President Trump and climate change

Some months ago I agreed to give an address in February this year on the topic ‘President Trump and climate change’. At the time I wondered whether it would be a sensible topic in 2018, but it is, so I’m giving it as asked. This isn’t the address, but it is the sort of mulling around that you need to do before you write your speech notes.

It’s not difficult to see what President Trump thinks about climate change, and what he has thought about it. He had said, during the election campaign, that it was a concept dreamed up by the Chinese in order to displace American manufacturing. He didn’t mention it much in his campaign, and it wasn’t part of his debate material, either. He dismissed Barack Obama’s assertion that ‘climate change’ was the most serious threat facing the USA and humanity in general. In November 2016 he promised to pull the US out of the Paris Accord, and he did so not long after taking office. Within moments of his inauguration the White House website was emptied of all references to climate change. In December last year, he dropped ‘climate change’ as an item in the US national security strategy, and during that year he told the Environment Protection Agency to concentrate on clear air and clean water, not on the supposed threats from carbon dioxide. He told NASA that he wanted it to concentrate on space missions, not on climate and weather. Most recently, he didn’t mention ‘climate change’ at all in his State of the Union Address. Perhaps more significantly, neither did the Democrat charged with the response to his address, Joe Kennedy III.

Needless to say, these statements and actions have worried those concerned about the supposed threat from global warming, and they keep demonstrating and speaking against him. He doesn’t take any notice. He knows that the media are almost wholeheartedly against him, and he uses social media to get his messages out. Since he uses social media in the way a larrikin might, that makes the media even more hostile. He doesn’t care. The media were almost unanimously for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and even from Australia that bias looked extreme. We don’t hear as much now as we did a few months ago about likely impeachment and other powerful anti-Trump possibilities, while the Democrats aren’t pursuing climate change as a major policy item. What are we to make of all this?

Setting aside the President’s style, which is just about all we in Australia learn about the President from our own mainstream media, Mr Trump is not combatting the global warmists so much as simply ignoring them. He talks about ‘energy’, providing more of it more cheaply to more people. He talks about ‘getting the economy moving again’. He talks about other things altogether: immigration, nationalism, national pride, and so on. And he can afford to do so. As I’ve pointed out in other essays, the notion that the whole world is anxious about global warming or climate change is an artefact of the way in which public opinion surveys construct their questions. If you begin with the topic, you alert the respondent to the realisation that this question is important, and that they should have an answer.

Ask, ‘Do you think that global warming is a very serious problem, a serious problem or a not very serious problem?’ and you’ll get a lot of respondents saying that, Oh yes, it is very serious, that problem. If, on the other hand, you ask the respondent to identify the problems that are most serious to him or her, or even those problems most important to the world at large, the proportions nominating climate change fall away to almost nothing. In 2016, when the first type of question was asked of an American sample, only 20 per cent of Republicans but 68 per cent of Democrats thought climate change was a very serious problem. In July 2017, when people were asked to nominate the problems the President should be dealing with, ‘environment and pollution’ were cited by just 3 per cent of the sample. Global warming, or climate change, was a smaller part of that very small part.

Since the proportions in Australia deeply concerned about the possibly catastrophic effects of anthropogenic global warming (however much warming there actually is) are probably about the same as in the USA, how is it that President Trump can ignore something in his country that no one in ours seems to be able to do? There are several reasons. One is that the American President is, in terms familiar to Australians, both the Prime Minister and the Governor-General. He is an elected monarch. He appoints his own Cabinet, he appoints the executive officers in charge of large sections of the civil service, and he can issue ‘executive orders’ telling both the military and the civil service what to do in particular areas. He can do all this without Congressional approval. Executive orders are growing in their number and use.

‘Climate change’ is one of the key policy areas for the Australian Greens, but there is no comparable political party in the USA. Indeed, American political parties have no real counterparts in any other land, while counterparts to our parties can be found in Europe, the UK, Canada and New Zealand. While Democrats are generally more worried about the issue than Republicans, there is no organised force within Congress to make ‘climate change’ an everyday issue. The Australian Public Service has a number of departments and agencies for which ‘climate change’ is a serious matter, and every department could have an interest in it should appropriate circumstances arise. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, for example, will see the issue as an important factor in how Australia is seen by other countries, and will intervene in the development of Cabinet papers if it thinks the issue is not being taken seriously enough by other departments. In the USA it is the Environment Protection Agency that has the key role, and President Trump has told it, as I have said, to concentrate on clear air and clear water, and not on carbon dioxide. It is possible that future policies developed by the EPA will have to run the gauntlet of a ‘red team’ — a group of scientifically savvy experts who look to see past the rhetoric and ask inconvenient questions of the proposers. We have no equivalents to that procedure here, though in my view they ought to be mandatory wherever a policy is said to be necessary because of what ‘science’ is supposed to say.

How likely is it that President Trump’s position on climate change will remain in force? The short and obvious answer is — indefinitely while he remains President, and while weather conditions remain as they have done for the past fifty years or so. Yes, there were three powerful hurricanes last year in the USA, but they followed twelve years of low tornado frequency. That sort of stuff is weather. When does weather become ‘climate’? Terminologically, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, climate is thirty years of weather. I’ve never liked that definition. To me real climate change is what we see over long periods of time — the change in North Africa, for example where most of Rome’s wheat came from two thousand years ago, but is now mostly sand. Or the change in Central Australia, where lakes abounded in human times, because Aboriginal cave paintings in the area show fish, reeds and water birds. Or the shift from the Little Ice Age in Europe to the present, where we see no Frost Fairs on the Thames in London, and no frozen canals in Holland.

What we have today is an argument about ‘climate change’ that rests on poor quality temperature data until 1979, computer climate models that have failed really to describe what has happened in our own times, and a portrayed villain in carbon dioxide, mostly because the causes of natural variation are poorly understood. And the high point of the scare has passed. That was ten years ago, when Al Gore and the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize, and Kevin Rudd said that climate change was “the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time”.

The trouble for the orthodoxy was that the predicted bad things haven’t happened, and don’t seem likely to. Carbon dioxide has kept increasing in the atmosphere, but the rate of increase in global temperature dropped right down, kept up most by el Nino spikes. The Millennium drought was followed by substantial floods. While the faithful kept meeting and declaring that doom was coming, ordinary people got on with their lives, governments played down what they would do to ‘combat climate change’, and a sort of ritual attended the COP meetings. President Trump, to repeat, has not gone into battle against the AGW faithful. He has simply ignored them, secure in the knowledge that it is jobs, a return of optimism about the economic future, and a feeling that the nation is important again that are the important priorities for most of his countrymen.

And after a pretty horrible Northern winter, he can see out the next year or two with equanimity. ‘It’s weather,’ he can go on saying. And most Americans will nod and shrug their shoulders.













Join the discussion 111 Comments

  • Chris warren says:

    Yes given the trends over the last 30 years, I sorta expected some would start to now argue that 30 year trends are not long enough. This sort of shifting is not appropriate and probably outside all scientifically performed analysis.

    If we have more than 30 year’s accurate data then of course we should use it but I am not aware of any accurate data collected by modern instruments either at Mauna Loa or from satellites that contradict the 30 year standard.

    There is therefore no objective reason to doubt the 30 year standard. This is just a clique view by a few.

    By the sound of the topic, this looks like some sort of in house event by some organision that is unlikely to invite anyone from the Australia Institute, Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO, Academy of Science or Climate Council to also give their view of Donald Trump and Climate change.

    All I can suggest is that attendees better hope their venue is air conditioned and they can park their cars under the shade – because its getting pretty hot these days.

    Will the event be reported in Quadrant?

  • Mark M says:

    Your tax dollars have created a new type of crystal ball …
    The CSIRO has launched a tool that will help predict climate changes in particular geographical locations into the future

  • spangled drongo says:

    “The trouble for the orthodoxy was that the predicted bad things haven’t happened, and don’t seem likely to.”

    And even more trouble for the bed-wetting orthodoxy but great news for the sceptics:

  • PeterE says:

    It should be an interesting talk. ‘Climate change’ is such a ‘progressive’ cause and there is a clear difference between the progressive and the conservative outlook. Then there is that word ‘moral.’ Obama forecast that, with his election, the seas would stop rising and the Great Barrier Reef would begin to heal, or words along those lines. Didn’t seem to happen though. Good luck with the talk.

  • Neville says:

    Don where will you give your talk and will there be a Q&A afterwards?
    And are you aware that there may be some people who will try and trip you up using smart alec comments and silly religious dogma? Good luck with your talk.

  • David says:

    “Computer climate models that have failed really to describe what has happened in our own times, …”

    Really? Here is a list of skeptics who have lost money betting against computer climate models. It reads like a Whos Who of AGW deniers

    Prof Plimer
    Jo Nova
    David Evans
    Maurice Neumann
    Galina Mashnich
    Vladimir Bashkirtsev,
    John McLean
    David Archibald
    Don Easterbrook
    Kevin Long

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    This is nonsense. Betting proves nothing, as demonstrated by the publication in the Guardian. Of more interest will be Mann vs Ball (in which Mann appears weaker), and Mann vs Steyn, which, if it ever gets to trial, promises to be interesting.

    • Chris Warren says:


      It demonstrates yet again, that fools and their money are soon parted.

    • David says:

      I do not know, Bryan. I would be more inclined to believe what the skeptics had to say on AGW, if they did not keep losing their shirt.

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        David, if you’re so wealthy, why don’t you get around a bit. In the years since I retired, I’ve travelled extensively, in the East and the West. I’ve engaged in a lot of conversations, but not once, NOT ONCE, has the topic of global warming, or climate change, ever been mentioned. No matter how much you fulminate, for the world at large, it’s simply not an issue.

  • margaret says:

    What about an address on PM Turnbull and Climate Change – since we live in Australia.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Margaret, I respond to invitations. Do you have one? Where, when? I don’t need projectors or power point…

      • margaret says:

        That sounds as though you would be willing to address the opening of an envelope … 🙂
        No, sorry, I don’t have a venue, an audience, or even a specific interest in promulgating any agenda on climate change … as would be the case with most people in Australia. I want the people with scientific expertise to influence the management of AGW – but no-one can influence actual climate change over the aeons of time.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “I want the people with scientific expertise to influence the management of AGW ”

          That’s right, marg. We gotta have those “it’s worse than we thought”, enuresistic groupthinkers in charge.

          How are they doin’ so far?

          Cool enough for you yet?

          Or do you think we should be paying more for less [and less reliable] power awa a much reduced SOL?

          While all the time enjoying the mild fluctuations of Nat Var?

        • spangled drongo says:

          Marg, here’s just a little of what your “scientific expert influence” is up to.

          From Professor Peter Ridd:

          “Around the world, people have heard about the impending extinction of the Great Barrier Reef: some 133,000 square miles of magnificent coral stretching for 1,400 miles off the northeast coast of Australia.

          The reef is supposedly almost dead from the combined effects of a warming climate, nutrient pollution from Australian farms, and smothering sediment from offshore dredging.

          Except that, as I have said publicly as a research scientist who has studied the reef for the past 30 years, all this most likely isn’t true.

          And just for saying that – and calling into question the kind of published science that has led to the gloomy predictions – I have been served with a gag order by my university. I am now having to sue for my right to have an ordinary scientific opinion.

          My emails have been searched. I was not allowed even to speak to my wife about the issue. I have been harangued by lawyers. And now I’m fighting back to assert my right to academic freedom and bring attention to the crisis of scientific truth.

          The problems I am facing are part of a “replication crisis” that is sweeping through science and is now a serious topic in major science journals. In major scientific trials that attempt to reproduce the results of scientific observations and measurements, it seems that around 50 percent of recently published science is wrong, because the results can’t be replicated by others.

          And if observations and measurements can’t be replicated, it isn’t really science – it is still, at best, hypothesis, or even just opinion. This is not a controversial topic anymore – science, or at least the system of checking the science we are using, is failing us.

          The crisis started in biomedical areas, where pharmaceutical companies in the past decade found that up to 80 percent of university and institutional science results that they tested were wrong. It is now recognized that the problem is much more widespread than the biomedical sciences. And that is where I got into big trouble.

          I have published numerous scientific papers showing that much of the “science” claiming damage to the reef is either plain wrong or greatly exaggerated. As just one example, coral growth rates that have supposedly collapsed along the reef have, if anything, increased slightly.”

          Read more:

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Oh dear, I didn’t make it clear enough that my response was a joke…

          • margaret says:

            🙂 … I get that … however SD is like a dog with a bone.

          • spangled drongo says:

            I get it now marg, so you meant; “I want the people with scientific expertise to influence the management of AGW ” to be a joke too?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Trump’s anti-climate Taliban are climate-cleansing Government websites and gagging public servants.

    “The big erasure of all things climate is well underway; government censorship is running rampant. Wide swaths of informational content about climate change science and impacts are being systematically scrubbed from federal agency websites, particularly at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – see the November 22 New York Times op-ed piece “Censoring Climate Change”. A group called the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI) tediously tracks and reports these removals and, by doing so, is performing a crucial watchdog role over this administration’s irresponsible approach to climate change. The group’s reports are thorough and informative; for example, EDGI released a report (.pdf) in October describing in great detail the removal of an EPA website called “Climate and Energy Resources for State, Local, and Tribal Governments.”

    “Government censorship is also occurring in the form of gag orders: federal scientists are being prevented from presenting talks on climate change at conferences and meetings. We know of some specific instances of this, but fear that much of this form of suppressing free speech is going unreported. CSPW reported in detail the recent case of three EPA scientists in Rhode Island who were ordered not to give planned presentations at a workshop on the health of the Narragansett Bay; the order came from John Konkus, a political appointee in the EPA’s Public Affairs Office, less than one business day before the event on October 23. In another case, Scientific American reports that a scientist with the US Forest Service is being denied permission to even attend an upcoming conference hosted by the Association for Fire Ecology where he was slated to give a talk titled “Climate-Induced Variations in Global Severe Fire Weather Conditions.” Given the raging wildfires occurring right now in Southern California, exacerbated by whipping Santa Ana winds, the relationship between climate change and the conditions that have turned much of the Southwest into a tinder box should be of interest.

    Probably the most egregious example of censorship to date was the abrupt reassignment of Joel Clement by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. Clement was moved from his post as Policy Advisor covering climate change impacts in Alaska to the office that collects oil royalty checks. Clement blew the whistle, filed formal complaints, and eventually quit his new post in protest; CSPW has written extensively about his case.

    Censorship is also coming in the form of targeted budget cuts. Federal climate change research programs coordinated under the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) are being subjected to draconian cuts; many are being downsized or totally defunded, and climate change scientists are now routinely being reassigned to other projects. These cuts are not being imposed because the need for climate research is diminished; quite the opposite – as the risks grow in severity, so does the need to better understand our climate system.”

    Trump’s climate policy, in practice means that if the interests of fossil fuel companies and democracy conflict, abolish democracy.

    Others describe Trump’s climate policy as akin to chanting LA-LA-LA-LA-LA with your hands over your ears, and hoping the big monster will go away.

    • spangled drongo says:

      How completely unaware of the real world is our blith?

      His hard won enuresis is totally wasted with his feeble thought processes and conclusions.

      When Trump is leading a country that is leading the world in solving this maybe-problem and the ROW is going in the opposite direction, blith is too obtuse to get that if the bed wetters [like himself] are fair dinkum, they can put their money where their mouths are and pull their respective weight for a change.

      If they are too hypocritical to do that, why crucify yourself?

      At the same time he is ridding the lifters of the burden of the [like himself] troughers in order to pick up some performance.

      What’s not to like?

  • Chris Warren says:

    It is always good to keep an eye on our denialists, learn their tricks, whether it is nicotine, evolution or global warming …

    • spangled drongo says:

      That explains some of your ignorance then, hey blith?

      As a non-supporter of the Darwinian Theory of evolution, you also don’t believe in his theory of those coral atolls surviving either.

      But what is your excuse for the rest of it?

      • David says:

        It one thing to argue that evolution can’t be explained with calculus. So what mathematics would he use to explain a God?

        The argument is silly. But par for the course for you SD.

    • David says:

      This guy exudes a clueless self confidence. It would be funny if we did not have to share the planet with him.

  • spangled drongo says:

    An interesting debate between a conservative professor and a leftie which has worked wonders for Peterson. His new book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos has become a runaway bestseller in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Germany and France, making him the public intellectual du jour.

    But Cathy thought she won:

  • spangled drongo says:

    Donald Trump and Charles Darwin are right again.

    ‘Sinking’ Pacific nation Tuvalu is actually getting bigger, new research reveals:

    • David says:

      SD where do you find this stuff? Jordan Peterson looks angry to me. No doubt’ not coping with his loss of white male privilege. Female reporters asking him to explain himself etc. Looks like he could do with a shot of that serotonin he is banging on about.

  • spangled drongo says:

    And even though the Donald saved the winter Olympics the bed-wetters still claim they are threatened by Global Warming, but NBC just won’t acknowledge it:


    Snow prollem:

  • Don Aitkin says:

    President Trump is going to ask Congress for a 72 per cent cut in the funds spent by the Department of Energy on renewable energy research, according to the Washington Post.

  • Neville says:

    Trump should vigorously promote all the benefits of increased levels of co2 in the atmosphere.
    Dr Spencer has a post looking at the increase in corn yields ( and other grains) over the last 60 years.
    This is truly remarkable and should be promoted by the clueless MSM. Here’s his recent post.

    Posted in Blog Article | 1,678 Comments »
    U.S. Corn Yield a New Record – Again
    January 29th, 2018
    Global warming be damned — full speed ahead on the Maize Train.

    “Kentucky Corn Growers Association
    The numbers are in from USDA, and 2017 saw a new record in average corn yield, with 176.6 bushels per acre.

    In fact, the last four growing seasons (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) had higher yields than any previous years. The last time that happened was in 1964.
    And compared to 1964, the U.S. is producing nearly three times as much corn per acre as we did back then.
    There is no indication of a slowdown in the long-term upward trends in corn yields. While the 176.6 bpa U.S. average for 2017 is a huge increase compared to just 50 years ago, the latest winner for the highest yield produced by a single farmer has risen again to over 542 bpa, which is fully three times the U.S. average yield.
    While the global warmmongers continue to wring their hands over rising temperatures hurting yields (the Corn Belt growing season has indeed warmed slightly since 1960), improved varieties and the “global greening” benefits of more atmospheric CO2 have more than offset any negative weather effects — if those even exist.
    Globally, upward trends in all grain yields have been experienced in recent decades. Of course, droughts and floods cause regional crop failures almost every year. That is normal and expected. But there has been no global average increase in these events over the last century.
    In his latest movie, Al Gore claimed just the opposite for wheat yields in China. While I hesitate to call him a liar, since I don’t know where he got his information — Gore was just plain wrong.
    The sky is not falling. Life on Earth depends upon CO2, even though there is so little of it — now 4 parts per 10,000 of the atmosphere, compared to 3 parts a century ago. No matter how much we emit, nature gobbles up 50% of it.
    Most of the evidence suggests that life is now breathing more freely than any time in human history, thanks to our CO2 emissions”.
    Posted in Blog Article

  • Chris Warren says:

    Is this another Trump Climate Fail?

    The United States has failed to meet a key deadline (January 1, 2018) for submitting a major report, required under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Under Section 12 of the UNFCCC, countries listed in Annex I of the Convention (including the US) are required to periodically submit to the Treaty’s Secretariat a detailed “National Communication,” which presents a wide range of information regarding the nation’s implementation of the agreement. UNFCCC guidelines on reporting and review stipulate use of a common format to facilitate analysis and evaluation and allow for comparisons among the national reports. Further, CSPW sees no indication that this report is even underway; a complete failure to submit this report would be unprecedented.

    USA just snubbing its nose at the rest of global humanity.

    • spangled drongo says:

      It’s easy to see why Trump is becoming more highly regarded by smart people.

      As ever more deluded lefty alarmists like poor ol’ blith just can’t seem to get why a smart bloke like the Donald might be a little reluctant to click his heels at the express instructions of a world leading bed-wetter like the UNFCCC.

      Especially when the US is possibly doing more to comply than any other country.

      Could he perhaps be so obtuse as to not be aware Trump may consider it’s bad enough to be financing their stupidity let alone acting upon it.

  • Neville says:

    There’s been some very cold temps recorded this winter in parts of Canada. Minus 55 c to minus 65 c seems very cold to me and at minus 55c the skin starts to suffer damage from the extreme cold within 2 minutes.
    But it’s hard for native groups to live off the supermarkets, when in the past they hunted in extreme conditions. Certainly many parts of the Arctic seem to be very cold this winter.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s another icon of their so called CAGW that a Trump team should investigate. The 2017 Do et al study investigated all around the planet using three periods of data and found an overall slight decrease in flooding when comparing all their data-sets.

    Here’s the Co2 Science’s summary of the study.

    A Global Analysis of Recent Trends in Streamflow

    Paper Reviewed
    Do, H.X., Westra, S. and Leonard, M. 2017. A global-scale investigation of trends in annual maximum streamflow. Journal of Hydrology 552: 28-43.

    Flooding is one of the most common of all weather-related disasters, affecting more than two billion people across the planet in recent decades (CRED, 2015). According to climate alarmists, the frequency and severity of this natural hazard should already be increasing in response to model-based predictions of CO2-induced global warming. But, is there any observational proof to validate this claim?

    The latest study to shed light on this topic was recently published in the Journal of Hydrology. Seeking to better understand historical changes in flooding, Do et al. (2017) analyzed records of maximum daily streamflow from 3558 locations to develop “the most comprehensive observation-based record of … streamflow at the global scale currently available.”

    Because of differences among the start, end and total length of the station records they examined, the authors decided to perform their analyses on three subsets of the data. The first included those stations with at least 38 years of streamflow records during the period 1966-2005 (a total of 1907 stations). The second comprised stations with at least 30 years of data during the years 1955-2014 (3478 stations), while the last included a total of 71 stations with a minimum of 80 years of data over the time period 1900-2014. Implementation of this protocol allowed them to ascertain the degree to which their findings were altered (if at all) by the degree of spatial or temporal coverage in the station data.

    Streamflow trends were statistically determined for each station using the Mann-Kendall nonparametric test at a 10% significant level, combined with a field significance test. In describing their findings, Do et al. report that across all three subsets of data, “more stations showed statistically significant decreasing trends [in streamflow] than statistically significant increasing trends,” which finding held regardless of whether the stations were filtered by the presence of dams or changes in forest cover. Consequently, the three Australian scientists conclude that “although there may be evidence of regional increasing trends in flood hazard, the hypothesis that there is a significant increase in flood hazard when averaged over all the data-covered regions of the globe is not supported by this analysis.” And so it is that another model-based claim is invalidated by observations.

    CRED, 2015. The Human Cost of Natural Disasters: A Global Perspective. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Brussels.
    Posted 9 February 2018

    • Chris Warren says:


      Your claim “Here’s another icon of their so called CAGW that a Trump team should investigate. The 2017 Do et al study investigated all around the planet using three periods of data and found an overall slight decrease in flooding when comparing all their data-sets.”

      was false.

      With respect to floods, the paper reports different studies showing:

      …the probability of average flood events has decreased during recent decades while extreme floods are likely to increase.

      …an increasing trend in spring floods associated with snowmelt.

      … there were increases in flood risk around the upper Midwest/Great Lakes region and decreases on the Gulf Coastal Plain, the southeastern United States, and California.

      … that flood frequency has increased while there was limited evidence of a decrease in flood magnitude in this region.

      It appears that you have not read the paper and have only pinched stuff from a well known denialist website. You are propagating fake news.

      If you read the actual paper, you would see that the authors switch attention to “streamflow” and go on to note:

      “Recently, numerous studies have shown an intensification of extreme precipitation

      “65% of the data covered areas of the globe exhibited increasing trends for annual maximum rainfall

      “Westra et al. (2013) detected increasing trends at nearly two thirds of stations, and found that the median intensity of extreme precipitation increased in proportion to changes in global mean temperature at a rate of between 5.9% and 7.7% per K.

      “Lehmann et al. (2015) also found large – scale increasing patterns in extreme precipitation, with 12% more record-breaking rainfall events over 1981–2010.

      So faced with all this, these new authors, took a divergent tack and noted the additional influence of a catchment’s “antecedent moisture content” (rather than the intensity of individual heavy rainfall events.)

      They suggested that water discharge was not proportional to water fall while stating; It is not possible to infer the direction and/or magnitude of change in flood hazard from information changes in extreme precipitation alone.

      Global warming increases global water vapour. Precipitation is a subsequent event and precipitation over land is not necessarily representative of global trends in water vapour response to global warming. Water vapour concentration (after precipitation) is increasing – as shown here:

      Given the amount of engineering across the globe, including flood mitigation and water diversion into irrigation, flood events are not simplistically indicative of global warming.

      Streamflows will fall if cotton farming, rice growing, and urban and industrial demands for land-water increase.

      As the authors state: you cannot translate rainfall to runoff at the global scale.

      The authors focus on ” the range of non-climatic factors that may also cause changes in flood hazard”. They note: ” in many cases the dams are designed to reduce flood magnitude and the flood damage on human assets”.

      They list:

      land-use change, deforestation, dams, reservoirs, other effects of urbanisation, other hydraulic influences such as regulated water releases, changing channel capacity and/or implementation of flood prevention measures.

      They attempt to correct for man-made dams but not for dams less than 10 hectares. Many, many farm dams are less than 24 acres. The authors only focussed on “large hydraulic structures”. They particularly note “…it should be cautioned that the results could also be explained by other confounding factors (e.g. agricultural development, urbanisation)”.

      They never correct for water diversion for urban and industrial purposes nor for the many farmers pumping stations now littered along water courses.

      Certainly stream flows may well be decreasing in some areas where data exists – but this can well be consistent with global warming.

  • David says:

    Don you are a big fan of satalite data. Very accurate etc.

    What do you make of this?

    • Don Aitkin says:

      David, it would be more accurate to suggest that I thought satellite temperature data ought to be preferred to land and sea surface temperatures, for all sorts of good reasons explained in earlier essays.

      For sea levels, I prefer to use local tide gauges, which tell you what is happening near to where you live. In south eastern Australia what is happening is very little, and not at all alarming. Average global sea level, while important to those who worry about AGW and the doom they believe is to come, relies on satellite estimates which have a lot of error built into them, and can’t be related sensibly to tide gauges, though there have been attempts.

      As I’ve mentioned before, Judith Curry at Climate etc is working through the whole sea-level issue. You might find it useful to read what she has been publishing.

      • David says:

        So you do not like those results.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          See immediately above. You ought to be able to work these things out for yourself, really.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Davie, please check some facts on that Nerem paper:

          “I am sorry to have to inform you, though, that it is STILL worse than we thought. You see, the data used in determining satellite-based SLR in the above data and graphs, is not really a rise in the sea surface HEIGHT. That is, it does not represent (and never has) an actual increase in the level of the sea surface above the geoid (or, easier to imagine, increasing distance from the center of the Earth). Real sea level rise is reflected in a rise in Global Mean Sea Surface Height. But Global Mean SLR, as calculated by Colorado’s Sea Level Group, NOAA, and other SLR groups is a concept — not a measurement.

          SLR satellite data includes things such as the “GIA Adjustment” — which is the amount of SLR that there would have been if the ocean basin hadn’t increased in volume and in the case of this new study, how much higher the sea surface would have been if it had not been suppressed by the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption, another correction for ENSO/PDO “computed via a joint cyclostationary empirical orthogonal function (CSEOF) analysis of altimeter GMSL, GRACE land water storage, and Argo-based thermosteric sea level from 2005 to present”, as well as other additions and adjustments — NONE OF WHICH can actually be found manifested in any change to the physical Sea Surface Height.”

    • dlb says:

      I don’t know where they got an acceleration of 0.08 mm per year? I downloaded the satellite data from 1993 to 2016 and checked out the slope on a 2nd order polynomial. The result was an acceleration of 0.029 mm per year, and may not even be statistically significant.
      If it is significant this would only produce a rise of 38 cm by the end of the century, hardly concerning.

      Perhaps they sent the data down to Guantanamo Bay to extract another 0.05 mm!

      • Chris Warren says:


        What is the link to the data you used?

        • dlb says:

          My data link is (#version_2016_rel4)

          After your question I checked the Colorado University site and there is a more recent set (2018_rel1) GMSL that takes out the annual seasonal cycle and the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment. Using this data set the acceleration is 0.097 mm a year, which is even more than the paper David links to. (the paper correct for ENSO and volcanic eruptions etc.).

          Removing the annual signal doesn’t change much, but removing the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment plus other changes since 2016 such as switching to RADS base data, not applying the TOPEX cal-1 mode correction, adding Jason-3 GDR cycles 1-70, have made it “worse than we thought”.

          You probably agree.

  • Neville says:

    The 2015 Vasskog et al study of Greenland compared the previous Eemian IG to the Holocene and found much higher sea levels, temp etc during the Eemian. Just more evidence for a Trump team to use.

    Here’s the Co2 Science summary.

    A Historic Perspective on the Greenland Ice Sheet and its Contribution to Global Sea Level

    Paper Reviewed
    Vasskog, K., Langebroek, P.M., Andrews, J.T., Nilsen, J.E.Ø. and Nesje, A. 2015. The Greenland Ice Sheet during the last glacial cycle: Current ice loss and contribution to sea-level rise from a palaeoclimatic perspective. Earth-Science Reviews 150: 45-67.
    One of the most feared of all model-based projections of CO2-induced global warming is that temperatures will rise to such a degree as to cause a disastrous melting/destabilization of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS), which melting is subsequently projected to raise global sea level by several meters. But how likely is this scenario to occur? And is there any way to prove such melting is caused by human activities? The answer to this two-part question involves some extremely complex and precise data collection and understanding of the processes involved with glacial growth and decay. Most assuredly, however, it also involves a scientifically accurate assessment of the past history of the GrIS, which is needed to provide a benchmark for evaluating its current and future trends. To this end, a recent review paper by Vasskog et al. (2015) provides a fairly good summary of what is (and is not) presently known about the history of the GrIS over the previous glacial-interglacial cycle. And it yields some intriguing findings. Probably the most relative information to the discussion at hand is Vasskog et al.’s investigation of the GrIS during the last interglacial period (130-116 ka BP). During this period, global temperatures were 1.5-2.0°C warmer than the peak warmth of the present interglacial, or Holocene, in which we are now living. As a result of that warmth, significant portions of the GrIS melted away. Quantitatively, Vasskog et al. estimate that during this time (the prior interglacial) the GrIS was “probably between ~7 and 60% smaller than at present,” and that that melting contributed to a rise in global sea level of “between 0.5 and 4.2 m.” Thus, in comparing the present interglacial to the past interglacial, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently 30% higher, global temperatures are 1.5-2°C cooler, GrIS volume is from 7-67% larger, and global sea level is at least 0.5-4.2 m lower, none of which observations signal catastrophe for the present. Clearly, therefore, there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the current interglacial, including the present state of the GrIS. Its estimated ice volume and contribution to mean global sea level reside well within their ranges of natural variability, and from the current looks of things, they are not likely to depart from those ranges any time soon. Posted 21 April 2016
    Printer Friendly Version
    Copyright © 2018. Center for the Study of Carbon

    • Chris Warren says:


      You have not read the paper and are simply regurgitating biassed reporting from a denialist website.

      The authors say:

      … recent modelling efforts show that the relative contribution from the Greenland Ice Sheet will have large effects on the regional distribution of future sea-level rise [Earth-Science Reviews 150 page 60b]

      The sea-level rise by end of this century may be just 130 cm based on the the greenhouse gas emission scenario SRES A1B.

      For scenario RCP4.5 it is somewhat less.

      For scenario RCP8.5 it is 330 cm.

      The authors also note that:

      In a sustained high-CO 2 scenario (>700 ppm) models suggest that the Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute as much as 2.6 m to global MSL rise in 500 years. [Earth-Science Reviews 150 page 61a]

      The authors state:

      Given enough time, a negative net mass balance will ultimately lead to complete melting of the ice sheet, and several studies have
      attempted to quantify the climatic threshold and time period required for this to happen.

      This is the actual facts Trump should be using.

      • dlb says:

        “Denialist website” is a rather sweeping statement Chris, that would appeal to ones prejudices.
        However I agree their review is so highly cherry picked it bares no relationship to the original paper’s abstract.

        “CO2 Science” reminds me of the “The Hockey Schtick” website that Gus (blast from the past) used to get all his “research” from. At least “THS” gave you the abstracts to read.

        After that review “CO2 Science” is on my watch list as a potential dodgy site.

  • Neville says:

    Trump’s team would have their hands full if they tried to verify some of the fraudulent nonsense from the MSM. Here’s some more studies from the No Tricks Zone blog.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Have you actually read anything that substantiates these claims.

      Or are you just copy-pasting denialist fake news?????

      What is the source of:

      “The global sea-level acceleration is therefore in the order of + 0.002 ± 0.003 mm/year², i.e. + 2 ÷ 3 ?m/year², well below the accuracy of the estimation.”

      • Neville says:

        Chris here is the source and next time find it for yourself. But most of this is just speculation, when actual measurements in another recent study shows more coastal ( global ) land today than there was 30 years ago.
        The average trend and acceleration for the PSMSL and NOAA reduced data sets were the following:

        + 0.40 ± 0.27 mm/year and + 0.0090 ± 0.0208 mm/year2 for the “NOAA-120” data set.

        + 1.63 ± 0.23 mm/year and + 0.0021 ± 0.0192 mm/year2 for the “US 39” data set.

        + 0.49 ± 0.34 mm/year and + 0.0063 ± 0.0263 mm/year2 for the “PSMSL-162” data set.

        The global sea-level acceleration is therefore in the order of + 0.002 ÷ 0.003 mm/year2, i.e. + 2 ÷ 3 ?m/year2, well below the accuracy of the estimation. This means that the sea levels may rise in the twenty-first century only a few centimetres more than what they rose during the twentieth century. This is by no means alarming.

        • Chris Warren says:


          You should have provided the link originally.

          The authors claim “The sea levels have been oscillating about a nearly perfectly linear
          trend since the start of the twentieth century with no sign of acceleration.”

          This is based on their interpretation of tide gauges which is not shared by other researchers, and is contradicted by more accurate satellite-based data.

          The authors do not account for the warming of the land. If both land and water expand, the relative rise and fall of each will cancel out.

          This impacts tide gauge data, but not satellite data.

          Satellite data indicates:

          … rate is accelerating at 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2, which agrees well with climate model projections. If sea level continues to change at this rate and acceleration, sea-level rise by 2100 (?65 cm) will be more than double the amount if the rate was constant at 3 mm/y.


          An acceleration of 0.084 (satellite) is very different to your 0.002 (tide gauges).

          As Mauna Loa data shows CO2 accumulation is accelerating and is now over 2 ppm per year, young people now entering the workforce must prepare for a world with CO2 levels over 500 ppm in their lifetimes and rising.

          As Hansen has noted (February 12, 2018):

          The rapidity of ice sheet and sea level response to global temperature is difficult to predict, but is dependent on the magnitude of warming. Targets for limiting global warming thus, at minimum, should aim to avoid leaving global temperature at Eemian or higher levels for centuries. Such targets now require “negative emissions”, i.e., extraction of CO2 from the air.


          So, sadly, the die is set and our politicians are looking to expand coal mining which will throw more CO2 into the atmosphere.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Blith is not interested in what’s actually happening, just what he feels in his water.

            Try some actual facts, reluctantly admitted from the “settled science” department and former chief alarmist Jay Zwally, who for years had said the Arctic was in big trouble:

            ‘“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said.”

  • Neville says:

    Willis Eschenbach uses the latest Ceres data and finds more support for thunderstorms playing an important part in the regulation of planet’s temp. This could be a negative feedback in the system.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Could you please read the original article. You always seem to cut and paste stuff without understanding it.

      The author claims

      “You can see the very close correspondence between the temperature and the thunderstorms.”


      “The correspondence of sea surface temperature (gray lines) with cloud top height (colors) is most amazing. You can watch the tall thunderstorms following the warm ocean water as it wanders around the tropics.”

      Pure evidence of weather being disrupted by global warming.

      Yes, global warming does have negative feedbacks – the extra energy does increase storms.

      It is good that slow-learners are starting to get to this point.

      • Don Aitkin says:

        Oh dear! Chris, that is not what he was arguing at all. It is an easy piece to read. How did you so spectacularly miss the point? Where on earth is the link to global warming?

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Perhaps I should do it for him. He is arguing that the clouds represent the sort of negative feedback that prevents the seas from overheating.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The absolute hypocrisy of the anti-Trumpers. In Massachusetts the old environmentalist slogan — think globally and act locally — has been turned inside out.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Is it any wonder then that the Trump budget guts climate science funding.

    “It is a direct indicator of just how little weight his administration is giving to warnings from climate scientists about longer droughts, stronger storms and rising seas:”

  • David says:

    “The trouble for the orthodoxy was that the predicted bad things haven’t happened, …”

    except all of course all those bets on global warming, taken up by foolhardy skeptics, where the orthodoxy has cleaned up.

    Speaking of foolhardy, Don, given your past promotion of David Evans, perhaps you could provide an update on how he is progressing with his Notch Filter Theory. You could summarize conference presentations, peer review publications, grants, major scientific awards, forthcoming scientific collaborations, patents, books, films or any merchandising opportunities that may have emanated from his “groundbreaking” climate research.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      David, you are always asking me do work for you! If you want to do that work, and can assemble it in a decent way, I’m happy to publish it here. Your ideas, your work. Ta.

      • David says:

        Fair enough.

        Zero conference presentations
        Zero peer review publications
        Zero grants
        Zero major scientific awards
        One forthcoming scientific collaborations, with SD
        Zero patents
        Zero books
        Zero films
        Zero merchandising opportunities
        Occasional contribution to a blog

        That about covers it.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Davie, you’re still a bit missing in the cognitive dept.

          You are supposed to come up with a rational statement about your philosophy on climate.

          When do you think that might happen?

    • spangled drongo says:

      And while you are doing that, davie, you might tell us in your own words how less than 1c warming since the end of the little ice age and the beginning of the industrial revolution, measured with ever changing systems in areas of exponential land use change by people who have a total, consensual belief in global warming by ACO2 and no demonstrable scientific scepticism whatsoever, must constitute a “bad thing”, awa being scientifically based and believable.

      Particularly when this warming represents less than 50% of the rate of natural climate variability that has been occurring for millennia.

      Or do you simply elect to believe what those of a certain political and philosophical persuasion believe?

      C’mon, davie, give us some logic for your apparent total belief.

      Or rational, scientific scepticism, if you have any.

      • David says:

        SD, my skeptism is reserved for people who google a few factoids on the Younger Dryas and proceed to fill internet with BS on climate science.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “….a few factoids on the Younger Dryas”

          I think you got a bit lost there, davie.

          And this is about recent climate, not people.

          Both sides agree on the amount of warming. Check it with CSIRO and Wood for Trees.

          We simply need your scientific validation that it is CAGW and not Nat Var.

          You can’t give us that, hey?

          Know anyone who can?

          • David says:

            “Both sides agree on the amount of warming”.

            Well except for people like Malcolm Roberts who think NASA fabricated the data.

            or David Evans who thinks AGW is part of some Jewish plot

            or Donald Trump who thinks AGW is a Chinese plot to undermine US industry

            or Don who does not accept (i) that the data are fit for purpose (ii) the concept of a mean temperature or (iii) a conventional interpretation of a standard error.

            Or Bryan Roberts who has shared his own misplaced concerns (“what if the data have measurement error”) about the interpretation of the SE.

            or JMO who thinks the thermometers were allowed to bake in the sun too long.

            Or for that matter your own clueless fixation with “natural variation”

  • David says:

    Here you go Don. One of your mob making a prediction of global cooling (see 11.15 to 12.00) in 2011.

    That was “courageous”. How is David Evan’s prediction of global cooling going? Not great. Look Don, your favorite data set shows the global temperature trend has been going up since 2011

    What is that about Don? That trends sticks out like

  • Neville says:

    I don’t think the ongoing adjustments to the satellite SL data should fill anyone with much confidence. Dr Judith Curry looks at the sat data and the many adjustments that are claimed to show an acceleration in SLR.
    But these adjustments are made on a data-set that is only 25 years in length and this would be laughed out of court if adjustments were made on tide gauge data that only started in 1993.
    Here’s her link and in her part V Dr Curry will look at attribution for increases in SL before and after 1950. There are many studies of long SL records that show nothing unusual or unprecedented in SLR since 1950 and ditto some recent glacier studies.

    • Chris Warren says:


      This is too coy to be taken seriously;

      “There are many studies of long SL records that show nothing unusual or unprecedented in SLR since 1950 and ditto some recent glacier studies.”

      Presumably there are many studies that show the opposite.

      What does “unusual and unprecedented” mean?

      Are you saying there has been no sea level increase since the 1950’s after accounting for land shifts, reclamation, and coral/mangrove buildup?

      Or are you saying there has been no acceleration in SL rise?

  • Neville says:

    Perhaps Trump should read Christopher Booker’s latest PDF study on group thinking?
    In fact group thinking has probably been around for thousands of years. Who knows?

    • Chris Warren says:


      It is possible to view the denialist bloggists are engaging in serious group think.

      However I prefer to look at real issues such as:

      Is the sea level rising?

      Is it accelerating?

      What are the causes?

      What are the ramifications?

      What is the real scientific evidence/basis?

      • spangled drongo says:

        “However I prefer to look at real issues such as:

        Is the sea level rising?

        Is it accelerating…etc. etc?”

        But only insofar as they relate to Angels on Pinheads, hey blith?

        When are you going to do a Morner and check for yourself?

        Being of the persuasion you are, you will never find out otherwise.

        Your relief will be palpable.

    • David says:

      Trump “wrote the book” on group thinking.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Davie, every person running a political party writes the book on group thinking.

        But just what is it about the difference between politics and science that you don’t get?

  • spangled drongo says:

    You’ll all be relieved to know, just like the climate, Trump is doin’ OK in spite of the fake news. Obama at similar time was 45%:

    “Obama had the media at his feet; Trump has the media at his throat. But the campaign to kill Trump with fake news looks like a mortifying media fail:

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. ..”

  • Neville says:

    Dr Roy Spencer again finds a much lower sensitivity with his latest climate modelling.
    In fact his sensitivity of 1.54 c for doubling is slightly higher than UAH V6 ( 1.3c) but agrees with the latest Lewis and Curry study of 1.6 c.
    And this is less than half the sensitivity projected by the IPCC and Dr Michaels listed all the recent modelling (post 2013) that also showed a reduced sensitivity.

  • Neville says:

    Rupert Darwall’s excellent summary of the S&W idiocy. When will they wake up?
    Very simple maths, yet every country wants to repeat the German disaster that will cost endless trillions $ for no measurable impact by 2100. Why is it so?

  • Neville says:

    The Concordia Uni study showed that global warming since 1800 was about 0.7 c and OZ’s contribution was 0.006 C or 6 thousandths of 1 c over the last 205 years. (to 2005) Also called Mathews et al 2014.

    Of course the warming up to 1950 would have a lot less attribution due to co2 warming, so the 0.7 c ( due to AGW) estimate is probably far too high. IOW well under 0.7 c would be from AGW. Here’s their FIG 2 and the link.;

    The first number in each country’s horizontal column is the total degrees c attribution since 1800.

    Table 2. Top 20 contributors to global temperature change, ranked in order of their total climate contribution, and including a breakdown of
    the contribution of different types of emissions. All values here are given in C of global temperature change.
    Rank Country Total Fossil Fuel CO2 Landuse
    CO2 All CO2 NonCO2
    GHG All GHG Aerosols
    1 United States 0.151 0.143 0.026 0.170 0.044 0.213 ?0.063
    2 China 0.063 0.042 0.036 0.078 0.049 0.127 ?0.065
    3 Russia 0.059 0.059 0.014 0.072 0.020 0.092 ?0.034
    4 Brazil 0.049 0.004 0.032 0.036 0.018 0.054 ?0.005
    5 India 0.047 0.013 0.025 0.037 0.025 0.062 ?0.015
    6 Germany 0.033 0.035 ?0.000 0.035 0.008 0.042 ?0.009
    7 United Kingdom 0.032 0.031 0.001 0.033 0.007 0.040 ?0.007
    8 France 0.016 0.014 ?0.000 0.014 0.007 0.021 ?0.005
    9 Indonesia 0.015 0.003 0.013 0.015 0.006 0.021 ?0.006
    10 Canada 0.013 0.011 0.007 0.017 0.005 0.023 ?0.009
    11 Japan 0.013 0.021 0.001 0.022 0.002 0.024 ?0.011
    12 Mexico 0.010 0.006 0.008 0.014 0.003 0.017 ?0.007
    13 Thailand 0.009 0.002 0.006 0.008 0.004 0.012 ?0.002
    14 Columbia 0.009 0.001 0.006 0.007 0.003 0.010 ?0.001
    15 Argentina 0.009 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.010 ?0.001
    16 Poland 0.007 0.010 0.001 0.011 0.003 0.014 ?0.007
    17 Nigeria 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.000
    18 Venezuela 0.007 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.008 ?0.001
    19 Australia 0.006 0.005 0.002 0.007 0.006 0.014 ?0.007
    20 Netherlands 0.006 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.006 ?0.001

    • Chris Warren says:

      This has just been copied from a denialist website

      • dlb says:

        I have never heard of “Environmental Research Letters” being a “denialist” source. Although being an electronic access journal, it still seems fairly orthodox in its science. If it makes you feel better Chris, in another table they rate Australia as seventh worst contributor to AGW on a per capita basis.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Neville did not copy from “Environmental Research Letters”.

          It was a cut-and-paste from a denialist website – “kenskingdom”

          • spangled drongo says:

            And what does Ken Stewart “deny”, exactly, blith?

            As in that which is any greater than what you obviously do?

            Oh! you mean the CATASTROPHIC bit!!!???

  • Neville says:

    Ken Stewart tests their CAGW theory at the poles and Tassie and SE OZ and finds it is a failure. The poles should be the perfect place to test it, but still it fails the test.

    • Chris Warren says:


      If you check out the data for Macquarie Island you will see a clear warming trend.

      If you download the data you will see the linear trend is around 1C per century.

      • dlb says:

        I make it 0.85c per century trend, for mean temps since 1948 (max & min averaged).
        However, if you look at the last 50 years of temperature data for Macquarie Island there is no trend.
        Must be all of that cold melt water off Antarctica masking AGW, Hey Chris?

  • Neville says:

    Here are a number of new studies that do not have a hockey stick shape. Just more evidence that proves that our slight modern warming is not unusual or unprecedented at all.

    • Chris Warren says:


      If you look at Cape Bruny (South Tasmania) you will see strong global warming.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Gee! Cape Bruny, hey blith?

        Is that ALL of Cape Bruny, do ya think?

        Neville’s link gave you 38 places covering more than half the earth.

        But you reckon Cape Bruny is “global”.

        But even if you consensuals are right and there has been somewhat less than 1.0c global warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the signal for ACO2 caused GW is buried so far within the noise of Nat Var, can you seriously claim Cape Bruny as being a big enough cherry?

  • Neville says:

    Chris, you’ve made a boo boo, because I did copy the study from Envir research letters. Dlb is correct and I also provided the link in comments at Ken Stewart’s blog.
    Also like myself and others Ken Stewart doesn’t buy the C part of CAGW, so he doesn’t deny some AGW in the system.
    And I’m sure Ken Understands the extremist’s mitigation fra-d and con. Of course even Dr Hansen calls Paris COP 21 just BS and fra-d and it is.
    This is just first grade maths and science, although it seems you and some others struggle to understand it.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Consensuals just won’t know what real Nat Var is:

    “Children Just Won’t Know What An Honest Scientist Is”

  • spangled drongo says:

    “In just the first 8 weeks of 2018, 97 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    “For anyone that has taken a high school science class, manipulating data to fit a hypothesis is not considered science.

    Why are government scientists manipulating data on behalf of the Church of Environmental Radicalism?”

Leave a Reply