July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”
    October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.

    March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”
    1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
    2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.” I heard on the television last night (2014) this exact same prediction with the date changed from 2010 to 2020
    Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”
    May 31, 2006 Al Gore, CBS Early Show: “…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science…Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”

  7. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    SA and Kye,

    You both employ what is known as a “Gish Gallop”, that is you flood the zone with so much misinformation, speculation and falsehoods that you make it nearly impossible to refute each comment.

    To simplify: Since you both claim that all the temperature data are fake, do you believe the Earth is warming?

    As pointed out, satellite, surface thermometer, ocean buoys, and balloon data all show the Earth is warming.

    If you conclude that the Earth IS warming, why would you claim the data are fake?

    • Jl says:

      Speaking of fake and is the earth warming, now we have the Australian weather bureau joining NASA in “adjusting”. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/02/the-greatest-scandal-in-the-history-of-science.php

      • formwiz says:

        I saw that, too, but you can’t gang up on Harvey too much.

      • Zachriel says:

        Jl: Speaking of fake and is the earth warming, now we have the Australian weather bureau joining NASA in “adjusting”.

        Again, you can’t determine whether the adjustments are justified or not without looking at the methodology. Land surface records are adjusted for various reasons, including changes in instrumentation, changes in instrument location. Satellites don’t even measure temperature directly, but radiation from different layers in the atmosphere, and have to be adjusted to account for satellite drift.

        • david7134 says:

          Z,
          Lot of words, not much sense to reality. Adjustments have followed the hoax narrative.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Adjustments have followed the hoax narrative.

            Ignoring our point doesn’t make it go away. There are a few ways to show that you are incorrect.

            1) Adjustments do not account for a significant source warming trend, especially so for more recent decades.

            2) Independent data-sets, such as ocean heat content, show the same trend.

            3) Reanalysis of the raw data that doesn’t rely on homogenization show the same trend.

          • david7134 says:

            Z,
            No, you are not correct.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        jl,

        Did you notice that even in The Greatest Scandal in the History of Science the bloggers found that the Earth was warming? Funny that. The difference between the raw and adjusted data did not change the conclusion.

        So what’s your point again? That a couple of denialist bloggers also think the Earth is warming?

        And they conflated global warming with the Jussie Smollett case! If Smollett lied that proves that global warming is a hoax! That’s some solid sciency sleuthing there!!

        • Jl says:

          That’s a god one- if there’s that much warming, why the need for the fake “adjustments”? “They found the earth is warming”. Yes, and it’s been warning since around 1850. So? J can never get to point #2 which is why he’s constantly stuck on point #1, which is warmimg. It’s not the warming, it’s the effects of the alleged warming. They are simply assumptions

        • Jl says:

          “A couple of denialist bloggers..”. Translated: you can’t refute that the adjustments warmed the present. Again, if the warming, and the amount of warming, is there, why the need for data manipulation? There isn’t

        • formwiz says:

          Did you notice that even in The Greatest Scandal in the History of Science the bloggers found that the Earth was warming?

          Again, she lies.

          The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time is the systematic downward adjustment of early-year temperatures in order to create a fake enhanced warming trend, the better to bamboozle voters and politicians to go along with extreme measures to try to avert the impending “climate crisis.”<?b>

          You might ask, with the extensive exposure of these unsupportable downward adjustments of early-year temperatures by official government organizations — accompanied by highly credible accusations of scientific fraud — haven’t the adjusters been cowed by now into a smidgeon of honesty?

          If Smollett lied that proves that global warming is a hoax! That’s some solid sciency sleuthing there!!

          No, it means the Fake News jumps on any story that advances the agenda, no matter how shaky the facts.

          Kind of like your phony Indian and the 14 year old from Kentucky

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            The 2nd figure in the PowerLine blog post by J. Hinderaker entitled “The Greatest Scandal in the History of Science” clearly demonstrates warming based on the raw data alone.

            You are just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, nah, nah, nah …

            Only a fool or a liar would today claim the Earth isn’t warming. Even Teach agrees the Earth is warming.

            You’re wronger than wrong. ‘Nuff said. Buh bye.

    • formwiz says:

      you flood the zone with so much misinformation, speculation and falsehoods that you make it nearly impossible to refute each comment.

      Yet I refute every word Bugs says all the time.

      And a warming trend over the last year does not mean the Earth IS warming. That’s just silly.

      • Zachriel says:

        formwiz: And a warming trend over the last year does not mean the Earth IS warming.

        No, but a warming trend over decades consistent with projections does support global warming.

        • david7134 says:

          Z,
          That is a lie, or poor information. Your group needs to refresh your files.

          On good experiment your school could do would be to buy to greenhouses. One would be your reference, the other would be your variable. Pump CO2 into the varible, like a few bottles of coke which would simulate man’s contribution to the atmosphere and watch the temp diff. which would be zero to negligible. You will now go to your fall back position which is to say that temp is regulated by multiple factors, which is true and by saying that your group has negated its CO2 position.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            dave,

            Another experiment would be to increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and see if the surface temperature increases. Well, that one is ongoing.

            Or measure if the CO2 intercepts any of the re-emitted infrared radiation reaching detectors on the glass greenhouse.

            Of course, a technical problem with your greenhouse experiment is that the glass also blocks infrared, and as you know from experience that is a large signal, and may overwhelm the CO2 signal. There’s little question that covering the Earth with a glass dome would cause much more warming than a 40% increase in tropospheric CO2.

            david: temp is regulated by multiple factors, which is true and by saying that your group has negated its CO2 position.

            You’re a little confused here. Climate scientists agree that the surface temp is affected by multiple factors, some that cool, some that warm, and some likely undiscovered – but that the greenhouse gas phenomenon is causing the Earth to warm over time.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: On good experiment your school could do would be to buy to greenhouses.

            Well, no. That would not be a good experiment. The radiative properties depends on pressure and temperature, which varies in the atmosphere with elevation. To calculate the greenhouse effect, you need to consider that the medium is vertically differentiated and sum the effects of upward and downward radiation, rather than treating it as a single discrete layer. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

            By the way, we can directly observe the radiative properties of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and the observations are consistent with predictions from physics. See Feldman et al., Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature 2015.

        • david7134 says:

          Jeff,
          Who said to use glass? But anything to keep the narrative of the religion alive. The other part of the experiment would be to tax everyone and see if that changes the temp.

          • david7134 says:

            Jeff,
            I was taken back by your response and had to think on it a bit. You really just admitted that the CO2 hoax is really a hoax. I could not believe this at first considering the years you have spent here lying. But, you clearly demolished your position. Thanks.

        • david7134 says:

          Z,
          So to summate, CO2 has nothing to do with your grip about temp.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Dave, don’t bother. The kiddiez just keep repeating here the same nonsense they spout over at Maggies Farm where they figuratively have their asses handed to them by the commenters so handily that they refuse to respond to most of them. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • david7134 says:

            Pups,
            I have noticed that. It is interesting how they pull up the same file every time and have no understanding. This last was funny, they actually started the that does not compute routine. Notice Jeff flubed it as well.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      Not surprising that nignorant and the kiddiez have no desire to refute an actual study that disputes their AGW narrative/beliefs. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Dr. Curry’s paper concluded the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) was 1.66 C/ doubling of CO2.

      The IPCC ECS range was 1.5 – 4.5C.

      If you accept Dr. Curry’s computer modeling and conclusion you are also accepting two related assumptions:

      The Earth is warming. 2. The Earth is warming from the increase in atmospheric CO2.

      In fairness, we could consider that you thought this through, and although CO2 forcing might cause warming, it could be offset by negative forcing (e.g., aerosols).

      Sometimes deniers use data as a shillelagh to whomp libs but end up hoist with their own petard.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        And again you make the alarmist assumption that CO2 drives “global” warming when in fact historically the opposite is true.
        Nice try, nignorant. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • formwiz says:

        And why would we accept some lying Lefty’s propaganda.

        Sometimes deniers use data as a shillelagh to whomp libs but end up hoist with their own petard.

        Like when?

  8. Jl says:

    “You can’t determine if the adjustments are justified or not.” Sure you can, because the trend is always cool the past and warm the present. https://realclimatescience.com/2019/02/tripling-the-hockey-stick-fraud-2/

    • Zachriel says:

      Jl: the trend is always cool the past and warm the present.

      The first graph shows almost no difference in the last several decades. Do you have a source for the graph?

    • Zachriel says:

      This is the paper; Menne et al., The Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Dataset, Version 4, Journal of Climate 2018.

      Jl: “You can’t determine if the adjustments are justified or not.” Sure you can, because the trend is always cool the past and warm the present.

      The unadjusted data shows significant warming, and the adjustments are small compared to the overall trend. In any case, the adjustments appear to be based on valid considerations. You might want to read the paper, and if you still disagree, write to the Journal of Science with your detailed response.

  9. Jl says:

    No fraud? Oh, my. “Most of the warming occurred prior to 1919, and it cooled from 1920 to 1979.” You won’t see that on any NASA graphs now. https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-16081602_shadow.jpg

  10. StillAlive says:

    A couple years ago Zach was a lawyer. Now hes a climate expert.

    Interesting. I wonder where he cuts and pastes his comments.

    As for the greenhouse effect it cannot take place on earth because the pressure is not strong enough. Venus is 900 degrees and NASA claims its because of the greenhouse effect while they totally ignore the pressure of the planet which is off the charts.

    Now in a summary to kids Nasa explains that the greenhouse is very simple. The earth heats up during the day and then releases its heat at night to keep a modest temperature on the planet. However on Venus the planet roates once every six months. Roughly. I forget the exact number but needless to say it is 900 degrees year around which totally negates the concept of greenhouse effect releasing its heat during the six months of night. In fact Nasa claims Venus is not warmed due to its closeness to the sun but rather the greenhouse effect.

    however if this were true then the planet would have huge variations in temperature because by their assessment heat is released AT NIGHT which in this case would be six months of year. During the day which is six months the planet would cool drastically but it does not. During the six months of night the planet would warm substantially but it does not.

    Venus retains a relatively normal 900 degrees temperature year around. The reason is simple and has nothing to do with greenhouse effects. Its Atmospheric pressure. Jupiter is extremely warm and is 500 million miles from the sun with total cloud cover blocking out all sunlight.

    Why? Atmospheric pressure warms molecules. The higher the pressure the warmer the molecules.

    AGW is a scientific scam trying to misdirect with sciency explanations that cannot stand the light when the light of knowledge is shown upon it.

    • david7134 says:

      Still,
      Zach is a bunch of kids. They change the Zach about every 3 to 6 momths. The files stay the same, but the voice and relative intelligence of the zachs changed as noted. They seem to start here and move to other conservative sites. You likely have seen them on legal insurrection which has a fair number of lawyers. I think they are a debate club but some of the people are in prelaw and try to use legal terminology.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        david is a liberal plant (real name: Malique Cortez Goldstein) to make conservatives look silly and dumb. It’s working.

        • formwiz says:

          No, but you must be a Conservative plant to make the Left look silly and dumb.

          (real name: Malique Cortez Goldstein) I take it that’s an Hispanic slur.

    • Zachriel says:

      StillAlive: As for the greenhouse effect it cannot take place on earth because the pressure is not strong enough.

      That is incorrect. The equilibrium temperature of the Earth is about -18°C, which you can determine from first principles. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a frozen wasteland.

      StillAlive: In fact Nasa claims Venus is not warmed due to its closeness to the sun but rather the greenhouse effect.

      Due to its high albedo, Venus has an equilibrium temperature of -46°C. Notably, the upper atmosphere on Venus is even colder than Earth’s upper atmosphere, consistent with the greenhouse effect.

      Because of the greenhouse effect, and as confirmed by Venusian probes, of the Sun’s energy that is not reflected, the atmosphere absorbs the vast majority before it even reaches the surface.

      StillAlive: however if this were true then the planet would have huge variations in temperature because by their assessment heat is released AT NIGHT which in this case would be six months of year.

      You have that exactly backwards. If there were no greenhouse effect, the surface would rapidly radiate its energy into space, as there would be nothing to stop it. With the greenhouse effect, the atmosphere absorbs most of the radiated energy, keeping the surface warm.

      But it is interesting that you deny the greenhouse effect, even though we can directly observe it. See Feldman et al., Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature 2015.

      • StillAlive says:

        I see Zach is back for another round of deflection.

        I never denied the greenhouse effect. Ever. It certainly is what keeps the earth warm. Explain why 55-60 million years ago the world had 4500 PPM of co2 and the temperature was only about 14 degrees warmer than it is today, but Hansen your prophet claims the earth will rise 4-6 degrees with just 500 ppm of co2? That means with 1000 ppm it will be 8-12 degrees and that is C and not F. Extrapolating his alarm is the fact that if you multiply that by 8 you get 32-48 degrees higher temperatures on the earth which has been proven not possible.

        As for Venus the temperature of the surface where anyone would live will melt led. It is not -46 degrees. All outer rings of any planet who touches the absolute zero of space are going to have enormously cold temperatures. This is deflection and misdirection intended to confuse with sciency terms and explanations that seem on the surface to make a ton of sense. NOAA if you recall was told their numbers for the STRATOSPHERE was inconsistent with warming and so they took down their website and when it came back up VOILLA all the numbers had changed and were now consistent with The Green house effect.

        WARNING….DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!!

        No I don’t have it backward. The atmosphere of Venus is very hot and thick. You would not survive a visit to the surface of the planet – you couldn’t breathe the air, you would be crushed by the enormous weight of the atmosphere, and you would burn up in surface temperatures high enough to melt lead. Venus Atmosphere is made up almost exclusively of CO2.

        Measurements made by probes which travelled through the atmosphere have shown that the atmospheric temperature remains nearly constant through the long dark night. Thus there are neither significant seasons, nor daily temperature changes in the atmosphere. With an atmosphere almost entirely of co2 the changes should be dramatic for both night and day. In fact the release of heat stored during the day into the nighttime should allow for the dark side of the planet to warm even further. But it does not.

        I do not deny the greenhouse effect. What I deny is the runaway scenarios constantly played out by people like you who want to tax fossil fuels out of existence for no other reason than to crush the American economy and turn the world communist.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          SA: “I never denied the greenhouse effect. Ever. It certainly is what keeps the earth warm”.

          Other Covians: Do you agree with StillAlive? Is the greenhouse effect an actual physical process, where CO2 (and other gases) reduce the amount of infrared radiation leaving the Earth?

        • Zachriel says:

          StillAlive (now): I never denied the greenhouse effect. Ever. It certainly is what keeps the earth warm.

          StillAlive (then): As for the greenhouse effect it cannot take place on earth because the pressure is not strong enough.

          StillAlive: Explain why 55-60 million years ago the world had 4500 PPM of co2 and the temperature was only about 14 degrees warmer than it is today

          The sun emitted less energy then.

          StillAlive: Hansen your prophet claims the earth will rise 4-6 degrees with just 500 ppm of co2?

          Hansen is not a prophet. Estimated climate sensitivity is about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2. See Hansen et al., Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide, Philosophical Transactions A 2013.

          StillAlive: As for Venus the temperature of the surface where anyone would live will melt led. It is not -46 degrees.

          That’s right. The difference is due to the greenhouse effect.

          StillAlive: All outer rings of any planet who touches the absolute zero of space are going to have enormously cold temperatures.

          Space near the Earth is not at absolute zero. Even interstellar space is not at absolute zero. For a planet to be at a stable temperature, the planet must emit energy equal to what it absorbs. If there were no greenhouse effect, the surface would be able to emit directly to space. However, with the greenhouse effect, the radiation from the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere. Heat radiated from the upper atmosphere, however, can and does radiate into space. Hence, the lower atmosphere is warmed by the greenhouse effect, while the upper atmosphere is cooled by the greenhouse effect.

          StillAlive: With an atmosphere almost entirely of co2 the changes should be dramatic for both night and day.

          Already responded. That would be true if there were no greenhouse effect. The surface would radiate directly to space and cool quickly. Instead, the atmosphere absorbs heat radiation.

  11. Hoss says:

    Boy, have to give them credit for persistence, they stick with that bullshit of “established scientific consensus” through thick and thin even though it’s been debunked a trillion times now.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      That global warming results from greenhouse gases is supported by multiple lines of scientific evidence.

      Scientific theories don’t need to be debunked a trillion times. Once is enough. According to scientists, global warming resulting from fossil-fuel CO2 is occurring.

  12. StillAlive says:

    Editorial comment: This emergent condition on the NuRight to blatantly ignore facts and spread untruths (thanks DJ Trump) does not bode well for our democratic republic.

    You believe in the world wide conspiracy of Trump colluding with Russians. Or that Conservatives are racists and want the demise of all ethnic tribes except the white man. You claim there is no voter fraud and yet the GOP candidate in NC was found guilty of such and a new election is ordered. How many in California were filled with fraud when a distict in CA. which is 90 percent Republican suddenly gets a progressive far left elected by beating an Incumbent Democrat? No conspiracy there.

    You believe in your conspiracies but certainly Nasa and NOAA who receive the transmissions from space and a select group of AGW worshippers are then responsible for putting together the graphs and charts the public is shown. When subpoena’d amazingly enough the data was DESTROYED. Computer malfunction. Seriously? The government backs up and then backs up the back ups.

    From Obama’s led climate change report RELEASED BY DONALD TRUMP:

    By the end of the century, the U.S. will be 3 to 12 degrees (1.6 to 6.6 degrees Celsius) hotter depending on how much greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, the report warns.

    Exactly in line with the fear mongering talking point which actually show little to no warming for nearly two decades now and in fact we are in the throes of a massive mini ice age pounding the norther latitudes and will continue this attack for decades.

    Yet you want us to believe we should tax, ban and be rid of fossil fuels and spend trillions building solar and wind which wont heat a kettle of water in the coming ice age. AWESOME. No thanks.

  13. formwiz says:

    You’re a little confused here. Climate scientists agree that the surface temp is affected by multiple factors, some that cool, some that warm, and some likely undiscovered – but that the greenhouse gas phenomenon is causing the Earth to warm over time.

    The only one confused is Placida.

    She thinks these “climate scientists” are real scientist and not political shills.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5258 access attempts in the last 7 days.