Trump on dire warnings in climate report: ‘I don’t believe it’

[mystery-ak]

Trump on dire warnings in climate report: ‘I don’t believe it’
By Timothy Cama - 11/26/18 03:14 PM EST


 

President Trump said Monday that he doesn’t “believe” the findings of a major report his administration released forecasting dire consequences to the United States from climate change.

“Yeah, I don’t believe it,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House for a campaign rally for Sen. Cindy Hyde Smith (R) in Mississippi, when asked about the predictions of economic devastation.

“I’ve seen it, I’ve read some of it, and it’s fine,” Trump said of the report.

more
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/418289-trump-on-dire-warnings-in-climate-report-i-dont-believe-it

[Dexter]

I'm sure Trump has a very deep understanding of these issues. No worries.

[txradioguy]

I'm sure Trump has a very deep understanding of these issues. No worries.

He understands enough to know that the same gaggle of scientists that predicted the next Ice Age in the 70's...based on the same info they are using now to predict riding oceans...and using junk science to make their claims and will move their goalpost as often and as far as they need to keep their hoax alive.

[Dexter]

He understands enough to know that the same gaggle of scientists that predicted the next Ice Age in the 70's...based on the same info they are using now to predict riding oceans...and using junk science to make their claims and will move their goalpost as often and as far as they need to keep their hoax alive.

I hope ignoring the most qualified people on Earth screaming about things in their area of expertise will turn out well for us. It would really suck if it's not actually a giant conspiracy among the world's leading scientists.

[txradioguy]

I hope ignoring the most qualified people on Earth screaming about things in their area of expertise will turn out well for us. It would really suck if it's not actually a giant conspiracy among the world's leading scientists.

By "most qualified" you mean the small gaggle of climate "scientists" who fudged the numbers to make their chart come out like they wanted?

Or the expert research from satellite data that shows over the last 21 years shows no evidence of warming at all.  We're actually in  a pause.

The satellite data is objective numbers.

The scientists who claim "global warming" or their new catchall phrase "climate change" is "settled science" and not open to debate are not objective in the least bit.

Once again you're relying on what you're being spoonfed from biased sources instead of using your brain and researching for yourself.

Seems to be a common problem with you.

[Dexter]

By "most qualified" you mean the small gaggle of climate "scientists" who fudged the numbers to make their chart come out like they wanted?

Or the expert research from satellite data that shows over the last 21 years shows no evidence of warming at all.  We're actually in  a pause.

The satellite data is objective numbers.

The scientists who claim "global warming" or their new catchall phrase "climate change" is "settled science" and not open to debate are not objective in the least bit.

Once again you're relying on what you're being spoonfed from biased sources instead of using your brain and researching for yourself.

Seems to be a common problem with you.

Why do so many leading scientists agree with the findings? Do you have a list of world renowned scientists that are heavy AGW skeptics? The conversation seems to become more and more one-sided the more and more educated the people talking are.

[truth_seeker]

I hope ignoring the most qualified people on Earth screaming about things in their area of expertise will turn out well for us. It would really suck if it's not actually a giant conspiracy among the world's leading scientists.

Do just this one thing, to better inform yourself. Read "The Population Bomb," which predicted a coming ice age, inability of planet earth to support further population growth; death, starvation, calamity. It was a best seller and none of the catastrophic stuff occurred

Anybody that recalls that scare,has much more rational basis, for being hghly sceptical now.occured.


I seriously doubt yu will follow my advice since I see you as already pretty much "knowing it all."

[truth_seeker]

How the Global Warming Scare Began

! No longer available

[Dexter]

Do just this one thing, to better inform yourself. Read "The Population Bomb," which predicted a coming ice age, inability of planet earth to support further population growth; death, starvation, calamity. It was a best seller and none of the catastrophic stuff occurred

Anybody that recalls that scare,has much more rational basis, for being hghly sceptical now.occured.


I seriously doubt yu will follow my advice since I see you as already pretty much "knowing it all."

I know scientists have made some incorrect predictions in the past. I still listen to scientists though because nobody is more qualified to have an opinion based on the current evidence. Surgeons make mistakes too sometimes. I still want a surgeon to lead my surgery, though.

[Elderberry]

The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/

A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.

It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.

Killer cold snap freezing US 'blamed on GLOBAL COOLING lasting 100 years'

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/671467/us-weather-forecast-global-cooling-climate-change-channel-bbc-nyc-news

THE savage cold snap pummelling the US with snow storms, ice and freezing temperatures is the beginning of a 100-year global cooling cycle, a climate scientist has claimed.

David Dilley, CEO of Global Weather Oscillations, believes two main factors are behind the cold snap – a weather phenomenon known as La Nina and the onset of global cooling.

According to Dilley, a former NOAA meteorologist, research claiming Earth is entering a 100-year cooling period is connected to the deep freeze.

Dilley’s claim contradicts the widely held view that global average temperatures have been rising steeply in the past century, and will continue to do so.

Despite evidence suggesting carbon emissions are causing global temperatures to soar, he argues that Earth is “coming off” a 230-year global warming cycle and moving on to a 120-year cooling period.

[txradioguy]

Why do so many of the leading scientists agree with the findings? Do you have a list of world renowned scientists that are heavy AGW skeptics? The conversation seems to become more and more one-sided the more and more educated the people talking are.

The majority doesn't agree.  Even in the instance of the alleged "97%" those numers are "cooked"

Now for anyone who reads climate papers frequently this is totally obvious. Climate scientists have to frame their research in the abstract and there wouldn’t be so much climate papers if there was no concern for CO2.

So the whole result of this survey is completely self confirming. Because there is a concern for CO2 there is a lot of funding of climate science. This then generates a lot of climate science papers (they surveyed 12,000 but mention there are many more). In the abstracts scientists refer to the concern about CO2. The abstract then falls into category 2 or 3 and therefore almost all the papers “endorse AGW”.

https://www.destaatvanhet-klimaat.nl/2013/05/17/cooks-survey-not-only-meaningless-but-also-misleading/


The data is all over the road.  Climate "scientists" have been repeatedly caught lying about and altering their data to fit the result model they want to see.

The satellite data doesn't lie.  It also doesn't fit the model the so called "experts" want us to believe so they...like you ignore them.

And the satellite data are the best data scientists have because it's global coverage.

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around
the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President
Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the
2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism
about the so-called global warming ―consensus‖ -- features the skeptical voices of over
1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists,
who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic
increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the
last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global
warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months
ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out
publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN
scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal -
- which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the
international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,"
said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke.
Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist
Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil
Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita
also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just
probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of
publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the
IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC
and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called
for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate
as lead author again in the next IPCC Report.

https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/400467/original/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

[txradioguy]

I know scientists have made some incorrect predictions in the past. I still listen to scientists though because nobody is more qualified to have an opinion based on the current evidence. Surgeons make mistakes too sometimes. I still want a surgeon to lead my surgery, though.

So you don't care that they've been caught recently altering data (also known as lying) you're going to trust their deceptions no matter what because they are scientists?

[libertybele]

Climate change = B.S.

[Dexter]

So you don't care that they've been caught recently altering data

If that's true it probably happened because they are so horrified of what they are seeing that they are desperately trying to get you to go along with efforts to slow our emissions. Do you really think it's some kind of conspiracy that pretty much every nation in the U.N sees this as an urgent matter?

[Dexter]

The smartest super-nerds in the world are not losing their shit over this because they're all in on a giant conspiracy with all of the governments of the world. They're telling you what they think various information means and you're saying "Nah, bull shit, this guy from this blog says etc etc etc, and here's a graph." I'm not saying anything has been proven or is absolute. I'm saying we shouldn't minimize what scientists are saying because we are not scientists. They didn't go to college and learn nothing. They didn't practice their careers for decades and learn nothing. I promise.

[Jazzhead]

I hope ignoring the most qualified people on Earth screaming about things in their area of expertise will turn out well for us. It would really suck if it's not actually a giant conspiracy among the world's leading scientists.

The point isn't whether the findings are supported by empirical evidence.   It is whether the United States, by policy changes that will assuredly curb economic growth, can do anything tangible to "reverse" climate change.   The facts are that the U.S. has made significant strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including its relative share of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions (from 24% to 17%, if I recall correctly).   That such greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise is a function of third world countries - especially India and China - moving their populations increasingly into the middle class with the energy consumption such status entails.   

We are simply going to have to adapt to the effects of climate change, both good and bad.   We, the United States,  should not volunteer to be martyrs in a vain, virtue-signalling effort to "reverse" climate changes accelerated by economic growth in the Third World.   What we can and should do is enact policies intended to reduce both waste and pollution.  The by-product of such policies may well be to reduce our CO2 emissions - but the primary consequence will be cleaner air and water,  things that tangibly benefit us as Americans. 

[dfwgator]

Climate change = B.S.

The B.S. part is the man-made part.  Climate has always changed. 

[txradioguy]

f that's true it probably happened because they are so horrified of what they are seeing that they are desperately trying to get you to go along with efforts to slow our emissions.

No they lied because the actual empirical data didn't come to the conclusions they wanted it to.

So they imputed false numbers to get the desired outcome.

Do you really think it's some kind of conspiracy that pretty much every nation in the U.N sees this as an urgent matter?

Yes.

As recorded in ClimateGate e-mails, this presented what Mann referred to as a “conundrum” in that the late 20th century decline indicated by Briffa would be perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, was a “problem”, and posed a “potential distraction/detraction”. Mann went on to say that the warming skeptics would have a “field day” if Briffa’s declining temperature reconstruction was shown, and that he would “hate to be the one” to give them “fodder”.

In an e-mail sent to Mann and others, CRU’s director Philip Jones reported: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [journal] trick…to hide the decline [in global temperatures].” “Mike’s” ( Mann’s) “trick” was to add in real temperatures  to each series for the last 20 years from 1979 onwards and from 1961 for Briffa’s, show all of the proxy and surface measurement chartings in different colors on a single graph, and then simply cut off Briffa’s in a spaghetti clutter of lines at the 1961 date.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/09/18/climategate-star-michael-mann-courts-legal-disaster/#2ebefb64118c

The scientists behind the current global warming scare lied....they knew they lied and hid the evidence that they were dishonest in their findings because they were going to get the outcome they wanted regardless of whether it was true or not.

Global warming as the tree huggers describe it...is a scam designed to transfer wealth from my pocket and yours.

[Elderberry]

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/

Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

"The 2016-2018 Big Chill," he writes, "was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average."

Isn't this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?

In this case, it didn't warrant any news coverage.

In fact, in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown's story, no other news outlet picked up on it. They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism's impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that "our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly."

Hiding The Evidence

There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models."

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven't seen any increase in violent weather in decades?

Crickets.

Reporters no doubt worry that covering such findings will only embolden "deniers" and undermine support for immediate, drastic action.

But if fears of catastrophic climate change are warranted — which we seriously doubt — ignoring things like the rapid cooling in the past two years carries an even bigger risk.

Suppose, Brown writes, the two-year cooling trend continues. "At some point the news will leak out that all global warming since 1980 has been wiped out in two and a half years, and that record-setting events went unreported."

He goes on: "Some people could go from uncritical acceptance of steadily rising temperatures to uncritical refusal to accept any warming at all."

Brown is right. News outlets should decide what gets covered based on its news value, not on whether it pushes an agenda. Otherwise, they're doing the public a disservice and putting their own already shaky credibility at greater risk.

[240B]

I hope ignoring the most qualified people on Earth screaming about things in their area of expertise will turn out well for us. It would really suck if it's not actually a giant conspiracy among the world's leading scientists.

I always ignore people who are consistently WRONG, at home or in the office. Every chicken-little 'end-of-the-Earth' prediction all these goofball Leftist committees and so called 'think tanks' have come up with since the 70s has been flatly wrong. Not just wrong, but opposite type wrong. Why would it be any different this time?

If these guys were to be believed, we should all be dead right now, today. They have been predicting the end of the world in ten years, for 40 years now.

[Dexter]

Do you think the scientists secretly know AGW is all nonsense?

[Dexter]

I always ignore people who are consistently WRONG, at home or in the office. Every chicken-little 'end-of-the-Earth' prediction all these goofball Leftist committees and so called 'think tanks' have come up with since the 70s has been flatly wrong. Not just wrong, but opposite type wrong. Why would it be any different this time?

If these guys were to be believed, we should all be dead right now, today. They have been predicting the end of the world in ten years, for 40 years now.

What their incorrect predictions 50 years ago tell me is that they knew something unusual was happening. Obviously they got the details wrong.

[240B]

What their incorrect predictions 50 years ago tell me is that they knew something unusual was happening. Obviously they got the details wrong.

I agree. But in my profession, in almost every profession, people are paid and expected to get the details right. At least if they want to be taken seriously.

[Elderberry]

Research pair suggest global warming almost completely natural

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-pair-global-natural.html

Most scientists around the world have reached a consensus on global warming—it is happening, and it is happening because humans have ejected so much CO2 into the atmosphere. But Marohasy and Abbot claim that this consensus is built on a faulty base, one decided upon almost a century ago, when work was done to learn about the heat absorption potential of carbon dioxide. They suggest further that so little work has been done since that time applying the principles globally that it is impossible to prove that carbon dioxide has the ability to impact world temperatures. For that reason, they began collecting data from prior studies that offered a means of temperature reading over the past 2000 years—tree rings, coral cores etc. They fed that data into a neural network that Abbot has been using to predict rainfall patterns in Australia for the past several years. The network functions by looking at patterns and learning about given situations—in this case, global temperature patterns over the course of 2000 years, and then offers predictions.

The researchers report that the computer predicted temperatures rising in roughly the same way as they have based on real-world measures—in the absence of added carbon dioxide—which suggests that carbon dioxide is not the cause. They also note that there was a time known as the Medieval Warm Period that ran from approximately 986 to 1234, when temperatures were roughly equal to those today. This, the two researchers suggest, offers evidence that the planet would have heated to the degree it has regardless of whether humans pumped carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for a hundred years or not. They note that their results also showed global temperature averages declining after 1980, which coincides with the slowdown noted by other mainstream scientists, but not fully explained. They suggest the warming we are now experiencing is mostly naturally occurring and that it will likely abate just as it has done in the past.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-pair-global-natural.html#jCp

[txradioguy]

Do you think the scientists secretly know AGW is all nonsense?

Yes.

Do you know what the largest creator of greenhouse gasses is?  Hint: It's not man.

Water vapor is responsible for producing the largest greenhouse-gas effect, because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at many more wavelengths than any other gas and, by volume, overwhelms all other greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide only makes up 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, constituting 3.6 percent of the greenhouse-gas effect.

Another interesting fact is we have no accurate way of knowing how much rain falls over the entire planet every year and how much of that rain turns into water vapor after the un hits it creating even more greenhouse gas.

One eruption from a volcano does more damage than man could allegedly do in 50 years.

Then there's this from Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer:

Our best estimate of how much the climate system has been perturbed from energy balance comes from the slow warming of the oceans, which since the 1950s equates to a 1 part in 1,000 energy imbalance (say, if 240 W m-2 of solar energy has been absorbed on average, 239.75 W m-2 has been lost to space…the slight ~0.25 W m-2 imbalance leads to slow warming).

Now, how exactly can a 1 part in 1,000 energy imbalance lead Holdren to state, “Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change”? Well, all I can think of is that his statement is not based in science.

Maybe that imbalance in recent years is somewhat more…say 2 parts in 1,000 (about a 0.5 W m-2 imbalance). But even that depends upon whether you believe in the measurements of tiny, multi-decadal oceanic warming trends of tenths or hundredths of a degree (depending on depth).

And it’s far from clear that even that is entirely our fault.

Now, how that tiny imbalance gets translated into a change in weather is, admittedly, not well understood. But, ultimately, weather is still related to energy imbalances, and mankind’s role in changing those rates of energy flow is miniscule.

You might say, “But what about global warming causing a warmer Gulf Stream, which then clashes with the cold air masses and makes bigger East Coast snowstorms?” The trouble with that argument is that “global warming” warms those winter air masses more than it warms the oceans, reducing the temperature contrast. So, if the opposite is happening this winter, then it’s not due to global warming.

The idea that any of the weather we are seeing is in any significant way due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions verges on irrationality.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/how-much-weather-is-being-caused-by-climate-change-maybe-1-part-in-1000/


Scientists and Socialist governments want you to believe man is the leading cause of the destruction of the planet because we...people...can be taxed.  Water vapor cow farts and volcanic eruptions can't.