mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
G20 Wrapup
Climate Politics and the English Language
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • FriendlyGoat

    It could be argued that Donald Trump’s USA suddenly believes it has already done more than its fair share by developing the drilling technology to switch more of itself and more of the world to natural gas for the time being. But one has to be careful with even that argument—–because it comes too close to offending Donald Trump’s American Church by acknowledging that any climate issue might even exist.

    • Gary Hemminger

      A climate issue does exist. climate changes always. From day to day, from year to year, from decade to decade, from eon to eon. Always has, always will. The question is how much does man make it change. There is no way to differentiate natural from man made climate change. Never was, never will be. You can say whatever you want, but there is no scientific proof that will ever differentiate natural from man made climate change. For that reason people can say man does or man does not affect it and it is unprovable either way. Because it is unprovable, climate change is a religion. Religion is unprovable. You either believe or don’t believe. I don’t believe. If you believe, then god bless you. Hold onto your religion tightly and fight all heretics to the death. But no matter what you or any scientist says (and I am a scientist by the way…degrees from Berkeley and Stanford) I don’t believe.

      • FriendlyGoat

        Nice imitation of Ron Popeil demonstrating the handy-dandy RonCo Flip-O-Matic—–that kitchen marvel which supposedly confuses sensible people about what science is, what religion is. You do know (I hope), however, that Popeil was successful on his shtick and spiel for salesmanship alone and did not hide behind a veil of credentialism. So, your degrees notwithstanding, you are spinning and I do know it, okay? So does most of the world—–except those who think that whatever does not appear in the Bible (for some, the Koran) does not exist, cannot exist, cannot be acknowledged, cannot be measured, is not worthy of examination. You’re arguing with and for that latter group whether you know it or not.

        • Gary Hemminger

          I don’t give one hoot about any religious belief at all. I am not religious one bit, but I am a scientist and I understand the scientific method. If something cannot be proven or falsified then it isn’t science, it is religion. There can be no theory without falsification. If it cannot be falsified it is not science.

          And for all of you scientist out there answer me these questions three:

          1. Who wrote the theory and the book on Evolution? Darwin. On the origin of species.
          2. Who wrote the theory and the book on Relativity? Einstein. the theory of relativity
          3. Who wrote the theory and the book on Global warming? Answer no one. no scientific book proving its existence was ever written nor will ever be written. It is impossible because religions cannot be proved false.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Of course it is impossible to theorize that carbon dioxide, water vapor, or methane from oceans or cows are exclusively responsible for all of any noted changes in climate. It is quite possible to measure changes in concentration of those and other gases while predicting that they are most likely responsible for part of climate change. Since the consequences of preventable global warming are expected to be so extremely detrimental to parts of earth or parts of the populations which live on earth, and since they “creep up on ya”, and since there is likely no means to reverse them once you have them, there are a lot (LOT) of people who are going to remain interested in this subject.

            It is not a parlor debate for the comment section. The coastal people will be concerned regardless of our opinions. Insurance underwriters will be concerned regardless of our opinions. Agriculture will be concerned. Global corporations will be concerned. Local governments will be concerned. Absolutely none of those will be debating whether their concerns amount to a religion. So, I’m not either.

            It’s important for you to know, though, if you don’t, that you are expressing an argument
            pleasing to the ears of people who think God created the earth in literal accordance with the Genesis accounts and that He will take care of climate change as well. Seriously, these are the folks who were most courted by the Trump campaign, and the folks who tipped America to Trumpism—-specifically in WI/MI/PA. The Trump votes produced by evangelicals ALONE in those three states were more than 25 times the margin of Trump victory in those three states. We are all in a battle against having our country flipped to all the religion you claim not to believe in. It would be nice if you didn’t aid their takeover of society while arguing around pointlessly.

          • D4x

            Groupthink echo chambers know no boundaries in tainting the “wisdom of crowds”.

            The credentialed version of my spontaneous opinion:
            https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-really-was-a-liberal-media-bubble/

          • StudentZ

            Thank you, FriendlyGoat. I find the assertions in this article objectionable for multiple reasons. First, the current administration has repudiated the last administration’s approach to climate change with a vengeance, so emissions reductions and other triumphs from previous years hardly validate Trump’s dissent. There is no continuity linking his shallow political maneuver to former plans. If anything, the successes of the previous administration underscore Trump’s myopia. As for the communiqué, which seems pretty irrelevant anyway, the second paragraph is clumsily worded, but I’m not sure why alluding to more detailed documentation is lazy thinking. Kudos to the U.S. for disregarding previous commitments and reports in such a clear, concise fashion, right? How silly. No one should confuse simplicity for erudition. It’s easy to simplify when you have nothing of substance to offer. Also, I question anyone who relies on their scientific background to unscientifically dismiss volumes of research on a subject in a single, unsubstantiated comment.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Thanks. You have an impressive vocabulary and exhibition of thought.
            Boiling this down to something simple, I am noticing that people who do like unlimited guns, who do worship cops, who do want a border wall, who are in favor of knocking poor people off voter registration wherever possible, and who absolutely, positively do NOT want to bake a cake for a gay wedding are the core of climate change denial. President Trump has grasped this politically both before and after the election and is acting accordingly. Some things “Trump” science.
            (Yes, an unfortunately applicable pun.)

          • Gary Hemminger

            Anything non-falsifiable is not science. that is true, absolute and certain. Anyone that denies this is simply incorrect. It is not an argument. No amount of words can dispute it. Whomever disputes it is wrong.

          • StudentZ

            Actually, there are people who argued with Karl Popper about how to define science, and there are some, in physics, for example, who might also dispute such a reductive definition of science to give credence to theories that cannot yet be tested experimentally. Still, I accept the non-falsifiable axiom, but what are you claiming is non-falsifiable? In your earlier post, you argued, “there is no scientific proof that will ever differentiate natural from man made climate change. ” This is a dubious statement, and the reason I labeled your approach unscientific. I feel you should provide some basis for discrediting IPCC Assessment Reports and other research that appears in most of my science textbooks. I was tempted to pretend Michael E. Mann was the answer to your third question (just to see how you’d respond, since there is a concerted effort to discredit him), but many modern sources on climate change tend to reference IPCC research. Of course, you also have research from MIT, Stanford, Yale, CERN, and other academic institutions around the world.

            Does all research promote a single hypothesis or public policy? Of course not, but I object to the suggestion that the approach is inherently unscientific, especially when no distinction is made between the researchers and those appropriating and occasionally misrepresenting their findings. Consider the following popular websites on climate change: https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html and http://www.climate-resistance.org/about-2. Both draw very different conclusions, but I appreciate the attempt to address popular debate scientifically. The former describes ten different methods for defining CO2 emissions as anthropogenic. The latter defines sources of concern without arbitrarily discrediting those with a different perspective. Had you echoed point 1, for example, (i.e., “There is good scientific evidence that human activities are influencing the climate. But evidence is not fact, and neither evidence nor fact speak for themselves”), I may have been less inclined to question your post. Similarly, if you had addressed the fact that anthropogenic global warming is a science textbook staple, your representation of climate science issues may have seemed less problematic.

          • rheddles

            What was fascinating about this little exchange was how similar in style Mr. Hemminger’s comments were to the first paragraph and how similar the Goats were to the second.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I don’t know what unrelated social/political/economic axe Gary is grinding with all this, but I guarantee there is one. Real scientists do not denounce religion, then SIDE WITH religion, then declare that pursuing science on elusive or hard subjects IS religion. It’s a befuddled mess, regardless of degrees from wherever.

        • ——————————

          Popiel was good, but Vince Offer did a better sales pitch with the ShamWow….

          • D4x

            I loved my ShamWows!

          • ——————————

            Do they actually work?

          • D4x

            ShamWows are terrific for fast absorption of small liquid spills, but they did not survive being washed in my Maytag. That might have been a stealth trade war. ShamWows are a German invention, and Made in Germany. In 2006, Maytag had just moved production from Newton, Iowa, to Mexico. I wanted major appliances Made in the USA, but that Maytag always behaved like it was the last one assembled in Iowa, by very angry workers who no longer cared to protect Maytag’s reputation for quality.

            Shamwows are still sold. I now use microfiber towels.

            In 2006, the only gas stove I could find Made in the USA was Bosch, who realized unit labor cost was lower in the USA than Germany. In 2016, it was easier to find major appliances Made in the USA. Love my Whirlpool refrigerator, and Samsung washer and dryer.

          • ——————————

            I figured Shamwow worked good because the commercials went on for years. Vince Shlomi was my favorite pitch man for TV. Just a hilarious approach.
            Bosch makes good stuff. I install Bosch in all my spec houses. Samsung is good too!

          • D4x

            Wow. No sham. Except, trying to NOT picture the other pantsuits.
            “First Lady Melania Trump Sets Off For Paris in an Escada Pantsuit”

            “…Her latest ensemble is far closer to the classic pantsuit championed by prominent women in the world of politics before her. The accessories bore all the typical Trump hallmarks however, namely a waist-cinching ivory belt and vertiginous Christian Louboutin stilettos.”

            http://www.vogue.com/article/first-lady-melania-trump-escada-christian-louboutin-white-house-paris-france-celebrity-style

            and, the news with fashion:
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4691300/Donald-Melania-Paris-talks-Macron.html

          • ——————————

            I’m not a pantsuit guy…they look so ‘old lady’.
            And reminds me of Hillary…eewwww.

            DM always has great pics!

          • D4x

            Not a pantsuit, and no full length photo showing her boots, but it was rainy and a bit nippy in Newark when AF1 returned from Paris on Friday.
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4687504/No-getting-Donald-Trump-US-Womens-Open.html

          • ——————————

            The guy has energy! I always rest after a lengthy international flight.

            Trumps comments about women a few years ago, was not an issue…it was just boys being boys. Women and men are not the same, nor are they equal…fact. Thinking anything other than that is ignoring human nature and thousands of years of evolution.
            The only things that have brought women to their present position in humanity is technology and electricity. Take those 2 things away and women will be where they were at 200 years ago…let’s not fool ourselves….

          • D4x

            That hardscrabble life without electricity in LBJ’s Hill Country was medieval for his mother. I read about it in this outstanding biography:
            http://www.robertcaro.com/the-books/master-of-the-senate/
            Alas, the Microsoft impostors from early June have called three times to try to access my computer again. Signing off, and shutting it down.
            Really need to buy an Apple. 4th call incoming.

          • ——————————

            Virus issues? I have been lucky and never had one in all my years on the net. Are you using an anti-virus?

            Perhaps Trump needs to read the book so he can get the Senate together and get a health care bill passed….

          • D4x

            As I recall, the first 100 pages of Caro’s “Master of the Senate” was an excellent history of the ‘workings’ of the U.S. Senate.

            No virus issues. ‘Operation Tech Trap’ hooked me because it did look like a Microsft ‘warning’ about the ‘Zeus Virus’:

            https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/05/operation-tech-trap-targets-tech-support-scams-offers

            Same people called last night, new business name, to ‘warn’ me about a new risk. They cannot access my PC without my assistance.

            democratsGoneInsane:

            “The Fifth American War” by Victor Davis Hanson July 18, 2017 4:00 AM “The country is coming apart, and the advocates of radical egalitarianism are winning. ”

            “…In this latest arena of civil dissent, Donald Trump, the renegade liberal and most unlikely traditionalist, squares off against the elite that despises his very being not only for reasons of class and culture, but mostly for attempting to restore a traditional regime of citizenship, individualism, assimilation, territorial sovereignty, recognized borders, strong defense, deterrence abroad, and free-market capitalism.

            In sum, behind the daily hysterias over collusions, recusals, obstructions, and nullifications, there is an ongoing, often vicious
            war over the very nature and future of Western culture in general and America in particular.”

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449594/fifth-american-war-blue-state-vs-red-elites-vs-populists-egalitarianism-vs-liberty
            Too stressful today, still car shopping! See the Kenya post – I asked f1b for some help on the Headrest Dilemma.
            Back to real life.

          • ——————————

            Excellent article in NR. Thanks for the link!
            The only way out of this mess Trump and others like me are fighting against, is an all-out armed civil war with many casualties, similar to our previous civil war. No one wants to talk about it, like many who write and comment here, they just want intellectual solutions…but that is what got us to this point. They think we are smarter than in previous history, but we are not…we just have technology to hide behind….

            On a lighter note…stay away from anything in your email box you don’t know , and anything else that warns you or wants to help you, etc. Don’t click or open anything you don’t know. The net is a dangerous place.

            I seem to be lost in TAI and can’t find the “Kenya post” you are referring to. Where is it?

          • FriendlyGoat

            Perhaps. Neither of them were nitwit enough to try to make customers believe that secular awareness of real issues is religion. I’ve heard that spin before and it ain’t as useful as a ShamWow.

          • D4x

            Two days later. Tried read this thread. So much hot air, about air.
            “This business is well ended.

            My liege, and madam, to expostulate

            What majesty should be, what duty is,

            Why day is day, night night, and time is time,

            Were nothing but to waste night, day and time.

            Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,

            And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,

            I will be brief: your noble son is mad:

            Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,

            What is’t but to be nothing else but mad?

            But let that go. ”

            LORD POLONIUS. Hamlet, 1602, Act 2, Scene 2

            http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/74850.html

          • ——————————

            Jeez, I am away for a few days and this thread goes off the rails!…I am a big fan of brevity.
            Yep, lots of hot air about theoretically too hot air….

            Thanks for the WS!

          • D4x

            Yeah, they should pay into that ‘Green Climate Fund with surplus words as currency. Am now using Terminator 2 T-1000 as metaphor for the media/dem ‘resistance’, inspired by this good read today: “How Did Trump Earn an Unprecedented Progressive Backlash?” By Victor Davis Hanson| July 10, 2017
            https://amgreatness.com/2017/07/10/trump-earn-unprecedented-progressive-backlash/

            Here is good read #2, China’s ‘occupation’ of Siberia, re-setting 17th-19th century Russian imperialism: “…One more surprise for Russians was Chinese-run pig farms. The animals grow at an “unthinkable” pace and to an “unthinkable” size – apparently, due to the intensive use of chemicals in their forage. …”
            http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2100228/chinese-russian-far-east-geopolitical-time-bomb

          • D4x

            A second powerful essay from Dr. Hanson, today, on POTUS’ Warsaw speech. You’ll love this:

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449361/trump-warsaw-speech-antithesis-obama-2009-cairo-speech

          • D4x

            This week’s Triple Play, with no sign of any PRC trolls in the Disqus comment thread: “West can Neither Live with nor Take out North Korean Nukes”

            By Victor Davis Hanson July 13, 2017

            https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/07/13/west_can_neither_live_with_nor_take_out_north_korean_nukes_134449.html

          • ——————————

            Yeah, seems like a tough situation, but I never take much stock in opinion articles, as they are often wrong. No one know what will happen the next day when it comes to a situation like NK.
            I don’t think it will end as badly as it could….

        • Blackbeard

          Mr. Goat: Do you ever check on the climate pieties you get from the NY Times, CNN, NPR, etc? If you wanted to check do you even know where to look? Can you even name three or four top rank climate scientists who dispute the “consensus?” (No fair googling now.)

          I am not a climate scientist but I am an environmental engineer with some 30+ years experience in renewable energy and I can unequivocally state that most of what you read in the MSM on that subject is nonsense. Not that I expect you to take my word for it, but I would expect a fair minded person, upon reading such a claim, to think that they might need to do further research.

          • Isaiah6020

            You are talking to someone whose religious beliefs (he belongs to the church of anti-GOP) preclude them from ever questioning the dogma. You are wasting your time. Just my $.02

          • Blackbeard

            Living on the UWS of Manhattan as I do I am very familiar with the somewhat rigid belief system of the blue tribe. One of the best discussions I have had on this subject was with an old friend, a very smart lady (Harvard grad, computer programmer, etc.) who actually was willing to engage on the subject. After a few weeks of exchanging email, links, references, etc. she finally called a halt to the discussion. She said that the stuff I was showing her was starting to make sense but that if she came to agree with me she would be agreeing with people she despised (Republicans) and that she could never do. As I said, smart, honest and impressively self-aware.

            You may well be right about Mr. Goat but one has to try.

          • Isaiah6020

            What you described is what blind religious dogmatism looks like. When you prefer to ignore reality because it contradicts your beliefs, you are a lost cause.
            Like I said I admire your perseverance. I simply no longer have the patience for it.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Keep trying. It is good exercise for all you fellows to not just associate in your own echo chambers.

          • StudentZ

            You should provide links to references you recommend here. Why not?

          • FriendlyGoat

            I do not have cable, so I don’t see CNN, MSNBC or Fox News. I only see NYT as it appears in Bing news feeds to computer. I do have NPR but don’t listen to it hardly at all. Most of my media comes to me from Lester Holt some weekday evenings, from PBS News Hour some evenings, from an all-source news feed via Bing (including everything up to and including BOTH Mother Jones AND The Federalist) and from hanging around TAI and a couple of other commentary places which lean sort of conservative.

            Even with a liberal bent, I do try to be balanced. For me, the “tell” on climate change will not be pundits’ arguments about what is or is not “settled science”. Going forward, it will be measured by how seriously business corporations take the subject. As far as I can tell, most of the CEO’s of the big ones in this country and abroad are not falling in with the deniers yet. When they do, I’ll try to take notice.

          • Blackbeard

            I’m afraid you gave the game away when you used the term “denier.”

          • FriendlyGoat

            Sure, there are people for whom AGW theory has to be proven wrong, has to be perpetually questioned at the root, has to be declared permanently unknowable. They could not care less about the science or lack thereof. Their real issues are guns, tax cuts, abortion, LGBT opposition, hating Obama, hating Hillary or something else. They are the “deniers” and there are a lot of them. More here than abroad, apparently.

          • Gary Hemminger

            See how he immediately goes to we are all bigots if we are deniers. I am a democrat all of my life. I don’t own a gun and actually hate them, I don’t oppose LGBT, I voted for Obama and don’t like Trump. I just researched the subject and determined that AGW is a fraud. I mainly don’t believe what scientists say because I am one and know not to trust people when their interests are combined with what they say. FriendlyGoat simply hates people who don’t agree with the AGW theory. that is fine. He is very Orewellian, but these people exist and they are free to practice whatever religion they see fit. But it is a religion. Any non-falsifiable, as is AGW, is a religion, not a science. That is why I agree with Isaiah6020 below. This person is a priest of the AGW tribe and will never be anything but that.

          • FriendlyGoat

            AGW is going to be studied and talked about by a large portion of the world for the rest of your life—-as hot places get hotter, extreme weather events are more common and seas rise. I’m not the one who is going to do that research, that continued study, that continued documentation—–nor am I going to somehow profit from it. But there is absolutely no question the subject will remain alive in a big way. The doctrinal religionists are the ones who will continue to pooh-pooh such activity and those who are willing to consider not being profoundly selfish about future people’s welfare will be doing the work. I invite you to live a long and healthy life so you can make a fair evaluation of how this goes,

          • Anthony

            Not to interfere but here’s something passed to me (by someone who relishes this subject) and may have current relevance: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/ and http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2017/2016-record-breaking-year-for-global-temperatures

          • FriendlyGoat

            Thanks. If you have read through this, can you even believe the exchange going on here?
            Religion has captured the USA presidency and vice versa and these guys now allege that AGW is the religion of our time. Amazing stuff—–and revealing of how far down the tubes we are traveling.

          • Anthony

            Amazing if you overlook the piece about “Hobbyism”. In that vein, you’re experiencing first hand its practice. (also that 3rd link, I may have to check and you’re giving as good as you’re receiving).

          • Blackbeard

            Oh my goodness. How discouraging it is to someone so obviously intelligent and generally well informed make such a foolish and ignorant reply. You state, without evidence, that people who disagree with don’t really believe what they say but have other, baser, motives. Yet when I asked you above to name a few climate scientists who dispute the consensus you demurred. You can’t even name them yet now you pretend to know their innermost thoughts.

            Shame on you.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Shame? For paying attention to actual leaders with actual responsibilities instead of this pen of old roosters?

          • Blackbeard

            Shame because you know better. Shame because despite your obvious intelligence you make a profoundly anti-intellectual argument. Rather than offer facts and reason you, without foundation, insult the motives of those you disagree with and thereby dismiss any need to confront their arguments. It is this kind of thinking, to which you contribute in your own small way, that has helped lead us to the terrible polarization we face today.

            So yes, shame on you.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Whatever. I do plan to continue monitoring the attitudes and tones of people like Gates, Buffett, Bezos, maybe Tillerson (independent of Trump), Cuban, Prince William, any CEO’s I see quoted, also Xi, Modi, Merkel, Macron, etc. to discern their then-present views on the climate subjects going forward if possible, maybe also the mayors of big coastal cities. I do not plan to personally debate this subject with insistent deniers who make fun of the subject as a “religion”. Call me crazy, but I plan to take my cues on this from those who have reputations they don’t sully by going either low or silly when they speak. When they all start saying “Yeah, well, we don’t worry about that any more”, maybe I won’t either.

          • StudentZ

            I wrote a long response that was deleted (perhaps due to its length), but I don’t understand your condescension when you haven’t offered facts or reason either. You offered an anecdote that seemingly defines your assumptions about dogmatic tribalism. No one is actually discussing the merits of different climate change research or policy here (scientifically or otherwise). Obviously, we should separate political actors such as Donald Trump, Lamar Smith, and Scott Pruitt from the likes of Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Richard Lindzen, and Henrik Svensmark. The latter group includes scientists who have questioned common perspectives on climate change. However, I question Curry and Koonen’s apparent inclination to discredit their colleagues without providing adequate justification. (Why do we need a red team approach? Why does interest in Climategate persist after eight investigative bodies dismissed the scandal?) Also, they wittingly involve themselves in the political machinations of an administration that does not typically promote or credit scientific research on climate change (and a number of other things).

            My concern is that climate change presents myriad questions that do not easily fall into the simplistic dichotomy politicians and vested interests shape to gain public traction. It’s no surprise that members of the media get the science wrong, but their ignorance is not a reflection of the actual research. Similarly, I think it’s reasonable for the general public to want to embrace big ideas when an understanding of the nuances requires a background many lack. That’s why we defer to experts in many cases and why Trump’s groundless rejection of such experts is so galling. When Trump attempts to justify his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement with science (e.g., mentioning an MIT paper during his Rose Garden speech), he misrepresents the source. Also, I think it would be wrong to deny the extent to which vested interests have attempted to co-opt science. The current administration has done little to offset the impression that such practices will continue or to assuage the concerns of its critics.

          • Anthony

            I read initial response and thought it both a fair and reasoned rebuttal (certainly not parlor debate). I came back to reread and noticed its disappearance – I thought you removed it and if you did not then I have cause for pause (as much more offensive material has been allowed to remain). By the way, your comment was informing and responsible.

          • Blackbeard

            I’m trying to see if Mr. Goat would even pay attention if I offered facts, reason, links, etc. It’s lots of work as you can’t just glance at a NY Times headline and think you understand the issue. So far I see no sign that Mr. Goat is receptive to alternative points of view and so I decline to waste my time.

            But maybe you would be more receptive. Are you interested enough in the global warming issue to do some research and perhaps learn more? To find out I offer a challenge. Go to Judith Curry’s website (https://judithcurry.com/) and do some reading. (In your remarks above you criticized Curry for not providing adequate justification. Obviously you haven’t followed her work if you could say that.) You should focus on:

            1. Curry’s history and credentials. Why and why did she become a skeptic? What was she doing before? Why did she resign from the university where she was once a tenured professor?
            2. Briefly summarize her position on global warming. Does she claim it’s all a hoax as does Donald Trump? Or what?
            3. Check out what her critics say. Is she a “denier” an Michael Mann says?

            This is not a trivial assignment. She’s been running her blog for at least five years that I’ve been reading it and is widely published in the climate field. But if you want to understand the issue you have to do your homework.

            Once you’ve done this and have more information I’d be happy to continue our debate.

          • StudentZ

            Thanks for responding. I will read more about Curry. I am familiar with her website and some of her fans/critics, but my exposure to her perspective is admittedly limited. The justification comment above is in response to her recent testimony before Congress and a few of Koonin’s Op-Ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal. My off-hand comment was not intended as a judgment regarding either’s credentials or body of work, but an expression of concern over the way the integrity of the IPCC and other academic institutions was addressed before an audience eager to dismiss such institutions in general. More qualified people than I have shared my concern, including those able to rely on their equally applicable experiences to counter hers. It was not a comment made in ignorance of who she is or her position, and my focus was on her claims regarding bias, in which I thought she was obliged to provide ample evidence that research and institutions were significantly compromised. Just to clarify, I have not labeled her as a “denier” or someone in Trump’s league, so I’m not sure further research will produce different answers to your questions. In the interest of accuracy and detail, though, I will revisit her website and her testimony before answering. I will also reconsider my earlier statement. Stay tuned!

          • Blackbeard

            Thanks for having an open mind on these difficult issues. When you read more about Curry’s background and history, and then her treatment at the hands of the consensus police, her testimony may appear more reasonable. Eager to hear your thoughts!

          • StudentZ

            Why is being able to name a few climate scientists the acid test here? Many scientists tend to co-author papers, and being able to remember an obscure name is not really a reflection of understanding or research. Since we are sharing personal information, I have a degree in Geography and I am currently a Civil Engineering student studying for my FE Exam (this is a welcome distraction). I mention this only because my preliminary classes in Environmental Engineering, Hydrologic Design, Geology, Chemistry, etc., were not particularly dismissive of the research on anthropogenic global warming, and I would be interested in some of the references you shared with your friend. Since it is a matter of ethics and professionalism for engineers to accurately assess their expertise, I have no reason to question your knowledge of renewables. As someone who is perpetually plagued by my own ignorance and self-doubt, however, I can’t help but notice undue confidence in others, and your feigned open-minded attempt to reason with FriendlyGoat is steeped in unwarranted condescension. “Shame on you,” you chide, as if Goat’s observations regarding dogmatic tribalism are any different from yours. Are you acting as an engineer or a biased human being like the rest of us when you present a charming anecdote about your enlightened friend who predictably abandoned reason so you could happily castigate her kind while remaining superficially objective? I suppose we should praise you for lauding the intelligence of those whose perspectives you dismiss as irrational. Perhaps, climate change really “is not a parlor debate for the comment section” so we resort to attacking each other instead. Let’s stop.

            Anyway, I will attempt your test and fail miserably, since I am bad with names. There’s no reason I can’t represent the dogmatic AGW zealots, right? The only full name I can remember is Judith Curry. I’m not sure about Curry’s actual background. If I remember correctly, she was one of four scientists to appear as part of a recent Congressional Climate Change panel with Lamar Smith (?). There was one other scientist, Michael E. Mann, representing the disputed “consensus” (which I guess is the perspective of the IPCC?). I don’t remember the other two, but I believe they also disputed IPCC findings along with Curry. Mann accused the panel of being politically motivated and cherry-picking scientists that did not represent the larger climate science community. Smith’s activities and allegiances would suggest Mann’s accusations were not completely unfounded. Mann has also filed a defamation lawsuit against those who persecuted him for Climategate, which Curry repeatedly used to question Mann, the IPCC, and other research, despite eight different bodies investigating and dismissing the supposed scandal.

            Curry’s views are reinforced by Steve K. (?), an Op-Ed writer for the Wall Street Journal who used to work for the Obama Administration and tends to advocate for a “red team” approach to climate change. His editorials are quite convincing, until you realize he is implicitly arguing all climate scientists are compromised by virtue of their discipline. As if this unjustified denigration weren’t enough, the need for a red team exercise to verify existing research is questionable.

            Richard L. (?) is a retired MIT professor who tends to dispute climate research conducted at MIT and elsewhere. In fact, MIT papers are occasionally used against their authors. MIT climatologists published a few papers analyzing Paris Agreement targets, which were misinterpreted by Trump in his Rose Garden speech about withdrawing from the accord. The authors published a response clarifying their support of the Paris Agreement, arguing that insufficient action was better than no action at all.

            There are a couple of scientists at CERN who often come up in climate change debates. One hosts blogs and videos about his CLOUD project, which analyzes the effects of aerosols in the atmosphere on precipitation and subsequent cooling (I think, though this is all from memory). Sorry, I don’t remember his name. There is another former CERN researcher (Otto S.? A Swede?). I read an interview of his in Spiegel (I think) and was interested in some of his arguments. There’s also a popular British scientist who claimed increased levels of carbon dioxide were beneficial. One of his interviews was published in Carbon Brief. Finally, I think Ben Pine authored the website I referenced earlier. That’s the extent of my memory and I apologize for any inaccuracies.

            How did I do? I am checking Google now … the full names I was trying to recall are Judith Curry (climatologist from Georgia Institute of Technology); Steven Koonin (theoretical physicist); Richard S. Lindzen (MIT meteorologist); Jasper Kirkby (experimental particle physicist at CERN); I think my last reference is a bit of a composite of Hans von Storch (German scientist interviewed in Speigel who tends to support consensus, though he was discussing problematic climate models), Henrik Svensmark (physicist at the Danish National Space Institute whose work influenced the CLOUD experiments), and Ivar Giaever. Ha ha, a Swede named Otto (no points for that one). Matt Ridley is the British journalist interviewed in Carbon Brief (he is a science editor and author of popular science books with a background in zoology, so I’m not sure he counts). I was trying to refer to Ben Pile, an online journalist referring to the work of Mike Hulme, a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia.

          • Gary Hemminger

            He isn’t going to do any research Blackbeard. He isn’t rational. He believes in it because it is his religion. You cannot take a practicing Christian and try to talk them out of their belief. It isn’t going to happen because he believes and no amount of proof will change his mind. What you need to do is simply dismiss him and let him practice his belief. But in no way will the vast majority of people on this planet take up that religion when it is detrimental to our health and our economy. the more the democrats believe this religion, the more they will continue to lose national elections. So there is a built in stop to their belief.

  • Suzy Dixon

    Trump’s energy policy is very mature, realistic, and helpful. He said it best sitting two feet from the Polish president at the three seas summit. We make the best weapons and we have the best technology to extract energy. We have an amazing energy revolution occurring in America. Whenever you need weapons or some energy “just call us”

  • leoj

    The second paragraph reads like either a literal translation from amtlich-juristischen Deutsch or the work of a German schooled in such quarters struggling with his English dictionary.

  • Fat_Man

    “We reaffirm our strong commitment to the Paris Agreement, moving swiftly towards its full implementation”

    We will be waiting with bated breath for the Euros to fund the provisions of the Paris agreement that require them to send billions to third world kleptocrats.

    • LarryD

      “Global Warming” is, in large part, a form of Imperialism. Designed to keep the second and third world poor, the transfer monies, such as the Green Climate Fund, are bribes to the leaders of the targeted countries to agree to keeping their people poor.

      • Unelected Leader

        All it took was one look at the color map designation. India and especially china are designated as “non-annex” countries, i.e. they don’t even have to peak until 2030. So the worlds second largest economy, worst polluter, and a major global investor is a non annex country.

        That’s when you know it’s time to crumple it up and throw it in the trash where it belongs. OK OK, recycle bin. It’s simply recyclable trash created by M and sees that love pollution havens and slave labor in Asia and love outsourcing American jobs.

        • DiogenesDespairs

          The trouble is, the global warming crowd will in fact recycle it. Burnit, and it’s ok if you do so with one of those concave solar mirrors that focus sunlight to a point where the energy produces combustion.

        • Jim__L

          I prefer the term “recycling bin of history” to Marx’s old term, “dustbin of history”. So much stupidity (including Marxism) gets recycled these days…

      • Fat_Man

        That does not mean the 19 dwarfs will stick their hands in their own pockets to pay the bribes. They were expecting us to do it for them.

      • Jim__L

        The worst thing that could happen to Germany is for countries in the southern hemisphere to start burning as much coal as Germany does, making them the go-to location for energy-intensive industries.

  • Angel Martin
    • Proud Skeptic

      What a relief!

  • Andrew Allison

    What was missing from the first paragraph was a statement to the effect that the US will continue to be the world leader in emissions reduction.

    • Jim__L

      In particular, emissions of actual pollution such as nitrogen compounds…

  • D4x

    My Orwell collection is not handy, but fairly certain from years of reading Bill McKibben, that “clean energy” means NO fossil fuels (hydrocarbons), and that “clean energy” means renewable energy sources, e.g., solar, wind, hydro. No American should be surprised:

    THE 2016 DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM “Building a Clean Energy Economy”

    “We are committed to getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade, with half a billion solar panels
    installed within four years and enough renewable energy to power every home in the country. …

    Democrats believe the tax code must reflect our commitment to a clean energy future by eliminating special tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies as well as defending and extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy. …”

    https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#clean-energy

    • Blackbeard

      Note that “clean energy” as defined by the Greens most certainly does not include hydroelectric or nuclear. Only wind and solar count. Care to guess what percentage, to the nearest whole number, of world energy is currently supplied by wind and solar? The answer, not that you’d guess if you read the NY Times, is 0%. (It’s technically about 0.44% but to the nearest round number that’s zero.)

      • D4x

        Hydro-electricity is ok with them if it comes from Canada. Waste-to-energy is where America’s ‘greens’ are irrational. You would think they might learn from Denmark, if not New Jersey. You are otherwise correct, especially about nuclear being taboo.

    • Andrew Allison

      Didn’t realize that you’re a McKibben science fiction fan [grin]

      • D4x

        Long story, but perhaps I have the secret DNA that rejects ideological brainwashing. I agreed with McKibben through 2006, when I bought my ‘retirement’ home @ 1,500′ elevation, in part as a hedge against then-global warming.

        Still wish I could have retired there, no need for a/c.

        • Gary Hemminger

          Yes, there are certain people that simply can be ideologically brainwashed very easily. Basically they want to believe something, so they accept whatever “truth” they hear and reject any proof presented as unscientific. What I have noticed though is that none of them actually understand the scientific method at all. they have no scientific training and therefore are easily brainwashed by “scientists” that are spoon feeding off the system. Without these folks the so called scientists would have lost credibility years ago. The so called scientists depend on these people for their money. Also you will note that almost all the scientists that believe in AGW are young and feeding from the trough. It is the older ones that have more experience and aren’t dependent on the trough who are the skeptics.

          • Jim__L

            From Dostoevsky:

            “in my opinion miracles will never confound a
            realist. It is not miracles that bring a realist to faith. A true
            realist, if he is not a believer, will always find in himself the
            strength and ability not to believe in miracles as well, and if a
            miracle stands before him as an irrefutable fact, he will sooner doubt
            his own senses than admit the fact. And even if he does admit it, he
            will admit it as a fact of nature that was previously unknown to him. In
            the realist, faith is not born from miracles, but miracles from faith.
            Once the realist comes to believe, then, precisely because of his
            realism, he must also allow for miracles.”

  • Proud Skeptic

    Mic drop.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “Global Warming” is BS.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service