Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
Will he or won’t he? There has been much discussion of whether President Trump keeps the US in the Paris Agreement. If we are having this debate then Trump has already won.
Much of climate debate (at least in the US) is about symbols, and Trump has roundly routed his opponents on this turf
So think of the Paris Agreement not as a policy framework, but rather as a potent political symbol.
As a symbol, here is how the politics works: Trump pulls out of Paris, Trump wins. Trump stays in, Trump wins. Fun game, huh?
In a perceptive piece @jmcurtin writes: “The only White House climate debate is between those who want to use the Paris climate agreement as a branding and lobbying opportunity, and those who favour leaving it altogether.”
Similarly, President Trump has made a big deal of reversing Obama’s Clan Power Plan. This too is a symbolic action. According to EIA, the impact of the CPP is pretty marginal:
- In fact, its projected impact of the CPP is far less than market prices for fossil fuels, again according to EIA:
- Consider that the CPP would likely have been tied up in the courts during a Hilary Clinton administration and you get … symbolism.
- Advocates for more aggressive climate action should use the opportunity afforded by the Trump presidency to fundamentally rethink climate policy in a way that would be politically robust.
- Did the recent Science March help to bring people together? Early evidence says: probably not.
- After failing to get Bret Stephens fired from the New York Times, the nation’s leading climate scientist, Michael Mann (@MichaelEMann) has focused his vitriol on cartoonist Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame (@ScottAdamsSays).
- I can’t believe I just wrote that. (Seriously, if you are not yet blocked by Mann, go over and read his Twitter feed for a glimpse into the world view of the nation’s most important climate scientist.)
- Pro tip: If you don’t want to be viewed as analogous to a religious fundamentalist, don’t go after cartoonists.
By Aly Nielsen |
A surprising report from the George Soros-funded Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) revealed several scientists oppose the way the media have tried to blame hurricanes on man-made climate change.
CJR used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to acquire emails “sent from or received by six hurricane researchers or forecasters” which included the terms “global warming” or “climate change.” The May 2, article written by Rob Verger indicate CJR was looking to see how scientists talked to the media about Hurricane Alex and “whether climate change should be blamed.” Verger said the emails showed a “heated online discussion among scientists.”
Because it was far earlier than a typical hurricane, Alex drew attention to itself and media climate alarm. The Washington Post described it Alex as “rare,” and turned to Weather Underground’s Jason Masters who tried to make the global warming point.
“It is unlikely that Alex would have formed if these waters had been close to normal temperatures for this time of year,” Masters wrote (and the Post quoted).
Christian Science Monitor was even more blunt, asking in its headline “Is climate change to blame for rare January hurricanes?”
“With the unusual occurrence of Hurricane Alex as an out-of-season hurricane, there have been a couple of meteorologists stating to the media that manmade global warming helped to cause the hurricane. Such statements are not, in my opinion, factual.” National Hurricane Center science and operations officer Chris Landsea said in a Jan. 18, 2016, email acquired by CJR.
Landsea told CJR he was similarly disturbed by how strongly former vice president Al Gore linked Hurricane Matthew to climate change in October 2016. Gore’s claims made Landsea “cringe, because there’s some links but it’s much much more subtle than he is insinuating.”
Hurricane Matthew wasn’t the only thing Gore has gotten wrong. After his climate alarmist film An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2007, a British court identified at least eleven material falsehoods, including attributing Hurricane Katrina to climate change.
In promotional footage of Gore’s follow up film, An Inconvenient Sequel, slated for July 2017, release Gore twisted and rewrote his earlier claims about what would cause massive global flooding including flooding of New York City in order to try to claim Hurricane Sandy proved him right.
Warmist Michael Mann at ‘March for Science’: ‘Science & scientists are now under attack in this country’
Mann is marching because “Science and scientists are now under attack in this country.” He should know. Mann is one of the favorite targets of climate deniers, as evidenced most recently by a hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology at which he was the only witness representing the mainstream view that climate change is the result of human activity.
“When congressional Republicans are denying basic science,” Mann said, “and the Trump administration — run largely by polluting interests — is trying to revoke policies to protect our health and our environment, more than ever we need to hear the voices of scientists, loudly and clearly.”…
I just finished watching Chris Wallace grill EPA director Scott Pruitt and was shocked to see the questioning of Chris Wallace. It was if he got his talking points from MSNBC or Michael Mann. The one comment he repeated were highly speculative comments made about the clean power act saving thousands of lives. To support these claims he referenced the American Lung Association’s position multiple times. I found that extremely odd. If there is any organization that understands that CO2 is not a pollution, it is the American Lung Association. The entire purpose of the lung is to manage the delicate balance between CO2 and O2 in the human body. CO2 is necessary for the lung and blood to function. Too little or too much CO2 in the lung and the pH of the blood can change, hyper- ventilating can cause a person to lose consciousness, too much CO2 and a person can suffocate. The standard level of CO2 in the lungis between 2.7 to 7.5%. To put that in perspective atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm, or 0.04%. 2.7 to 7.5% or 27,000 ppm to 75,000 ppm is between 67 and 187x the level of the atmosphere. Submarines can have CO2 levels near 10,000 ppm. The lungs have absolutely no problem handling high levels of CO2. Plants are the same. Higher CO2 levels make plants more drought resistant and greatly increases their yields. Plants die when CO2 drops below 180 ppm.
typical or physiological CO2 levels in the lungs which range from about 20 to 50 mm Hg or from about 2.7 to 7.5%.
It is for that reason, I questioned Chris Wallace’s approach and had to check out the American Lung Association. Sure enough, the American Lung Association makes the obligatory platitudes towards “climate change,” but never with an “N” mentions CO2 as a harmful pollutant. Sometimes a half-truth is often quite the lie. They did nothing to clarify the critical role CO2 plays in improving and saving the lives of every living organism. They do vaguely mention “carbon pollution” and state that utility plants produce CO2, but conveniently never mention CO2 as a health risk. Interestingly, they do mention that “biomass plants” are major sources of pollution. I’m pretty sure far more people die and suffer from natural causes of asthma and hayfever than CO2. I’ve never heard of anyone having an allergic …
Michael Mann’s behavior is the antithesis of a real scientist, but he doesn’t care, his objectives are political, not scientific. That is what the other real scientists don’t seem to understand. They aren’t debating in front of a professional science organization, seeking to reach the truth, they are testifying before congress. While Michael Mann is testifying to gain sound bits and greater funding, the real scientists are there trying to convince a divided congress that 50% of them are wrong. That is an insurmountable task. 50% of congress gets elected by constituents that expect them not to look behind the curtain and expose the fraud. Michael Mann’s objective is simply to throw red meat to his constituency. This part of the above quote is worth highlighting for emphasis.
I heard all the science words and phrases but the one thing I did not hear from him was uncertainty, about anything, as though reading from a well-memorized script and the only thing he had to worry about was the presentation style.
Michael Mann has a focus group tested presentation that is so well known that I could recite it in my sleep. It is pure nonsense, but he knows that all his supporters have bought into it, and that is what they expect. Those recited comments mean votes for the people that vote for climate change legislation. Facts and science have absolutely nothing to do with it.…
Real science is founded in the “scientific method.” It relies on data, experimentation, falsification of a hypothesis and reproducibility. “Science” that isn’t reproducible is black magic, superstition, witchcraft, coincidence, Oracle’s riddles, and Soothsayer’s visions. Climate “science” isn’t founded in the scientific method, it instead rests upon the pillars of:
- Peer Reviewed Literature
- Scientific Consensus
- Professional Science/Academic Organization support
- Computer model “evidence”
- A hypothesis
- This is a real “science”
Listen to any Congressional Testimony by Michael “Hockeystick” Mann, and he will rattle these off as if he was auditioning for an auctioneer’s job. The Mann deserves an Oscar more than he deserves his “Nobel Prize.”
My impressions from the hearing were not positive. Mann spoke for almost half of the time and boldly asserted the most extreme alarmist positions and factoids (quoting from my own notes): “devoted his life to science [about himself]”, “few individuals who represent tiny minority [about other three witnesses]”, “scientists continuously challenge each other [implying he is a scientist]”, “extremely broad agreement on the basic facts,” 97%, “climate change is real, human caused, and has heavy impact”, “fingerprints of human-caused climate change on extreme events”, “anti-science forces launched a series of attack on scientists”, “time for republicans to put away doubts and focus on solutions”, “discourage investigations of climate scientists,” and “support by multiple national academic societies.”
Everything Michael Mann says is practiced, focus group tested, tightly controlled and intended to win the hearts and minds of the American voter. It has absolutely nothing to do with science, and everything to do with funding, policy, and politics. The talking points are widely distributed to all the left-wing support groups, so everyone is singing the same toon (Must watch video of when simply reciting talking points can go seriously wrong). For climate realists to win his fight, they have to master Mann on the field of politics, not science. Winning the scientific battle, and losing the political battle, is losing the war.
To win the political battle, climate realists must topple the pillars of sand that are supporting Michael Mann’s arguments. Fortunately, most of these pillars of sand holding each other up, so toppling one topples others as well.…
Those poor students! Warmist MICHAEL MANN TO DELIVER GREEN MOUNTAIN COLLEGE 2017 COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS
News Release — Green Mountain College
April 3, 2017
Poultney, Vermont – April 4, 2017 – Green Mountain College President Robert (Bob) Allen, today announced that climatologist and geophysicist Michael E. Mann will deliver the commencement address during the college’s 2017 commencement ceremony which will be held on Saturday, May 13, at 10 a.m. Dr. Mann, renowned for his contributions to the scientific understanding of historic climate change based on the temperature record of the past thousand years, will address members of the Class of 2017 and their families, Green Mountain College Trustees, alumni, faculty and staff.
Currently serving as the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, Dr. Mann was one of eight lead authors of the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report published in 2001. A graph based on the MBH99 paper was highlighted in several parts of the report, and was given wide publicity. The IPCC acknowledged that his work, along with that of the many other lead authors and review editors, contributed to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which was won jointly by the IPCC and Al Gore.
Dr. Mann is the author of several books about climate change including his most recent work, The Madhouse Effect, co-authored by Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist Tom Toles of
The Washington Post. He is also featured in Leonardo DiCaprio’s film about climate change, Before the Flood, and Bill Nye: Science Guy, a film which premiered at SXSW 2017.
“We are honored to welcome Dr. Michael E. Mann to our campus as our 2017 commencement speaker,” said Green Mountain College President Robert (Bob) Allen. “His work serves as a shining example of the possibilities for our graduating students who will be heading out into the world, seeking to build a socially, economically, and ecologically resilient society.”
Since pioneering a model for sustainable education more than 20 years ago, Green Mountain College has accomplished many firsts in Vermont and across the nation—from its #1 curriculum and climate neutral campus, to developing online master’s degree programs in sustainable food systems, sustainable business, and resilient and sustainable communities. Under the leadership of President Allen and the dedication and talents of the college’s community of faculty, staff and students, the college continues to set the highest …
“It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”
— From the “Summary for Policy-Makers” of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I. Unfortunately, there is no consensus about the timing and magnitude of future warming.
On March 29 the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee held a hearing on “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method“. The star witness, in terms of public profile, was Michael Mann — Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at Pennsylvania State. Mann gave a remarkable demonstration of why the 29 year-long climate change campaign has produced such small results. He opens strongly and closes with even more strongly. But his own evidence undercuts his claims.
(1) A consensus about current adverse impacts of climate change?
Mann opens with this claim, one that has been often said during the past several years.
“The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of the U.K., and all of the scientific societies of all of the industrial nations — the more than 30 scientific societies in the U.S. that have weighed in on the matter, and at least 97% of scientist publishing in the field have all concluded, based on the evidence, that that climate change is real, is human-caused, and is already having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet.”
Yes, there is a consensus that climate change is real and largely human-caused. The third claims, about already causing adverse impacts, is quite false — as shown by the three footnotes Mann provides.
1. “Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change” signed by representatives of 11 national science academies in 2005. It says that “Climate change is real.” No mention of current adverse impacts, just “changes in Earth’s climate.” Excerpt…
“However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is…