maandag 3 september 2018

Climate Debate - Mann vs Curry & Moore June 2018

Op youtube vond ik dit filmpje van een aantal presentaties over klimaatverandering:

Climate Debate - Mann vs Curry & Moore June 2018 
Charleston, West Virginia, June 12, 2018.
Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. David Titley, Dr. Patrick Moore and Dr. Judith Curry met in  to discuss climate change.
They were asked two questions:
 - To what extent is the use of fossil fuels affecting climate change?
 - What can and should be done to offset those effects?
This video is the copyright of ©️2018 Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC.
No infringement of copyright is intended.
Video is presented here in its entirety without comment or advertisements, and is shown purely for educational purposes.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVXHaSqpsVg)

Het filmpje bestaat uit 4 presentaties en een vragenronde. Het zijn tal van powerpointpresentaties met allerlei grafieken en plaatjes en allerlei 'grapjes'. De presentaties gaan van alarmist Mann naar ontkenner Moore.
 Net zoals met nieuwsberichten zijn ook de reacties vermakelijker dan de taaie langdradige stof van het hoofdbericht:
- Mann, in the Q and A session, pretends Moore didn't just destroy any chance of man-made climate change being real. Totally disconnected from reality.
- If Mann's hockey stick graph is not a case of lying with statistics, there never has been one! He is really so deceitful. He has not only not disowned the hockey stick graph. He also still brings up the polar bears! And the fear-mongering...
- Mann has always been a fraud. Titley is a disappointment (have to wonder if his tenure at Penn State was contingent upon his willingness to support the institution's position), Curry did well, but Moore brought it home strong. Truth bombs dropped by Moore all over the place using lots of real science.
- Quite a display by Dr. Moore. He had them off balance and playing damage control from the advent of his first comments. Penn State university should be embarrassed.
- Moore is fully beast mode in this. Everyone in attendance should have been persuaded by him.
- Moore brought in the heavy artillery for this one. His two key argument is that CO2 is actually the food of life and that Consensus doesn't make a scientific claim correct. I appreciate this Video, much food for thought. Thank you.
- if you listen to Mann he sites the same tired computer simulations that have never accurately predicted anything. If you actually listen he is arguing against himself.
- In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gases, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the ten years passed 3 years ago, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again. There’s a veritable online cottage industry cataloguing hysterical, failed predictions of environmentalist catastrophe. Gore’s prediction fits right in with the rest of his comrades in the wild-eyed environmentalist movement
- The two alarmists: "I could talk about the science, but I won't. Believe me because: fear of 'might be' scenarios."
The two rational objectivists: "Here's the science, here's climate and CO2 over geologic time scales, here are the positives of CO2."
- In the real world, there is no global sea level rise.  Notice how Titley's one example is an area with well known subsidence...not sure what they are planning to do about subsidence but they are sure they need your tax dollars.
- So basically the people that are alarmed about climate change are saying that they don’t want the climate to change because it will upset the status quo that has been around for a couple thousand years, sorry the earth doesn’t care about your status quo , it changes as it has always changed and human beings will have to deal with it, we can’t  get involved in some one world repressive governmental regime just because the powers that be don’t want the status quo to change , As an environmentalist I welcome the change, we need to disrupt the status quo
- strongly support moore and curry analysis.I was in the mann madhouse meltdown camp up to 2009. Climategate with 11.000 emails of which I read over a 1000 for the first time got me thinking. Prior to that giving speeches pushing global warming believing IPCC etc.I was wrong. The facts do not support anything other than cycles on earth, our relationship with the sun,moon, where our solar system is in the radial arm, cosmic events etc. CO2  follows temperature not the other way round. The interesting part of the  Apollo 13  incident mentioned by the Penn state Dr but he failed to mention was the 3 astronauts were breathing at the height of the drama 14,000 ppm of CO2 . They all came back to earth and lived for yrs after. Yet we are told by alarmists 400 ppm is a critical level that will effect human health.Astronauts and submarine mariners regularly live under conditions of 5,000 ppm yet somehow 400 ppm is catastrophic. Tell that to the plants that keep us alive. They love CO2 higher levels. This madness human construct about CO2 has been repeatedly exposed as incorrect but ego of the mad manmade club continues unrelentent. As  I looked below the simplistic pre 2009  approach I had I became sure I was  wrong. Some other people need to be man enough to admit they were wrong...
- Tons of appeal to authority and consensus arguments from the anthropogenic climate change reps. 
If they can act so condescendingly, they should have brought better data.
- Mann comes across as a liar. He gives me no reason to trust him. He talks about record high temperatures but makes no mention that they are consistently connected to el nino years and that one year is said to be hotter than the previous year, setting a new record, when the measured difference is 0.01C but the margin of error is 0.1C, which means it could have easily been cooler rather than warmer.
- Why doesn't Mann show his data to a court of law. He has been asked to show his data in court and refuses to produce it. Why?
- Somebody told this guy that his picture of a llama is actually a picture of an alpaca. And his response is "No I'm going to continue calling it a llama because I don't care." LMAO That's a pretty good indication of his credibility as a scientist. A scientist or any academic mind is supposed to be a person who serves the truth not vice versa. 
Notice how every "scientific" argument made by the warmists is punctuated by a call to emotion. They're saying look at these floods, fires and earthquakes. Look at the dead bodies. It's as blatant fear mongering as it gets. Their scientific stance is weak so they resort to emotional and social tactics. They put up a picture of 200 people and say look at how many people agree with us. It's hilarious. They're using a claim to consensus to socially bully you into agreeing with them. And it's what they've been doing with the 94% statistic the whole time. 
Consensus has NO place in scientific discussion. You follow the science and allow the science to speak for itself. You don't influence the discussion with social dynamics unless you want to get people killed in the lab and annihilate humanity when your faulty, socially constructed policies become implemented at a grand scale. Holy fuck these people are reprehensible. 
The skeptics say look, we can work toward "No Regrets" goals that will simultaneously solve all these other problems (energy, food, fortification, travel, interplanetary colonization) as well as prepare us for a hypothetical catastrophic climate change. And of course the warmists give the exact response you would expect from a fear monger. They double down. They say NO we can't waste time on anything except climate change. Time is running out! We only have 10 years left or 20 or 50 or whatever the fuck they're claiming now. Their prediction changes twice a decade. They say ACTUALLY the doomsday prophecy is much WORSE than we originally thought it was going to be in both time and degree. It's like okay you just admitted that your previous understanding of the climate was wrong and your predictions were way off. Keep doubling down on the fear mongering though. You're in too deep to back out now. 
They point to news article headlines as if they are evidence of anything except headlines that an audience is likely to click on. It's more consensus bullying. Consensus and fear are the bread and butter of the warmist argument. They brought graphs that show data from 1950. That's child's play. The skeptics brought graphs that show the same data except it stretches back to the fucking jurassic period because that's what real scientists do. They try to see the bigger picture. And on the bigger picture the "climate change" we're seeing is a straight line. There is no change in the contexts of geological or even human history. I'm so glad this climate debate is finally over and the corrupt and incompetent parties have outed themselves so thoroughly. I'm sorry that your hometown became a shit hole but your hometown isn't sufficient evidence that the world is ending, even though it may feel that way to you.
"Maybe we're wrong, but do you wanna bet your life on it? Do you wanna bet your children's life on it?" He isn't a climate scientist, he's an insurance salesman.
- Only in America! Here we see two people that are deliberately selecting and misinterpreting data. They are doing the work of the fossil fuel industry which is following the playbook of the tobacco industry with the aim of creating doubt in the science. The problem is putting an expert (Dr. Mann) that has spent decades developing his understanding of the climate on the same stage as unqualified stooges Moore and Curry. 
This is like having a debate about whether or not the Earth orbits the Sun because some unqualified people say that they see the Sun moving around the Earth.
- Moore's first sentence contains evidence free propaganda. Why listen further?
- Patrick Moore doesn't know how to draw a conclusion.   He's a shit scientist.  45:10 "This concludes the fact that CO2 doesn't drive temperature" - NO IT DOESN'T.   He presented only weak circumstantial evidence.   He didn't "conclude" anything in a scientific way.    Why are imbeciles given floor time?
- Moore is so lazy he still trying to suck the last drop of his fabricated stint at Green Peace . The charts and conclusions he uses are all totally debumked by Potholer 54. Gramma is just boring.
- Frolly is a fraud from Australias' coal industry
- Michael Mann is such a punk. He faced away from Cury's and Moore's presentations
- That first question after the presentation of Moore makes me want to give up and start my own CO2 organisation.
"Why shouldn't we move to CO2 capture technoligy?"
You can even see the look on Michael Mann's face, he's thinking, "Gni gni, see, they really are that stupid". (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVXHaSqpsVg)

De reacties zijn in twee groepen te verdelen, de ene partij basht Mann en roemt Moore, de andere partij basht Moore. Bijzonder hoe weinig de reacties over een inhoudelijke discussie of inzichten van de tegenpartij begroeten met enthousiasme. 

Ik ben zelf altijd naïef met dit soort zaken. Ik geloof de eerste de beste grafiek meteen. En de volgende ook. Echter fa je na een tijdje de tegenstrijdigheden opmerken. Om hoeveel graden gaat het eigenlijk? Wat zijn de gevolgen? Hoe zit dat? Waarom worden de verschillende standpunten niet tegenover elkaar gezet? These-antithese en synthese. Waarom weerlegt Moore -redelijk eenvoudig- de grafieken van Mann, en zet er een paar mooie eigen feiten naast. De concentraties CO2 zijn hoger en dat zou best een goed iets kunnen zijn. Verhoogde CO2-concentraties laten immers planten beter groeien, het komt voor in je bier en champagne en is geen vervuilend gas. Dat is een compleet ander standpunt dan Mann. Waarom gaan vervolgens de vragen lukraak over CO2-opslag en dergelijke? 

Als we eens kijken naar de sprekers:


Dr. Michael Mann, 


Mann is bekend geworden met een hockeystickgrafiek, zie ook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph , die grafiek(en) is/zijn later bekritiseerd. Ondanks alles blijft hij doorgaan met zijn statistiek (grafieken).


I am directly associated with one of the most prominent graphs in all of climate science, the “Hockey Stick” curve that my coauthors and I published back in the late 1990s. That curve became an icon in the climate change debate. It told a simple story—that the warming of the planet we’re experiencing is unprecedented. That made it a threat to fossil fuel interests and, as I detail in my book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, it made me a direct target of the industry-funded climate change denial machine. The Eye of Sauron was fixed on me. Rather than shrink from the battle, I chose to fight back—by defending my work in the public sphere and by devoting myself to public outreach and education. That no doubt further antagonized climate change deniers. Ultimately, they provided me a platform for informing the public discourse over what is arguably the greatest challenge we have faced as a civilization. I consider that a blessing, not a curse. ... Interestingly, much of the focus was on me alone, rather than my two senior coauthors, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. I suspect the reason was two-fold. I was the first author and was quoted in most of the media coverage, so I was the scientist most directly associated with the research. But additionally, I was viewed as far more vulnerable to attack, as I was only a post-doc at the time, a far cry from the job security of a tenured faculty position (which both of my coauthors had). The climate change denial machine wanted to bring me down, to destroy my professional career before it even got going, to make an example of me for other younger scientists who might too consider speaking out about climate change. In The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, I refer to this as the “Serengeti Strategy.”(https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/michael_mann_and_the_climate_wars)

I wrote a book about that question, entitled “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” [link]. It is about my experiences in the center of the climate change debate, and about the powerful vested interests that have spent tens of millions of dollars in the most expensive disinformation campaign in human history, the campaign by fossil fuel interests to confuse the public and policymakers about the reality and threat of human-caused climate change. (https://www.zmescience.com/other/interviews/interview-mann/)


Controversy behind climate science's 'hockey stick' graph
Pioneering graph used by IPCC to illustrate a compelling story of man-made climate change raises questions about transparency
It is a persuasive image. The "hockey stick" graph shows the average global temperature over the past 1,000 years. For the first 900 years there is little variation, like the shaft of an ice-hockey stick. Then, in the 20th century, comes a sharp rise like the stick's blade.
The graph was a pioneering attempt to put together data from hundreds of studies of past temperature using "proxies" from analysing things like tree rings, lake sediments and ice cores. The resulting shape, first published by Professor Mike Mann of Pennsylvania State University in 1998, has become a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics. The deniers say it is a lie. Climate scientist stand by it.
As yet, the university has not confirmed the authenticity of the emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit. Nevertheless the emails reveal that in 1999 there were huge rows about whether the new graph, should be given prominence in the next IPCC report due in 2001. The revelation raises questions about the transparency of the IPCC process.
On 22 September 1999, Met Office scientist Chris Folland, an IPCC lead author, alerted key researchers that a diagram of temperature change over the past thousand years "is a clear favourite for the policy makers' summary". But there were two competing graphs – Mann's hockey stick and another, by Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and others, which sought to ascertain temperatures over the past millennium using, among other things, tree rings, ice cores and coral.
Mann's graph was clearly the more compelling image of man-made climate change. Jones and Briffa's "dilutes the message rather significantly," said Folland. "We want the truth. Mike [Mann] thinks it lies nearer his result."
But Briffa did not. Three hours later, he sent a long and passionate email. "It should not be taken as read that Mike's series is THE CORRECT ONE," he warned. "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data', but in reality the situation is not quite so simple... For the record, I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago."
The row had been going on for months. Most of the correspondence is missing. But in April 1999, Ray Bradley, a co-author with Mann on the hockey stick study, was apologising for Mann's stance. "I would like to dissociate myself from Mike Mann's view [expressed in a complaint Mann had made the previous summer to the journal Science]… I find this notion quite absurd. I have worked with the UEA group for 20+ years and have great respect for them. Of course, I don't agree with everything they write, and we often have long (but cordial) arguments about what they think versus my views, but that is life… As for thinking that is it 'better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us'… as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant."
Mann and Briffa eventually settled their differences. And the hockey stick was given pride of place in the IPCC report, alongside the claim that "it is likely that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium". Most researchers, including Briffa, now believe that statement was correct. But the emails reveal how deeply controversial it was at the time. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hockey-stick-graph-climate-change)

“Yet, in the 20 years since the original hockey stick publication, independent studies, again and again, have overwhelmingly reaffirmed our findings, including the key conclusion: recent warming is unprecedented over at least the past millennium,” Mann wrote in Scientific American on April 20.
However, the two Canadian researchers who found serious flaws in the “hockey stick” study’s data and methodology disputed Mann’s characterization of the graph’s legacy.
“For everyone else, the debate was about data and statistical methods,” Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph in Canada.
“For Mann, judging by his rant, it was all a giant political conspiracy against him and his heroic crusade to save the planet. He still won’t acknowledge the errors in his work,” said McKitrick who co-authored a 2003 study with mining executive Steven McIntyre that challenged Mann’s work.
Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed a spike in global average temperature in the 20th century after about 500 years of stability.
The “hockey stick” went viral and become a rallying cry for environmentalists and politicians who opposed fossil fuels and wanted climate policies. Former Vice President Al Gore even featured the “hockey stick” graph in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The graph also came under intense criticism, even sparking an investigation by GOP lawmakers.
Global warming skeptics were heavily critical of the “hockey stick” graph, especially in the wake of McKitrick’s and McIntyre’s 2003 study. Their study found serious flaws in the proxy data Mann relied upon to estimate temperatures going back hundreds of years.
The Canadians’ 2003 study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th century that exceeds the warmth of the 20th century. ... McIntyre and McKitrick also published a study on Mann’s “hockey stick” graph in 2005.
However, Mann wrote that “dozens of groups of scientists” had validated his 1998 study. Mann specifically pointed to a 2006 U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report that “affirmed our findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006.”
Even McIntyre said subsequent studies have “produced somewhat hockey-stick-ish temperature reconstructions,” but added, “none (NONE) of our specific criticisms of Mann’s methods, proxies, and false claims has been rebutted.”
“The NAS report did not vindicate him, it said his methods were biased, and his results depended on faulty bristlecone pine records that shouldn’t be used by researchers,” McKitrick told The Daily Caller News Foundation by email.
“The NAS panel also cautioned against conclusions about warming more than 600 years back and said uncertainties were being underestimated,” McKitrick said. “That criticism applies to many subsequent studies as well.”
(https://principia-scientific.org/20-years-of-secret-science-that-infamous-hockey-stick-graph/)

(https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=115)


"Mann ... has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.” Mark Steyn at the National Review passed on those comments in a blog post and added that Dr. Mann is “behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph…”
Dr. Mann subsequently sued both institutions and court filings have been flying back and forth ever since. Dr. Mann’s lawyers have just filed a response to scientific and legal claims from the National Review and CEI. As their new brief makes clear, any claim that Dr. Mann’s research is “fraudulent” is pure bunk. .... It’s worth noting that other judges have previously sided with Dr. Mann. Litigants in those cases, including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, also did not have a leg to stand on when it came to accusing Dr. Mann of fraud.
Generally, courts and judges have shown respect for the weight of the evidence on a range of scientific issues, including climate, tobacco and asbestos. In this case, it’s abundantly clear to me that the attacks on Dr. Mann are the result of ideological thinking run amok, not any real dispute about the science. Steyn, National Review and CEI can argue against government policies all they want, but misrepresenting scientific research to make their case simply degrades public discourse.(https://blog.ucsusa.org/aaron-huertas/michael-mann-responds-to-misleading-filings-in-climate-change-lawsuit-641)


The Hockey Stick: The Most Controversial Chart in Science, Explained
Climate deniers threw all their might at disproving the famous climate change graph. Here's why they failed.
CHRIS MOONEY
MAY 10, 2013
... Back in 1998, a little known climate scientist named Michael Mann and two colleagues published a paper that sought to reconstruct the planet's past temperatures going back half a millennium before the era of thermometers--thereby showing just how out of whack recent warming has been. The finding: Recent northern hemisphere temperatures had been "warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400." The graph depicting this result looked rather like a hockey stick: After a long period of relatively minor temperature variations (the "shaft"), it showed a sharp mercury upswing during the last century or so ("the blade")..... Mann tells the full story of the hockey stick--and the myriad unsuccessful attacks on it--in his 2012 book TheHockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines; Mann will appear at a Climate Desk Live event on May 15 to discuss this saga. But to summarize a very complex history of scientific and political skirmishes in a few paragraphs:
The hockey stick was repeatedly attacked, and so was Mann himself. Congress got involved, with demands for Mann's data and other information, including a computer code used in his research. Then the National Academy of Sciences weighed in in 2006, vindicating the hockey stick as good science and noting:
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world."
It didn't change the minds of the deniers, though--and soon Mann and his colleagues were drawn into the 2009 "Climategate" pseudo-scandal, which purported to reveal internal emails that (among other things) seemingly undermined the hockey stick. Only, they didn't. (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-hockey-stick-the-most-controversial-chart-in-science-explained/275753/)

Why all the fuss? In the late 1990s, Dr. Mann and his colleagues found that much of world is warmer than it used to be. The key graph from their research looks like an upturned hockeystick, a nickname that stuck. At the time, it was groundbreaking work. It also blew a hole in a standard contrarian talking point: that it used to be warmer in the Middle Ages.
Fifteen years after Dr. Mann and colleagues published their initial research, climate contrarians are still attacking it as if it’s the keystone that holds up the entire edifice of climate science.
Climate science goes to court
The National Review’s last filing in this case devotes a section to rehashing whether or not research Dr. Mann’s original research is valid. They largely cite contrarian books, statements from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), an article from the Telegraph newspaper and Congressional testimony from a contrarian climate scientist. Nothing in their brief substantiates an accusation of “fraud.”
(https://blog.ucsusa.org/aaron-huertas/michael-mann-responds-to-misleading-filings-in-climate-change-lawsuit-641)

The original 1999 Hockey Stick study (and the 2001 Third IPCC Assessment report) concluded that recent Northern Hemisphere average warmth was likely unprecedented for only the past 1,000 years. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment extended that conclusion back further, over the past 1,300 years (and it raised the confidence to “very likely” for the past 400 years). The new, Fifth IPCC Assessment has now extended the conclusion back over the past 1,400 years. By any honest reading, the IPCC has thus now substantially strengthened and extended the original 1999 Hockey Stick conclusions.
Only in the “up is down, black is white” bizarro world of climate-change denial could one pretend that the IPCC has failed to confirm the original Hockey Stick conclusions, let alone contradict them. [How Words Affect Climate Change Perception]
The stronger conclusions in the new IPCC report result from the fact that there is now a veritable hockey league of reconstructions that not only confirm, but extend, the original Hockey Stick conclusions. This recent RealClimate piece summarizes some of the relevant recent work in this area, including a study published by the international PAGES 2k team in the journal Nature Geoscience just months ago. This team of 78 regional experts from more than 60 institutions representing 24 countries, working with the most extensive paleoclimate data set yet, produced the most comprehensive Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction to date. One would be hard-pressed, however, to distinguish their new series from the decade-and-a-half-old Hockey Stick reconstruction of Mann, Bradley and Hughes.
Conclusions about unprecedented recent warmth apply to the average temperature over the Northern Hemisphere. Individual regions typically depart substantially from the average. Thus, while most regions were cooler than present during the medieval era, some were as warm, or potentially even warmer, than the late-20th-century average. These regional anomalies result from changes in atmospheric wind patterns associated with phenomena such as El Niño and the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation. ... Colleagues and I, quoting from the abstract of our own article in the journal Science a few years ago (emphasis mine), stated:
Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1,500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface-temperature patterns over this interval. The medieval period [A.D. 950-1250] isfound to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. ..  However, never underestimate the inventiveness of climate-change deniers. Where there’s a will, there is, indeed, a way: A meme now circulating throughout the denialosphere is that the IPCC’s conclusions about regional warmth contradict our findings, despite the fact that those conclusions are substantially based on our findings.
One could be excused for wondering if climate-change deniers have lost all sense of irony.
(https://climatecrocks.com/2013/09/27/mike-mann-first-look-at-ar5/)

20 Years Of Secret Science: That Infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph
Published on May 1, 2018
Canadian skeptical climatologist Dr Tim Ball still battles gamely in the British Columbia Supreme Court defending against the world’s worst perpetrator of secretive junk climate science: Dr Michael E Mann.
We are at the 20-year anniversary of publication of the ‘hockey stick’ graph upon which literally thousands of subsequent studies rely on as validation of man-made global warming. Mann, himself, calls his graph the “iconic symbol of the human impact on our climate.” The graph is fraudulent but Mann enjoys the fame, prestige and millions of $$$$.
But when Mann’s most effective critic, Dr Ball, exposed this shocking affront to science Mann sued Ball for libel. Seven years on and Mann and his slick Canadian lawyer, Roger McConchie are still pulling every trick in the book to prevent open court examination of his graph’s hidden r2 regression data.
It is that ‘secret science’ element of the graph – those validation r2 regressions calculations – that can prove conclusively whether Ball’s words that Mann belongs in the “state pen, not Penn State” were an idle joke or a fair scientific appraisal.
For readers following the epic legal battle, in February 2017 Mike’s mendacity plumbed a new low. He and his lawyer breached a binding written agreement made with Ball over yet another time extension for Mann. If granted by Ball in return Mann promised to finally show his ‘secret science’ numbers.
Ball gave Mann his time extension. But Mann did not give Ball (and the court) the crucial data that makes or breaks the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph. (https://principia-scientific.org/20-years-of-secret-science-that-infamous-hockey-stick-graph/)

Michael Mann fraudulently erasing the medieval Warm Period
posted by Geoff Brown on July 06, 2017
A review and commentary on topical matters concerning the science, economics, and governance associated with climate change developments.
By
Alan Moran
July 2017
Climate Science
In late breaking news Michael Mann has been found guilty of contempt of court for refusing to hand over documents he claims to have in his libel action against Tim Ball.
Sensationally, a paper by the doyen of the warmistas with Ben Santar as the lead author and the litigious Mann as a co-author finally admits that the climate models they concocted are not tracking reality.  
They ”conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations”.  Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.  (http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2017/07/climate-news-july-michael-mann.html)

Mann gaat de critici Ad Hominem tegen. Niet met inhoudelijke argumenten maar met kritiek op hun gebrekkige kennis, bron van inkomsten en dergelijke.

Today, we’re talking to Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). His voice is one of the loudest and clearest when it comes to climate change and he shared his thoughts with us:
(https://www.zmescience.com/other/interviews/interview-mann/)

Mann asks ‘What more noble cause is there than to fight to preserve our planet.’ How about the noble cause of not misleading readers with biased methods and bad data?” McKitrick said. (https://principia-scientific.org/20-years-of-secret-science-that-infamous-hockey-stick-graph/)



Dr. David Titley, 

David William Titley[1] is a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University and the founding director of their Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk. He was also NOAA's chief operating officer from 2012–2013. Before assuming these positions, he was a rear admiral in, and the chief oceanographer of, the U.S. Navy, in which he served for 32 years.[2] He is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society. ... Titley initiated the Navy's Task Force on Climate Change, and serves on the CNA Corporation's Military Advisory Board.[4] He was formerly a climate change skeptic, but later changed his mind after looking at the evidence of what factors influence climate–which are, according to Titley, "what are the larger things doing – what is the ocean doing? What is the sun doing? And what's our atmosphere doing?"[5] Since then, he has described climate change as "one of the driving forces in the 21st century" and said that it contributed to the 2011 Arab Spring.[6]
The Department of Defense requested that Titley present on their behalf at both Congressional Hearings and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meetings from 2009 to 2011. [7].... Titley is also on the Advisory Board of Citizens Climate Lobby.[9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Titley).

David Titley served as a naval officer for 32 years and rose to the rank of Rear Admiral.  Dr. Titley’s career included duties as commander of the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command; oceanographer and navigator of the Navy; and deputy assistant chief of naval operations for information dominance.  He also served as senior military assistant for the director, Office of Net Assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
In 2009, Dr. Titley initiated and led the U.S. Navy’s Task Force on Climate Change.  (http://www.met.psu.edu/people/dwt12)

Scientist and retired Navy officer Dr. David Titley asks a big question: Could the US military play a role in combating climate change?
Why you should listen
David Titley is a Professor of Practice in Meteorology and a Professor of International Affairs at the Pennsylvania State University. He is the founding director of Penn State’s Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk. He served as a naval officer for 32 years and rose to the rank of Rear Admiral. Titley’s career included duties as commander of the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command; oceanographer and navigator of the Navy; and deputy assistant chief of naval operations for information dominance. He also served as senior military assistant for the director, Office of Net Assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
While serving in the Pentagon, Titley initiated and led the U.S. Navy’s Task Force on Climate Change. (https://www.ted.com/speakers/david_titley)

Dr. Titley has spoken across the country and throughout the world on the importance of climate change as it relates to National Security. He was invited to present on behalf of the Department of Defense at both Congressional Hearings and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meetings from 2009 to 2011. He has presented a TEDx talk on climate change and speaks regularly on this topic at Universities across the country. (https://climateandsecurity.org/advisory-board/rear-admiral-david-w-titley-usn-ret/)

Dr. Judith Curry

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1] As of 2017, she has retired from academia.[2][3]...
Judith Curry has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[17] Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.[17]
In February 2010 Curry published an essay called "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust" on Watts Up With That? and other blogs.[18] Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as "Climategate".[17]
In September 2010, she created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. She wrote that "Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[8] She wrote: "I have a total of 12,000 citations of my publications (since my first publication in 1983). Climate Etc. gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments." She gets "zero academic credit or incentives for my blogging and tweeting," but hopes that "social media and the associated skill set [will become] better recognized within the academic system."[19]...
In April 2015 Curry gave evidence to the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Hearing on the President’s UN Climate Pledge. She summed up her evidence -
The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100... The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options. We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change. We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change. As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction. Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry)

Judith Curry, een prominente Amerikaanse klimatologe, die jarenlang een trouw aanhangster was van de vermeende ‘consensus’ van de mainstream klimatologie. (Zie bijvoorbeeld hier.)  Na het Climategate-schandaal dook zij wat dieper in de materie. Zij ontdekte daarbij dat er nog veel onbeantwoorde vragen waren, dat de klimatologie onvoldoende transparant was geweest en dat ze als wetenschap was tekort geschoten om te wijzen op de onzekerheden waaraan de discipline laboreerde. Zij stelde die vragen onder haar collega’s aan de orde, maar werd daarop onmiddellijk ‘thrown out of the tribe.’ (https://www.climategate.nl/2017/08/judith-curry-slechte-wetenschap-en-slecht-beleid/)

Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues
A feature from Scientific American.
Michael D. Lemonick
... For most of her career, Curry, who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has been known for her work on hurricanes, Arctic ice dynamics and other climate-related topics. But over the past year or so she has become better known for something that annoys, even infuriates, many of her scientific colleagues. Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Black¬board. Along the way, she has come to question how climatologists react to those who question the science, no matter how well established it is. Although many of the skeptics recycle critiques that have long since been disproved, others, she believes, bring up valid points—and by lumping the good with the bad, climate researchers not only miss out on a chance to improve their science, they come across to the public as haughty. "Yes, there's a lot of crankology out there," Curry says. "But not all of it is. If only 1 percent of it or 10 percent of what the skeptics say is right, that is time well spent because we have just been too encumbered by groupthink." (https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html)

Groupthink is een theorie van Irving Janis, zie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink en https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?q=irving+janis+groupthink&hl=nl&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart, wat te gebruiken is om het falen van de Varkensbaai-invasie en Challenger space shuttle. .  

Curry's saga began with a Science paper she co-authored in 2005, which linked an increase in powerful tropical cyclones to global warming. It earned her scathing attacks on skeptical climate blogs. They claimed there were serious problems with the hurricane statistics the paper relied on, particularly from before the 1970s, and that she and her co-authors had failed to take natural variability sufficiently into account. "We were generally aware of these problems when we wrote the paper," Curry says, "but the critics argued that these issues were much more significant than we had acknowledged."
She did not necessarily agree with the criticisms, but rather than dismissing them, as many scientists might have done, she began to engage with the critics. "The lead author on the paper, Peter J. Webster, supports me in speaking with skeptics," Curry says, "and we now have very cordial interactions with Chris Landsea (whom we were at loggerheads with in 2005/2006), and we have had discussions with Pat Michaels on this subject." In the course of engaging with the skeptics, Curry ventured onto a blog run by Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado who is often critical of the climate science establishment, and onto Climate Audit, run by statistician Steve McIntyre. The latter, Curry adds, "became my blog of choice, because I found the discussions very interesting and I thought, 'Well, these are the people I want to reach rather than preaching to the converted over at [the mainstream climate science blog] RealClimate.'"
It was here that Curry began to develop respect for climate outsiders—or at least, some of them. And it made her reconsider her uncritical defense of the IPCC over the years. Curry says, "I realize I engaged in groupthink myself"—not on the hurricane paper per se but more broadly in her unquestioning acceptance of the idea that IPCC reports represent the best available thinking about climate change.
She says she always trusted the IPCC to gather and synthesize all the disparate threads in this complex and multifaceted area of science. "I had 90 to 95 percent confidence in the IPCC Working Group 1 report," she states, referring to the basic-science section of the three-part report. But even then, she harbored some doubts. In areas where she had some expertise—clouds and sea ice, for example—she felt that the report's authors were not appropriately careful. "I was actually a reviewer for the IPCC Third Assessment Report," Curry says, "on the subject of atmospheric aerosols [that is, particles such as dust and soot that affect cloud formation]. I told them that their perspective was far too simplistic and that they didn't even mention the issue of aerosol impacts on the nucleation of ice clouds. So it's not so much as finding things that were wrong, but rather ignorance that was unrecognized and confidence that was overstated." In retrospect, she laughs, "if people expert in other areas were in the same boat, then that makes me wonder."
... once Curry ventured out onto the skeptic blogs, the questions she saw coming from the most technically savvy of the outsiders—including statisticians, mechanical engineers and computer modelers from industry—helped to solidify her own uneasiness. "Not to say that the IPCC science was wrong, but I no longer felt obligated in substituting the IPCC for my own personal judgment," she said in a recent interview posted on the Collide-a-Scape climate blog.
Curry began to find other examples where she thought the IPCC was "torquing the science" in various ways. For example, she says, "a senior leader at one of the big climate-modeling institutions told me that climate modelers seem to be spending 80 percent of their time on the IPCC production runs and 20 percent of their time developing better climate models." She also asserts that the IPCC has violated its own rules by accepting nonpeer-reviewed papers and assigning high-status positions to relatively untested scientists who happen to feed into the organization's "narrative" of impending doom. Climate skeptics have seized on Curry's statements to cast doubt on the basic science of climate change. So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry. (https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html)

Dr. Judith Curry conducted an interview with YouTube which was published on August 9, 2017 where she clearly lays out the many flaws and failures of “consensus” climate science and how this highly politicalized scheme tremendously misleads policy makers regarding the need for government directed climate actions.
Regarding the role that human greenhouse gas emissions play in driving the earth’s climate Dr. Curry concludes that:
“On balance, I don’t see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming. [Humans do] influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don’t think it’s a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.”
Regarding the politically contrived climate “consensus” arguments put forth by climate alarmists she concludes:
“The collapse of the consensus on cholesterol and heart disease – that one collapsed overnight. I can only hope that sanity will eventually prevail with the climate problem as well.”
Dr. Curry a world renowned and academically honored climatologist and former chair of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology discussed political attacks she has been subjected to that started when she began to question the tactics of climate alarmist “consensus” following the revelations brought into the light by Climategate which clearly displayed the lack of transparency and openness present in mainstream climate science.
The political attacks she has endured were the result of what she characterized as the politicalization of climate science as a deliberate strategy by climate alarmists to influence public policy which could not tolerate valid questions concerning legitimate climate science shortcomings.
Dr. Curry discussed how she was “thrown out of the tribe” for suggesting that the conduct of climate science needed greater transparency, should be inclusive instead of dismissing of climate skeptic views, that climate science is a relatively new field where the “debate is not over”, that there “is no way the science issues are settled” and that there is” a whole lot more we don’t know”.
(https://www.climategate.nl/2017/08/judith-curry-slechte-wetenschap-en-slecht-beleid/)

Ze heeft dus een blog: https://judithcurry.com/page/1/
Hierop staat ook haar presentatie van bovenstaand youtube-filmpje:  https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/12/the-debate-mann-titley-moore-curry/#more-24162 en de voorbereiding hier: https://judithcurry.com/2018/05/28/the-debate/. Ze geeft daar een mooi plaatje weer:
(https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/12/the-debate-mann-titley-moore-curry/#more-24162)


My personal assessment aligns with the right-hand side, emphasizing natural variability.  However, the IPCC and the so-called consensus aligns with the left hand side.  About 10 years ago, I also aligned with left hand side, because I thought supporting the IPCC consensus was the responsible thing to do.
Here is how and why I changed my mind.
In 2010, I started digging deeper, both into the science itself and the politics that were shaping the science.  I came to realize that the policy cart was way out in front of the scientific horse.
The 1992 UN Climate Change treaty was signed by 190 countries before the balance of scientific evidence suggested even a discernible human influence on global climate.  The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was implemented before we had any confidence that most of the warming was caused by humans.  There was tremendous political pressure on the IPCC scientists to present findings that would support these treaties, which resulted in a manufactured consensus.
...
I’ve been asked to respond to the question “To what extent are man-made CO2 emissions contributing to climate change?”
The short answer is:  ‘we don’t know.’ The reason is that we don’t know how to disentangle natural internal variability from the effects of CO2–driven warming
Even the IPCC doesn’t claim to know exactly. The most recent IPCC assessment report says it is ‘extremely likely’ to be  ‘more than half.’ ‘More than half’ is not very precise.
Given the IPCC’s neglect of multi-decadal and longer time scales of natural internal variability, I regard the extreme confidence of their conclusion to be unjustified
So here is my personal assessment, using the jargon of the IPCC:  Man-made CO2emissions are as likely as not to contribute less than 50% of the recent warming
(https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/12/the-debate-mann-titley-moore-curry/#more-24162)

Madhouse effect
I would like to make a few comments on the state of the scientific and public debate on climate change.
Here is my take on the Madhouse effect.  The madhouse that concerns me is one that has been created by climate scientists.  The madhouse is characterized by
Rampant overconfidence in an overly simplistic theory of climate change
Enforcement of a politically-motivated, manufactured ‘consensus’
Attempts to stifle scientific and policy debates
Activism and advocacy for their preferred politics and policy
Self-promotion and ‘cashing in’
Public attacks on other scientists that do not support the ‘consensus’
(https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/12/the-debate-mann-titley-moore-curry/#more-24162)


Dr. Patrick Moore 


(https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/16027-what-happened-when-patrick-moore-was-challenged-to-drink-a-glass-of-glyphosate)

Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian activist, and former president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism".[4]
He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major environmental groups, including Greenpeace itself on other issues including forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture, and the use of chemicals for many applications.[5] According to Greenpeace, he is "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry" and is an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy and skeptical of human activity as the main cause for global warming.[6][7][8] ... Moore joined the committee in 1971 and, as Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter wrote, "Moore was quickly accepted into the inner circle on the basis of his scientific background, his reputation [as an environmental activist], and his ability to inject practical, no-nonsense insights into the discussions."[11]... In early 1977, Bob Hunter stepped down as president of the Greenpeace Foundation and Patrick Moore was elected president. He inherited an organization that was deeply in debt.[20] Greenpeace organizations began to form throughout North America, including cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Boston, and San Francisco. Not all of these offices accepted the authority of the founding organization in Canada. Moore's presidency and governance style proved controversial.[citation needed] Moore and his chosen board in Vancouver called for two meetings to formalize his governance proposals. During this time David Tussman, together with the rest of the founders, early activists of Greenpeace, and the majority of Greenpeace staff-members announced that the board of the San Francisco group intended to separate Patrick Moore's Greenpeace Foundation from the rest of the Greenpeace movement. After efforts to settle the matter failed, the Greenpeace Foundation filed a civil lawsuit in San Francisco charging that the San Francisco group was in violation of trademark and copyright by using the Greenpeace name without permission of the Greenpeace Foundation.
The lawsuit was settled at a meeting on 10 October 1979, in the offices of lawyer David Gibbons in Vancouver. Attending were Moore, Hunter, David McTaggart, Rex Weyler, and about six others. At this meeting it was agreed that Greenpeace International would be created. This meant that Greenpeace would remain a single organization rather than an amorphous collection of individual offices. McTaggart who had come to represent all the other Greenpeace groups against the Greenpeace Foundation, was named Chairman. Moore became President of Greenpeace Canada (the new name for Greenpeace Foundation) and a director of Greenpeace International. Other directors were appointed from the US, France, the UK, and the Netherlands. He served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada, as well as six years as a Director of Greenpeace International.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist))... In 1986, after leaving Greenpeace over differences in policy, Moore established a family salmon farming business, Quatsino Seafarms, at his home in Winter Harbour. He commented that he had left Greenpeace because it "took a sharp turn to the political left" and "evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas".[22][23]...In 2005, Moore criticized what he saw as scare tactics and disinformation employed by some within the environmental movement, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism."[4] Moore contends that for the environmental movement "most of the really serious problems have been dealt with", seeking now to "invent doom and gloom scenarios".[32] He suggests they romanticize peasant life as part of an anti-industrial campaign to prevent development in less-developed countries, which he describes as "anti-human".[33][34] Moore was interviewed in the 2007 film documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, in which he expressed similar views. In 2007 The Guardian reported on his writings for the Royal Society arguing against the theory that mankind was causing global warming, noting his advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops.[35] He has expressed his positive views of logging on the Greenspirit website.[36]... Moore calls global climate change the "most difficult issue facing the scientific community today in terms of being able to actually predict with any kind of accuracy what's going to happen".[34] In 2006, he wrote to the Royal Society arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global climate change[45] and believes that it "has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels".[46]
Moore has stated that global climate change and the melting of glaciers is not necessarily a negative event because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees.[47] Rather than climate change mitigation, Moore advocates adaptation to global warming.[48]
In 2014, Moore testified to the U.S. Congress on the subject of global climate change. "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," according to Moore's testimony. "Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today...Humans just aren't capable of predicting global temperature changes."[49] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist))

Trump ontkent ook klimaatverandering. Hij gaat echter verder met verdeeldheid kweken, haatzaaien en opruien. Terwijl hij zou net zoals  Dr. David Titley en Dr. Judith Curry zou kunnen wijzen op een gematigde koers van 'no regret'-beleidsoplossingen. Wat te denken van en muur met zonnepanelen en windmolens? Met die energie kun je de constructie dan toch zelf bekostigen?

President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t believe in climate change. 
Rebecca Harrington
09 Nov 2016
... The positions Trump and his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton had on environmental issues couldn’t be more different.
Most notably, she accepts climate change as a human-caused reality, while he does not.The scientific debate about climate change has ended, largely because it’s been an obvious, observable reality for decades now that humans are causing warming global temperatures, and the host of problems that come with them.
While Hillary Clinton listed “Protecting animals and wildlife” and “Climate change” as two major topics on her campaign website, Trump didn’t include anything about the environment.
Here’s where President-elect Trump stands on key environmental issues, based on positions outlined on his campaign website and public statements before Election Day.... He has tweeted dozens of times about how he does not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is real. You can read all of his tweets that have mentioned “climate change” or “global warming” here.
Trump wants to dismantle the Paris Agreement that sets targets to reverse the worst effects of global warming, which nearly 200 countries agreed to last December.
In response to a question about his views on climate change on ScienceDebate, Trump implied that the US shouldn’t waste “financial resources” on climate change and should instead use them to ensure the world has clean water, eliminate diseases like malaria, increase food production, or develop alternative energy sources.
“There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of ‘climate change,'” he said. “We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.” (https://www.businessinsider.nl/donald-trump-climate-change-global-warming-environment-policies-plans-platforms-2016-10/?international=true&r=US)

What are Donald Trump's policies on climate change and other environmental issues?
Share Publicly
Our experts report on Trump's policies on climate change, fracking, renewable energy, the Paris Agreement and trade.
Published:  05 Jul 2018    |    Last updated:  18 Jul 2018
Donald Trump has said he will pull the US out of the Paris international climate agreement, taken steps to cut back the US Environmental Protection Agency, and is on record saying that global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese to attack US manufacturing.
The growing impacts of climate change are extremely serious and require urgent action. Yet the person at the helm of the world’s largest economy is ignoring the science – and at times preferring to pass the whole thing off as a foreign conspiracy.
.... Trump has changed his mind a number of times on climate change.
In 2009 he was part of a business coalition  pressuring President Obama to act swiftly.
If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.
Business coalition, featuring Donald Trump, 2009
But by 2012 he was calling climate change a Chinese hoax.
During the 2016 election campaign he went further and threatened to pull out of all climate negotiations and treaties.
He then appeared to have a slight change of heart, confessing to having “an open mind”  – and agreeing “there is some connectivity” between human activity and climate change. However he also appointed a cabinet full of climate deniers and fossil fuel hangers-on.
And last year he followed through with an election-campaign threat, announcing that he would pull the US out of the Paris Agreement. The world's second largest emitter of climate-changing carbon dioxide gas might no longer be part of a deal to limit global temperature rise, and the extreme weather and sea rises that come with it. (https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate-change/what-are-donald-trumps-policies-climate-change-and-other-environmental-issues)

Trump on the Issues
President-Elect Donald J. Trump has denied the science of climate change many times in recent years, calling it a “con job” and a “myth,” and even suggesting the concept was “created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” As a presidential candidate, Trump said he did not believe climate change is a significant threat, and that he doubted humans contributed to it. “I consider climate change to be not one of our big problems,” he said in 2015. (https://www.cfr.org/interactives/campaign2016/donald-trump/on-energy-and-climate)

One year under Trump: 'Attack' on climate change fight
US president is rolling back the country's efforts to fight climate change. Here's a look at what he has done so far.
by Jillian Kestler-D'Amours 
17 Jan 2018
Last week, a group of more than 100 members of Congress sent a letter to Donald Trump, calling on the US president to reconsider his decision to remove the threat of climate change from his National Security Strategy. 
"We have heard from scientists, military leaders and civilian personnel who believe that climate change is indeed a direct threat to America's national security and to the stability of the world at large," the letter read. 
Trump announced his National Security Strategy at the end of last year, dropping climate change from its list of global threats. 
The move, the politicians said, "represents a step backwards on this issue and discredits those who deal in scientific fact". ... President Donald Trump has attempted to roll back environmental protection measures and commitments to fight climate change that were made under previous US administrations... (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/explained-donald-trump-attack-environment-171203184502851.html)


What are the Trump administration's policies?
Since taking office, Trump has systematically undone many existing climate and environmental safeguards, as well as policies pursued by his predecessor, Barack Obama.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved, under Trump, to repeal a plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Passed under the Obama administration, the Clean Power Plan (CPP) sought to reduce emissions to 32 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2030.
The Trump EPA has argued the CPP "is not consistent with the Clean Air Act" - a federal law to protect air quality and reduce air pollution across the country - but that claim has been challenged by environmental experts. 
The government also says a repeal would take "another step to advance President Trump's America First strategy".
The administration justified the decision by saying it is working to fulfil a campaign promise to bring coal mining jobs back to struggling communities across the country. ... Despite Trump's promises to "bring back coal", production levels and new jobs in the industry only slightly increased, according to local media. ... In December, the Trump EPA also dropped a requirement that forced mining companies to prove they have the financial means to clean up any pollution they cause, the Associated Press reported. The decision came amid pushback from mining groups and Republicans in the western US, the news agency said.
(https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/explained-donald-trump-attack-environment-171203184502851.html)

Grappig anekdote hierbij is een dat er een filmpje is van Arnold Schwarzenegger die Trump toespreekt en de kolenindustrie vergelijkt met de videotheek. Zie https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/arnold-schwarzenegger-trump-video-message/index.html en https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/06/29/donald-trump-arnold-schwarzenegger-feud-orig-js.cnn.

Why did the US drop out of the Paris Agreement?
In line with his administration's "America First" mantra, Trump has argued the agreement undermines the US economy and the country's sovereignty. But the president has said he would be open to renegotiating "a deal that's fair" to US interests.
The withdrawal process will take until November 2020 to complete.
When he announced the withdrawal, Trump said, "the same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and, in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance.
"I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris," he said.
However, the mayor of Pittsburgh, Bill Peduto, said his city would continue to follow the guidelines set out by the accord.  (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/explained-donald-trump-attack-environment-171203184502851.html)

"The scientific community has studied this issue for decades. The consensus message from many national and international assessments of the science is pretty simple: Natural factors can't explain the size or patterns of observed warming," Ben Santer, climate researcher at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, said in a statement.
"A large human influence on global climate is the best explanation for the warming we've measured and monitored," Santer said.
Dr Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, added in a statement that "Pruitt has demonstrated that he is unqualified to run the EPA or any agency.
"There is no doubt whatsoever that the planet is warming and it is primarily due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels," he said.
A recent report by a non-profit coalition of researchers and other academics found that climate change web content is being censored by the Trump administration. 
"Although there is no evidence of any removals of climate data, we have documented overhauls and removals of documents, web pages and entire websites, as well as significant language shifts," the Environmental Data Governance Initiative said in its January report. 
The report highlighted that the "EPA's removal and subsequent ongoing overhaul of its climate change website raises strong concerns about loss of access to valuable information for state, local and tribal governments, and for educators, policymakers and the general public". 
It added: "While we cannot determine the reasons for these changes from monitoring websites alone, our work reveals shifts in stated priorities and governance and an overall reduction in access to climate change information, particularly at the EPA." (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/explained-donald-trump-attack-environment-171203184502851.html)

Did Donald Trump Claim Global Warming Is a Hoax?
Donald Trump and his campaign refused to acknowledge instances of his referring to global warming/climate change as a "hoax." What does the public record show?
... Donald Trump’s stated views on global warming have changed over the past seven years or so (we’ll leave it to pundits to judge whether they’ve “evolved” or “devolved” in that time), as exemplified, on the one hand, by his endorsement of a 2009 letter urging the U.S. government to invest in a “clean energy economy” and pass legislation addressing the “immediate challenge” of climate change, and, on the other, by his November 2012 tweet stating that “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” (Contrary to rumor, Trump did not attempt to delete that tweet years after the fact.)
Trump’s current position, as clarified by his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, in a 27 September 2016 interview with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota, is that climate change exists but is “naturally occurring.”
(https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-global-warming-hoax/)


Does Trump still think climate change is a hoax?
... At one point the president made a somewhat oblique reference to current climate science, asserting that even if all nations hit their self-set, non-mandatory greenhouse gas emissions targets under the Paris agreement, it would only result in a reduction of 0.2 degrees in average global temperatures by the year 2100. (The researchers who conducted the study said the number he cited was outdated and misrepresented.)
Mr Trump's relative silence on the matter has left reporters wondering whether the president still stands by earlier comments - and tweets - expressing serious scepticism about whether climate change is real.
Does he still believe it's a Chinese plot to make the US less competitive, as he tweeted in November 2012? Or that it is a money-making "hoax", as he said during a December 2015 campaign rally?"
... He's occasionally backed away from such sweeping denunciations. During the first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton, he denied having ever blamed the Chinese. In a New York Times interview shortly after his election victory, he said he thinks there's "some connectivity" between human activity and climate change.
After Mr Trump announced his Paris agreement withdrawal, reporters posed the almost-too-obvious question once again to White House aides tasked with selling the move to the public. ... They asked about it during an on-background session with two administration officials on Thursday afternoon. They asked White House advisor Kellyanne Conway during a television appearance Friday morning. They asked Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt during his press conference on Friday afternoon.
Time and time again the answer was some variation of "I don't know", "I can't say" or "that's not relevant". (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40128034)

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten