Lion of the Blogosphere

How Trump can end the climate change “consensus”

The reason why there’s a “consensus” that climate change is happening is because it’s such a huge career detriment for a scientist to be skeptical of global warming. The E.P.A. spends billions of dollars a year on climate change research and the research money only goes to scientists who believe (or claim to believe) in climate change.

Once Trump controls the E.P.A., he can redirect the billions of dollars to research skeptical of climate change. And suddenly, overnight, we will see large numbers of skeptical scientists appear out of nowhere and there will no longer be a “consensus.”

Scott Pruitt, who Trump appointed to lead the E.P.A., is an experienced attorney general and climate change skeptic who will know how to legally redirect the E.P.A.’s huge budget towards skeptical research.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

December 11, 2016 at 10:44 am

Posted in Uncategorized

144 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Trump could do that.

    But that would make the situation even worse. Fighting man made climate change and its disastrous consequences is hard enough. There’s no need to make it worse by hiding it behind fake science government propaganda.

    Trump should cut payroll taxes and replace the revenue with a broad-based carbon tax. With a high enough carbon tax he could cut hydrocarbon fuel consumption and also pay a small dividend to America’s working families by cancelling their first few hundred dollars of payroll tax entirely and raising Social Security benefits to replace erosion of benefits by inflation.

    Then he can use the carbon tax to impose tariffs on cheap foreign manufacturing havens that don’t have carbon taxes. It will force some elite Democrats onto his side on the trade agenda.

    owentt

    December 11, 2016 at 10:59 am

    • Why do all that when climate change is fake science? Once skeptical research is adequately funded, we will find out the truth.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 11, 2016 at 11:02 am

      • Except it’s not fake science, and this belief that a new EPA chief can cause a sea-change testifies to an optimistic but belligerently ignorant opposition. Have you forgotten about the last Bush administration?

        Vince

        December 11, 2016 at 11:32 am

      • Bush was a cuck. Trump is an alpha who is serious about not believing in global warming and in keeping his campaign promises.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 11, 2016 at 12:59 pm

      • @LotB:

        come out into the country, and see for yourself: climate change is happening, and denying this fact is pigheaded idiocy.

        the big issue is whether this is a temporary oscillation of nature or is this phenomenon indeed man-made?

        and if so, then global population control is much more effective than any co2 restriction.

        barton parker

        December 11, 2016 at 11:53 am

      • barton — The long term secular trend shows the earth has been warming ever since the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Otherwise, you’d be standing on a glacier over a mile thick. Three cheers for global warming. I do love me some global warming.

        But there’s been no warming for the past twenty years they’ve been howling about it. Is that because we’ve stopped emitting “greenhouse gases”? Nope. In fact, there’s been no warming since 1895. They’ve created a false trend by adjusting the data to show a cooler past and a warmer present. If you use the actual raw data it’s gotten cooler.

        destructure

        December 11, 2016 at 1:45 pm

      • China is a major pollutant-offender — and catastrophic flooding is a serious concern in that part of the world. Is there a correlation between global warming and heavy rain? It seems likely.

        JS

        December 11, 2016 at 1:58 pm

      • I am in the country a lot. There’s no sign of climate change.

        CamelCaseRob

        December 11, 2016 at 3:03 pm

      • I like the Lion plan but he characteristically jumps to the actual solution instead of getting to the incremental steps.

        How do you think that the Leftists got society to accept the idea that *not* allowing 40 yo pervs into girls bathrooms was “Hate”? You have to build up an elaborate set of frame concepts and then powerful, usually fake, anecdotes to change peoples’ beliefs before they know whats happened.

        I’d start with three suggestions:
        1. Leak out general figures on how much is being spent on global warming cottage industry. People probably think that Big Oil is giving 10x the money when in reality there is probably 100x the amount spent pimping climate change. But the public doesnt realize the incentive to get on the gravy train. Bonus: A “Lucky Jim” meets “Silicon Valley” netflix series.

        2. Use the Spotlight technique to discredit. The Catholic clergy have a rate of sexual abuse much less than the general population but they got tarred with the brush to take away their moral authority. Popularize a couple of stories of gullible coeds being exploited on ice flows when isolated by creepy Michael Mann types. All funded by the tax payer.

        3. A general investigation of fake science. The reproducability crisis is real and its time the Federal government jumps in with both feet to protect society! Lives are at risk and we are paying for useless medicines with Obamacare. Then before you know it the government is able to discredit these polar bear papers peer reviewed by a spouse and friends of the author. A side benefit will be that ridiculous pop sociology papers wont be published because we cant have universities funding fake science.

        Bonus #4- if we arent promoting California succession we should be.

        Lion of the Turambar

        December 11, 2016 at 3:26 pm

      • There were only a tiny number of priests doing it, but the problem is that priests have access to children and an unusual level of trust with the parents, and the Catholic Church did nothing when they had notice that there was a problem with some priests.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 11, 2016 at 3:30 pm

    • You big dummy. The problem is people on your side won’t tell us where the goalposts are. How clean does the air need to be? What do the temperatures have to be, and when, for how long? How about an experiment: No cheap car loans to Mexicans for ten years, there’s see where the climate is. Of course, Chrysler would have to go out of business, but small price.

      Marty

      December 11, 2016 at 12:08 pm

  2. Part of the problem is that the “consensus” is a bait and switch.

    Is there a consensus that the climate is changing? That mankind’s activities are having an effect on the client? Probably yes.

    Is there a consensus that mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to lead to dangerous levels of warming? Absolutely not.

    Unfortunately, Leftists get away with blurring the distinction between and among these positions.

    But anyway, I agree that Donald Trump could do a lot to undermine the phony consensus.

    fortaleza84

    December 11, 2016 at 11:18 am

    • Yeah, Charlie Munger, Warren Buffet’s best friend is a meteorologist and said the same.

      The Philosopher

      December 11, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    • The same people that argued for years that there was no warming are the people now saying there is warming but humans didn’t cause it.

      magnavox

      December 11, 2016 at 3:51 pm

      • You are leftist/Trucon/Paleocon scum. I’m not sure which.

        Nobody is saying humans don’t contribute to global warming. What people are asking is how much of the warming trend can be attributed to humans and what can practically be done about it. Considering the number 1 driver of the increases in greenhouse gasses is mass immigration, something that global warming believers all passionately support, skepticism is justified.

        Otis the Sweaty

        December 11, 2016 at 4:45 pm

      • People can have competing values. Environmentalists used to be opposed to immigration much more. I’m an environmentalist who is opposed to immigration which I’m pretty sure means I’m neither a leftist, a trucon, or a paleocon.

        magnavox

        December 11, 2016 at 6:07 pm

      • if you were really opposed to immigration you wouldn’t be anti Trump.

        Otis the Sweaty

        December 11, 2016 at 8:33 pm

      • You are leftist/Trucon/Paleocon scum. I’m not sure which.

        For the love of Darwin can you just exterminate him already?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        December 11, 2016 at 8:50 pm

  3. Human emissions of greenhouse gasses cause the surface temperature of Earth to become warmer. This is the reality. Just give it up already.

    Two in the Bush

    December 11, 2016 at 11:23 am

    • No. Solar radiation causes the surface temperature of the Earth to become warmer. That is an objective fact. Whether greenhouse gases trap some of that solar radiation is another matter.

      destructure

      December 11, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    • “Human emissions of greenhouse gasses cause the surface temperature of Earth to become warmer. This is the reality”

      I agree, but the question is “how much warmer?” If it’s only a modest amount, it’s of little concern.

      fortaleza84

      December 11, 2016 at 3:12 pm

  4. I’ll bet there are climate scientists sitting on politically unpopular research right now for fear of having their funding cut and being attacked by environmental extremists.

    destructure

    December 11, 2016 at 12:08 pm

  5. Good idea. Hopefully you expand upon this in the future.

    Global Warmer

    December 11, 2016 at 12:20 pm

  6. But then the left will suddenly decide that government funding is a conflict of interest.

    John Smith

    December 11, 2016 at 12:29 pm

  7. I think in the long run, real science will win on this issue, but in the short run, there isn’t much point in fighting the climate “consensus” directly. Politically speaking, I think the correct position would be, as the PUA’s would say, “agree and amplify.” The problem isn’t the science conclusion, it’s the proposed solutions. But none of the proposed solutions really have anything to do with mitigating global warming, it’s all about higher taxes and more government control; it’s the same solution to every environmental problem.

    Trump can say, that he agrees that the Earth is warming, and that it’s at least partially man-made, but totally disagrees with the current proposed solutions. Instead he could propose a massive program to nuclearize our energy grid, since solar isn’t there yet. Condemn oceanside homes, like Barbara Strisand’s and other celebrities, and mock celebrities who who fly around in private planes. They could compile a “carbon list” of the biggest carbon hogs (they will all be Hollywood celebs of course) and the sweetest one, is propose EPA changes that allow sulfur dioxide pollution since in large quantities in the upper atmosphere, it reflects heat and cools the planet.

    It would be entertaining anyway.

    Mike Street Station

    December 11, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    • “Trump can say, that he agrees that the Earth is warming, and that it’s at least partially man-made, but totally disagrees with the current proposed solutions. Instead he could propose a massive program to nuclearize our energy grid, since solar isn’t there yet. Condemn oceanside homes, like Barbara Strisand’s and other celebrities, and mock celebrities who who fly around in private planes. They could compile a “carbon list” of the biggest carbon hogs (they will all be Hollywood celebs of course) and the sweetest one, is propose EPA changes that allow sulfur dioxide pollution since in large quantities in the upper atmosphere, it reflects heat and cools the planet.”

      Now this, this is change we can believe in!

      Two in the Bush

      December 11, 2016 at 1:08 pm

      • We can put mirrors on top of the wall with Mexico to reflect sunlight back into space.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 11, 2016 at 1:10 pm

      • All that shows is that you don’t care about the truth you just dislike liberals and want to punish them. As soon as believing in man made climate change allows you to screw over the people you dislike more than not believing it, you’re all in.

        Everyone is motivated in part by feelings like this but responsible people try to suppress those motivations in favor of being rational.

        magnavox

        December 11, 2016 at 3:53 pm

      • No shitstain, he is cynically using something he doesn’t believe in, but pretends to believe in to punish his enemies. Hmmm doesn’t that sound familiar, I wonder if liberals ever did this or of a famous liberal by the name of Saul Alinsky even wrote a book about this. I wonder if that’s what the Podesta emails said about democrats use of black and Hispanic and women voters.

        We should use all the tools at our disposal to eradicate the left. There’s no longer any need to play fair since it’s obvious the Left’s ultimate agenda really is Stalinism, even in this country and they don’t play fair when in power. Wipe them from the earth. Leave no man woman or child on the left, left standing. They must all be in destitution and poverty with a healthy dose of social ostricization by the end of Trump’s second term. Let their descendants be blacklisted from society for 1000 years.

        RighteousCockofZeus

        December 11, 2016 at 5:37 pm

      • magnavox — MMGW is a sham being used to push a leftist agenda. Those are two completely separate things — science and agenda. I’m perfectly capable of separating the two. But why shouldn’t you bastards be screwed with your own scam?

        destructure

        December 11, 2016 at 5:52 pm

      • I’m perfectly capable of separating the two. But why shouldn’t you bastards be screwed with your own scam?

        Because the people talking about AGW are smart enough to realize how stupid all his suggestions are and that they’re in no way required by their beliefs.

        magnavox

        December 11, 2016 at 6:10 pm

      • magnavox — Those “smart people” should be smart enough to know AGW is BS. Yet many of them are true believers. Maybe they’re not so smart after all?

        destructure

        December 11, 2016 at 8:35 pm

    • He could also point out that third-world immigration causes big increases in American CO2 emissions.

      fortaleza84

      December 11, 2016 at 3:14 pm

  8. Well Rex Tillerson, Exxon Mobil CEO and presumptive Sos accepts the need for a carbon tax and man made climate change.

    The Philosopher

    December 11, 2016 at 12:57 pm

  9. For AGW to real science, you’d have to have a working model of the earth’s climate in all its complexity (including flora and fauna) that you could run simulations on and see those simulated results line up with observed temps on the real earth for decades to get statistically significant results.

    Do these ‘scientists’ have anything like this? Of course not. The only bigger hoax than AGW is neo-darwinism.

    Andrew E.

    December 11, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    • To top that off, most of the historical temperature “measurements” are really just estimates of temperatures based on tree rings with a margin of error the size of the supposed climate change.

      Is the climate changing? Yes, of course, this is how it’s been for billions of years. Are humans causing it? Fuck no. If humans were able to make such massive effects on planet sized environments we’d be terraforming Mars by now.

      Do humans account for 0.0001% of climate variation? Sure, but so do cockroaches and cows.

      RighteousCockofZeus

      December 11, 2016 at 5:43 pm

      • Well,
        Scrotum licker, It doesn’t follow that humans being able to cause climate change means that we would be terraforming Mars.

        Clay

        December 11, 2016 at 10:47 pm

    • No, high carb diets and the food pyramid/ fat and cholesterol cause heart disease are also a pretty big hoaxes. College leading to better jobs is a pretty big hoax (I guess Griggs vs Duke can be lumped in there, but that ties back into neodarwinism).

      Some people dispute HIV being causal to AIDS so that may also be a giant hoax.

      The conventional wisdom on women’s sexual preferences is a massive hoax.

      Communism being a workable system of living for any sexually competitive species is a massive hoax.

      The rabbit hole probably goes pretty deep.

      People thought JP Morgan manipulating silver markets was a massive ZeroHedge conspiracy for years until it came out as being true two years ago.

      Our energy supply being in danger (and not functionally infinite with thorium nuke power and Fischer trope coal liquification) is also a massive hoax.

      Our entire society is built on liberal lies.

      RighteousCockofZeus

      December 11, 2016 at 5:48 pm

      • “College leading to better jobs is a pretty big hoax”

        Not a hoax, just that the benefits are exaggerated. It’s no exaggeration that WITHOUT a college degree you’re probably going to be f***ed by the labor markets, but there’s no guarantee that college will prevent that.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 11, 2016 at 5:51 pm

      • The key point is that both creationism and evolution are irrelevant.

        map

        December 11, 2016 at 8:03 pm

      • College is supposed to provide you with a well rounded education and it should be a litmus test for civic mindedness. But America only markets a college education with a prole mentality. It’s all about getting a job and earning more.

        Research has shown that liberal arts majors are psychologically healthier than those who went to school for purely vocational reasons. Being passionate about an intellectual subject is good for your mind. Just look at the residents in Staten Island as an extreme example.

        JS

        December 11, 2016 at 8:16 pm

      • The purpose of a liberal arts education is to pass civilization onto the next generation.

        map

        December 12, 2016 at 12:56 am

      • “College leading to better jobs is a pretty big hoax”

        Hoax to idiots who don’t belong there. Mere attending college with a C GPA in some dingbat subject is the problem for most people. True, many Blacks do that but in business, and are quite happy with what they learned as it’s enough for them to use it to better the family store and open a second one. So for them college + hard work is a wild success so long as cheap. But not for others in silly subjects.

        Go to college,get A’s, don’t get in debt, take extra credits in many subjects, a business and philosophy minor and get a meaningful certification or two in something –education, engineering technology, computers, nursing–and you’ll walk into a job at $40K/yr. After that you’re on your own.

        I’m writing this watching a kid from a great college sling coffee. He got C’s in sociology specializing in Marxism. Sociology can be very useful, but he has no idea what Spencer wrote or who Sorokin is or the relation of applied sociology to say quality control. He voted for Bernie because the world ‘owes’ him a $100K job, and the system is corrupt because ‘lazy idiots’ like Trump ‘who live off capital’ are stealing from him. He’s a nice guy as long as he stays off subjects he thinks he’s an expert in, and invariably screws up my orders.

        The Black owner is getting sick of him. A very old story.

        Robert

        December 12, 2016 at 11:01 am

      • You are spreading a false myth in the conservative blogosphere that the primary problem is that people are majoring in bogus majors like feminism. In fact, those kinds of majors are quite uncommon and are predominately majored in by students who have rich parents. Furthermore, people with rich parents who go to Harvard and major in Marxism still wind up getting into elite career tracks.

        “Business” is the most popular major because it sounds like it helps you make more money and that’s the primary reason that most people who aren’t really college material go to college.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 12, 2016 at 12:22 pm

      • Lion does have a good point.

        You need to go to college because corporate Human Resource departments will screen you out if you don’t. Most people aren’t majoring in feminism or other bogus majors. People are practical about their college majors. It’s just that college is sold as a greater benefit than it is.

        That is why student loans need to be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

        map

        December 12, 2016 at 1:28 pm

  10. I’m not sure how much government funding of research is done by the EPA.

    A large fraction of government funding of research comes from the NSF. The NSF is an “independent” government agency. It has a Director and a 24 member Board of Directors (BOD) appointed by the President. The Director and BOD all serve 6 year terms. The Director was appointed in 2014, so will not be replaced until 2020. Four members of the BOD are appointed every year. I think It would take 3 or 4 years before Trump could appoint a majority of the board. This all assumes that Trump can find enough anti-climate change scientist to appoint to the BOD. Note that the Director is subject to Senate approval but the BOD members are not.

    Funding requests to NSF are reviewed by other scientists in the same field. This process is certainly not free from bias, but the idea that there is a consensus on climate change because of government funding is naive. There is funding available from non-government sources for scientist skeptical of climate change.

    There is a consensus because the evidence supporting it is strong and the arguments put forward by skeptics are weak.

    mikeca

    December 11, 2016 at 1:36 pm

  11. Back in the olde days:

    Vincent

    December 11, 2016 at 1:43 pm

  12. Lots of stupid pro-warmist comments here. The truth is this:
    1. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, even doubling CO2 would cause at most a 1 degree C rise in temperatures.
    2. All the computer models have been wrong – they grossly overestimated the rise in temperatures. The models are not based purely on data, they have many parameters that are set by hand based on the modeler’s choices.
    3. The actual rise in temperature is very gradual and mostly beneficial – CO2 is an essential nutrient for plants, commercial greenhouses often add CO2 to increase plant growth. The current rise in CO2 is “greening” the earth.
    4. The supposed global warming apocalypse is based on speculative positive feedback loops which have so far not actually occurred. That’s one of the reasons for the failure of the computer models.
    5. Instead there appears to be a powerful negative feedback loop from increased cloud formation. Higher temps cause more evaporation from the oceans, that leads to more clouds which increase the earth’s albedo and act to cool things back down.
    6. There are plenty of scientific skeptics of the Al Gore “the seas will boil away” apocalypse story but they are censored by the media and never funded by governments.

    JimBonobo

    December 11, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    • I agree with all of this 100%, but I would add one thing:

      In a system which has been somewhat stable for a long time despite numerous outside stresses, the presumption should be in favor of negative feedback. By analogy, a random rock is unlikely to be found balanced precariously at the peak of a mountain for hundreds of thousands of years.

      Put another way, the people arguing for positive feedback bear a heavy burden of proof. And pretty much the only evidence they offer to support this burden is computer models which are great at making predictions after the fact.

      fortaleza84

      December 11, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    • All the computer models have been wrong – they grossly overestimated the rise in temperatures. The models are not based purely on data, they have many parameters that are set by hand based on the modeler’s choices.

      All scientific models are to a certain extent more art than science because they depend heavily on human judgment to correctly select what variables to include and exclude and how to interpret often mixed results.

      But climate models have two problems that make their reliability particularly dubious: One is that the complexity of the atmosphere is so great that what factors influence it are still poorly understood; if scientists don’t understand how the atmospheric system functions how can they produce actionable suggestions?

      Second, climate scientists never question their underlying model no matter how far off the models predictions are from the real results. And it is how close a model’s predictions come to predicting results that determine the worth of the model. When AGW dogmatists admitted the earth had not warmed as much as they predicted for the past 18 years they never did what normal scientists do which is to see where the logical failing in their original theory was.

      The fact they hold on stubbornly to their sacred beliefs no matter the results should tell you global warming is an irrational religious belief instead of an objective science.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      December 11, 2016 at 3:55 pm

      • AGW models are incredibly similar to Ptolemaic astronomy with people inventing more and more convoluted hypotheses and modulations to the basic model.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        December 11, 2016 at 7:03 pm

      • AGW models are incredibly similar to Ptolemaic astronomy with people inventing more and more convoluted hypotheses and modulations to the basic model.

        I doubt whether Ptolemaic astrologers missed the mark as often as modern climate modelers.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        December 11, 2016 at 8:44 pm

      • Ptolemaic model’s strength derived it’s usefulness from naval navigation.

        map

        December 12, 2016 at 1:02 am

    • “CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, even doubling CO2 would cause at most a 1 degree C rise in temperatures.”

      Where have you received this wisdom that almost all the climate scientist have missed?

      The physics of climate change are well understood. The Earth receives a certain amount of energy from the Sun. The Earth radiates a certain amount of energy back into space. With higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere it is harder for heat energy to reach the upper atmosphere where it can escape as IR. This means the atmosphere must warm up to radiate enough energy to bring the Earth back into energy balance.

      In the long term the Earth will come back into balance, but in the short term lots of things can happen and the short term here can be many years or even many decades. It is estimated that more than 90% of the trapped energy will be stored in the ocean, raising the temperature of the ocean. We know that shallow ocean temperatures are rising. The history of deep ocean temperatures is not as well known. The exchange mechanisms of heat between the ocean and air is not well understood either.

      The air is warming, the ocean is warming, the ice caps are getting smaller and sea level is rising.

      Do we need to wait till waves are rolling into the lobby of Trump tower before we admit that climate change is probably real?

      https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

      mikeca

      December 11, 2016 at 6:12 pm

      • Like most liberals, mikeca, literally has no idea what he is talking about. Everyone who knows about the climate, including the warmist researchers, knows that CO2 will not warm the earth all that much by itself and it hasn’t done much so far. Most of the Earth’s greenhouse effect is from water vapor, not CO2. So, the real question is all about feedback loops.The warmists assume (with no real evidence) that there are strong positive feedback loops that will magnify the effects of CO2, the skeptics say that the negative feedback loops will dominate and the temperature will be relatively stable. So far the actual evidence supports the skeptics more than the warmists. We have seen a slow, gradual warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1680, CO2 may have sped it up a little in recent decades but nothing major so far. It really is about the politics, the power, the money. There is no global warming crisis.

        JimBonobo

        December 11, 2016 at 8:34 pm

      • Mikeca,

        How is this warming going to occur if the increase in CO2 gets consumed by plants? The result isn’t warming but plant growth.

        And it begs a question: how do ice ages occur? Do dropping C02 levels somehow correlate with vast chunks of ice across continents.

        Maybe trying to ration CO2 is not a good idea.

        map

        December 12, 2016 at 1:05 am

      • “The Earth receives a certain amount of energy from the Sun. “

        The Earth does NOT however receive a constant amount of energy from the sun. The sun goes through cycles. Warmers incorrectly assume constant input.

        destructure

        December 12, 2016 at 5:59 pm

  13. Its best to be agnostic. I’m not a scientist. You are not a scientist. And neither is anyone on this thread, far as I can tell. It seems most of the scientists in academia, government, and privately accept it.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    You have to understand most people who become scientists aren’t doing it for the money. Most people denying it, are. Most scientists are autists that can’t lie.

    Many of the people that deny climate change also denied CFCs, tobacco, asbestos and so on for financial reasons. Notice how this group generally doesn’t want any environmental regulation at all.

    On the other hand, most scientists don’t accept Human Bio Diversity.

    So unless one receives training in meteorology, ecology, geology, oceanography, and so on who the hell knows. Like Charlie Munger, I’m skeptical of the extent of it. There are more important issues…like the border.

    The Philosopher

    December 11, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    • Would Charlie Munger be concerned about the border? I used to work in his law firm. Everyone was a PC liberal. This was during the “it takes a village” days.

      Explainer21

      December 11, 2016 at 3:53 pm

      • Thats interesting.

        The Philosopher

        December 11, 2016 at 5:11 pm

      • By chance, I’m reading Charlie’s Almanack, a sort of festschrift to Munger’s greater glory. He comes off as a rich, nice-ish mid-westerner of a now gone age; desires anonymity though not modest as such, thrifty, rather strict with his many children (but not the insane sort you sometimes read about), generous to social causes and to friends in trouble, most likely a long-time Democrat. He only deviates from the template by lacking most social graces, by being mostly but not entirely self-educated in the mid-Western mold (a lot of Cicero and Benjamin Franklin, but really with broad and continuing interests) and by possessing what I expect is a very high IQ. His one-word summary of why he has been successful: “Rationalism.”

        Looking at the home page of his law firm, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, it does seem rather PC. “Munger Tolles Repeats Perfect Score in 2017 Corporate Equality – Munger Tolles earned a perfect score on the 2017 Corporate Equality Index (CEI), the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s 14th annual scorecard surveying corporate policies and practices related to LGBT workplace equality nationwide.”

        Glengarry

        December 12, 2016 at 5:05 am

      • One of the things you can actually take away from university, apart from building your social network of course, is a toolbox of methods to solve problems. It turns out Munger has consciously assembled such a toolbox of “about one hundred” methods, among them redundancy/backup from engineering, compound interest from finance, tipping-point/autocatalysis from the natural sciences, the Darwinian synthesis and the cognitive misjudgement models from psychology (primarily Kahneman and Tversky, I assume). (p.56 and on.)

        It’s actually something I can recommend. A variety of methods to analyze and break down a problem means it probably becomes pliable to at least some approach. I use basically the same toolbox approach in the day job, though directed at a different area and probably not more than a dozen or so models in total, with less than that for more routine problems. It tends to work well.

        Glengarry

        December 12, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    • “denied CFCs, tobacco, asbestos and so on for financial reasons.”

      DuPont’s patent on CFC’s was running out, so it pushed climate change so that it’s non-CFC based product could get a foothold in the market.

      Everyone knew tobacco was unhealthy. Most vices are. And the same people who hate tobacco so much are the same people who want to legalize pot.

      Asbestos was used in gas masks in WWII and even in cigarettes without harm. It was also used as a fir retardant. It is only harmful if you eat it like Twinkies or breathe particles in like cocaine.

      Scientists are autistic and solipsistic. They are big supporters of big government because they think the government is going to back their pet project. Furthermore, science is an easy job. You teach two hours a week and spend the rest of your time writing papers on topics you find interesting. The climate scam allows you to publish easy nonsense which keeps you employed at the university and you don’t have to worry about peer-review debunking your results. Don’t be fooled by scientists. It’s not a life of celibacy and poverty.

      “So unless one receives training in meteorology, ecology, geology, oceanography, and so on who the hell knows. Like Charlie Munger, I’m skeptical of the extent of it. There are more important issues…like the border.”

      That standard is too low. As a matter of public policy, science can only be trusted at the point when it becomes engineering. If you can’t build a simple machine, or a simple physical object or establish a reliable and consistent predictive track record, then, chances are, all of the physical principles on which your expounding are wrong. That’s what most of these fields you list are…a more systemic example of “just-so” stories.

      You need to adopt and understand that practical demonstrations are the proper check on abstract knowledge and the only real way to establish a true command of the subject matter. If you insist that you are a bridge builder, then it is far more effective to have you stand under the bridge that you built while the load is tested, than to have you bombard me with all of your credentials.

      map

      December 11, 2016 at 5:54 pm

      • Well you’re just plan wrong on tobacco and asbestos. As far as I know there was a multi billion dollar campaign to quash the research or as the Russel Crowe movie showed, eliminate questioning scientists.

        Your point about engineering is interesting. But quite frankly a lot of advanced physics is done theoretically with math rather than inductively through controlled experiments which are not possible and not really needed. We knew about relativity long before we sent up the first satellites and waited 20 years to notice the time lag in between orbit and ground.

        But yes, whenever possible, the application of theory should be done.

        The Philosopher

        December 11, 2016 at 6:01 pm

      • I said “as a matter of public policy.” That’s the qualifier. Most of the “research” that is being quashed is just a hit job beyond established facts, claiming harms that do not exist.

        map

        December 12, 2016 at 1:13 am

      • A pleasant troll, our Philosopher, I hazard. Physics has a big, well-known problem with untestable math-only theories, string theory and friends in particular.

        Relativity was not considered real until confirmed by experiment, which was first done by various earthly observation and then further refined over time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity).

        (And please don’t refer to movies as evidence.)

        Glengarry

        December 12, 2016 at 4:26 am

    • “I’m not a scientist. You are not a scientist. And neither is anyone on this thread, far as I can tell”

      You don’t need to be an astrologer to know that astrology is BS. You need only observe two things: First, if astrology were legitimate, then astrologers should be able to make interesting accurate predictions. Second, that astrologers are in fact unable to make interesting accurate predictions. The same is true of warmist climate science.

      “You have to understand most people who become scientists aren’t doing it for the money. Most people denying it, are. Most scientists are autists that can’t lie”

      Maybe at the beginning, but the process of getting through grad school; getting published; getting research grants; getting jobs; getting tenure; and getting recognition is intensely political. The people who make it through this process either adapt to these requirements or get left by the wayside.

      fortaleza84

      December 12, 2016 at 11:43 am

      • “Maybe at the beginning, but the process of getting through grad school; getting published; getting research grants; getting jobs; getting tenure; and getting recognition is intensely political. The people who make it through this process either adapt to these requirements or get left by the wayside.”

        Indeed, the honest chumps fails to get ahead. The people who get tenure know how to play politics. They know not to say they believe that blacks have lower IQs than whites, or that they are skeptical about climate change.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 12, 2016 at 12:28 pm

      • “The people who get tenure know how to play politics. They know not to say they believe that blacks have lower IQs than whites, or that they are skeptical about climate change.”

        Here are a few other things they know not to say:
        1) Men are stronger than women.
        2) Mohammedans might not be a perfect fit for Western countries.
        3) Gypsies may be involved in more scams than Scandinavians.
        4) Blacks domination of sprinting has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics.

        Lewis Medlock

        December 12, 2016 at 5:37 pm

  14. Mr. Blogosphere is a genius on everything but climate change. Sad!

    (he also thinks there’s diminishing returns to IQ, despite no evidence of such. Also sad!)

    ruhkukah

    December 11, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    • Climate change? What happened to global warming? Don’t be such a chump.

      Vincent

      December 11, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    • What horrible pieces of shit people are for proposing solutions that try to prevent global catastrophe. People who believe in AGW are pretty open about the fact that rich nations are going to be able to skate through climate change relatively unaffected. It’s not some kind of gotcha that, based on their on values and suppositions, they’re trying to help the poorest people.

      magnavox

      December 11, 2016 at 6:19 pm

      • Ho-hum, won’t somebody care about about the chiiiildren?

        Anyone remember all the scare propaganda a decade or two ago? New York freezing due to complicated global warming reasons in that movie. (I believe there was a scene where Mexico happily welcomes hordes of Americans fleeing south too.) That was the time of the big political push when the global elites were trying to set up their nice little scheme.

        My best memory of this time was a huge display, perhaps a couple of hundred feet long and twenty feet wide, set up in the middle of a prime real estate shopping center, depicting a ludicrous desert landscape populated mainly by a few (white!) mannequins standing around huffing on their breathing apparati. There may have been dying polar bears too. I still regret not thoroughly photographing the whole thing for posterity. Anyway, that whole piece of scare propaganda had to be pretty costly. I wonder who paid for it? (OK, it was the tax payer.)

        Glengarry

        December 12, 2016 at 4:39 am

      • magnavox finally told a little bit of truth. It’s about wealth distribution. It’s a scheme to make advanced countries pay 3rd world countries for a bunch of magic bean carbon credits. Marxism on a global scale. I swear environmentalists are like watermelons — green on the outside but red on the inside.

        destructure

        December 12, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    • No, it’s another anti-white program.

      map

      December 12, 2016 at 1:14 am

  15. And suddenly, overnight, we will see large numbers of skeptical scientists appear out of nowhere and there will no longer be a “consensus.”

    Same with evolution. Get that president Trump to start funding creation research, and we’ll ‘suddenly’ have tons of evidence for creation theory!

    Samson J.

    December 11, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    • Creationism is religion not science. We wouldn’t be having this argument at all if evolution didn’t conflict with the Old Testament, a document which is proven to be almost entirely false, false history, plus miracles and supernatural stuff that only small children or those with small minds could seriously believe.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 11, 2016 at 5:47 pm

      • I am not a “creationist” but I know what the limits of human reason – and in particular, the limits of human reason as applied to the sort of person who spends his or her life in academia – are. Lots of people who are clearly intelligent – like, for example, Isaac Newton, the Rabbi Gamaliel, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Maimonides, Wallace Stevens, Isaac Bashevis SInger, maybe even me and at least a dozen other commenters here, and the great geniuses Einstein and Sholom Aleichem – are closer to the “creationist” side of the sad clueless scale of human intelligence than to the “anti-creationist” side of the sad clueless scale of human intelligence. Sure lots of “creationists” are intellectually dishonest but the world is what it is: and the Old Testament describes it better than any politically correct school teacher or university professor, no matter how many prizes and grants the school teacher or university professor gets.

        howitzer daniel

        December 11, 2016 at 8:03 pm

      • You know creationism has a lot to it. But not in the way most people think.

        The Philosopher

        December 12, 2016 at 5:12 am

      • Yes, I know it, and you know it…but so many people, even people who should know better, take the word of half-educated professors and talkative elites that “Adam and Eve” never existed or that “Moses” was never a leader of the Chosen People. So many people would be happier if they were less intellectually humble vis-a-vis those half-educated professors and talkative elites! Adam and Eve were our ancestors, who still care about us as they pray for us in Heaven, and Moses, although he really did not want to, talked to God for us – and the professors and talkative elites don’t really like most of us all that much. Unless we are paying tuition (for ourselves or for our kids) or buying their newspapers, in which case they try to flatter us. If you haven’t seen God lately maybe you haven’t been looking – some woman on this earth looks more like Eve than any other living woman, some man looks more like Moses than any other living man – which is trivial beside the fact that God has spoken to each of us, through scripture, and in other ways. People laugh at the Ten Commandments but how many people do you know smart enough to give you better advice??? Most advice even from our best friends is more like Moe and Larry and Curly talking to each other than it is like the Ten Commandments. And that is just a small part of the Old Testament.

        howitzer daniel

        December 12, 2016 at 9:01 pm

  16. Whatever.

    The problem is that climate science does not have any predictive track record that is both non-obvious and significant. You have a narrative being pushed by people who paid to believe the narrative, along with the various drug-addled, brain-dead acolytes.

    Every weather event is simply attributed to climate change, like every bad event used to be attributed to a lack of human sacrifice. It’s absurd.

    map

    December 11, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    • Don’t be silly, every bad event is the Republicans’ fault.

      RighteousCockofZeus

      December 11, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    • This is something everyone here who is a climate booster needs to understand: climate science is the gateway drug of leftist nonsense entry-ism. If you believe that, then you allow in all kinds of other leftist error. Every big-government, socialist project, every violation of natural rights, every abuse of people imaginable, becomes fair game once climate nonsense is accepted.

      It is important to inoculate yourself against this fraud.

      map

      December 11, 2016 at 5:59 pm

      • sorry nope map, you sound like the ideologue here. i’m firmly on the right but i’m a deeply empirically driven person where it is necessitated and accept climate change on the basis of my reading of the science and the evidence. speak for yourself.

        james n.s.w

        December 11, 2016 at 8:24 pm

      • You are trusting the work of people paid by government entities salivating at the prospect of controlling people’s lives. How can you trust these research when the entities pushing it have such nasty ulterior motives?

        map

        December 12, 2016 at 1:17 am

      • “You are trusting the work of people paid by government entities salivating at the prospect of controlling people’s lives”

        Probably he’s just a concern troll. A true “deeply empirically driven person” would have noticed that the warmists have an abysmal track record in making predictions.

        fortaleza84

        December 12, 2016 at 11:34 am

  17. Unfortunately even controlling the power of the purse will have a limited effect; climate skeptics will still be blacklisted from getting tenure or promotions.

    snorlax

    December 11, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    • I kinda disagree. In science, the ability to bring in research money plays a big role in getting tenure.

      fortaleza84

      December 12, 2016 at 11:29 am

  18. Comment on DKos about Trump:

    “He’s a loudmouthed bully. The worst that anybody can do is take such a person at his word (as voters did in the election). Remember how he caved to the President of Mexico. Why is he suddenly the guy who gets anything he wants, and why are agency representatives suddenly less capable and less motivated as the President of Mexico. The President is a head of state, but it is a myth that such a person is all powerful. If this was the case, the Obama legacy would be very different than it is today. Lets keep our wits about us. This President has already using a great deal of political capital. It looks to me he isn’t going to have a significant Honeymoon. We already have him (and his internally divided and backbiting campaign loyalists and staff) on the run!”

    Otis the Sweaty

    December 11, 2016 at 7:20 pm

    • Dude, that’s the KosCrew. All morons, including Kos himself who got smacked around by the bruthas in DC.

      Vincent

      December 11, 2016 at 8:23 pm

    • Man, Otis you love hanging out at the enemy’s camps don’t you.

      Daily kos, neogaf….

      Comment on DKos about Trump:

      “He’s a loudmouthed bully. ….Remember how he caved to the President of Mexico. (????)….We already have him (and his internally divided and backbiting campaign loyalists and staff) on the run!”

      What? This person sounds psychotic.

      Rifleman

      December 12, 2016 at 9:26 am

  19. reading this over sounds like we’ve got a tonne of libertarian inspired people still left over here. if there’s any ideological group that deserves to be catapuled into the mariana trench, its libertarians. i hate them with absolutely every fibre of my being .

    james n.s.w

    December 11, 2016 at 8:26 pm

    • Libertarians are scum. They are very similar to TruCons even though they don’t get along very well.

      Otis the Sweaty

      December 11, 2016 at 10:23 pm

      • Libertarians = TruCons with autism issues.

        Rifleman

        December 12, 2016 at 9:29 am

    • If you look at who make up the alt-right, you will realize there’s a surprising number of disillusioned former libertarians.

      I’d prefer to first mulch all the greens myself, by the way. At least in Europe, they have been a driving force behind the migrant invasion.

      Glengarry

      December 12, 2016 at 4:45 am

    • Agreed. They’re fucking retarded. They’re the only people that can believe in open borders and not opening their wallet to pay for the police to keep things from turning into Kinshasa.

      The Philosopher

      December 12, 2016 at 5:15 am

      • i spent a lot of time around a lot of real hardcore dyed-in-the-wool libertarians who attended the university of new south wales. they were smart, awkward kids (all engineering/compsci students ) who drifted around the autism spectrum. the stereotypes were true. the real reason libertarian ism is so appealing to them is because it is rule oriented and there is seemingly no inconsistencies. everything comes down to the non-coercion principle and this satisfies them greatly when making decisions about society. normal people is tend to be inconsistent in the politics, influenced by emotion, specific feelings and different evaluations of pros-cons when deciding what they consider to be right or wrong, or what stances to take on different things. libertarians cannot handle this because they consider it to lead to ‘hypocricy’; this is why the simplistic maxims that govern libertarian thought (non-coercion) are so attractive to them.

        libertarianism NEEDS austrian economics to be palatable. no one would accept a libertarian society if libertarian principles led to bad outcomes; for example, if there were no taxes and it could be decisively proven that that would create a shittier world or something, the libertarian perspective on taxation (based on the non-coercion principle) would just be seen as absurd, because at the end of the day we mostly just to make people happy, even if it means being “inconsistent” in some arcane logical way. austrian economics is the “out” for libertarians; not only is libertarianism allegedly more principled as an ideological system and consistent, it is ACTUALLY going to produce the best social outcomes for all bc austrian economics. without austrian economics libertarianism would be dead(er) bc few people besides the most intense autistic-spectrum most would never support an ideology that the KNEW would lead to shitty social outcomes just bc of “muh principles”.

        james n.s.w

        December 12, 2016 at 10:12 am

      • and yeah they are really paranoid about the police, they HATE the police and it comes across as a front to look tough bc theyre all timid dorky nerds who would never get in trouble with the law a day in their life.

        james n.s.w

        December 12, 2016 at 10:13 am

      • They’re fucking retarded.

        Socially retarded. Many have average to above average IQs.

        Rifleman

        December 12, 2016 at 10:22 am

      • @james n.s.w: That is the best take down of libertarianism, at least from a social perspective, that I’ve seen. Congrats.

        Although I admit I’m surprised there are Libertarians in New Zealand. I’ve just assumed that it was a particularly American movement and didn’t have any attraction outside of the states.

        Mike Street Station

        December 13, 2016 at 4:35 pm

      • @rifleman

        Not quantitatively retarded, but verbally retarded.

        For ‘smart’ guys, they get their backs up on more technical issues: limited liability – yes or no? Patent protection – yes or no? Fiat money – yes or no? Pharmaceutical/environmental regulation – yes or no? Stock exchange/accountancy regulation for accurate financial data for investors? International regulation on money laundering/drug & human trafficking? Disease control on human movement for outbreaks? trade deals with countries that have subsidies for their firms or government owned firms?, natural disaster relief? cartel/monopoly regulation? Legalisation of slavery, child labour and or deregulation of all labour laws? Trade union recognition? Why is collective bargaining not a right but cartels are? Endangered species and national monuments protection? Infrastructure spending on sewage works? Landfill sites/nuclear plants – eminent domain good? Anti-bribery laws? Insider trading laws? Public land and property registry? Legal aid to the poor – if not, will the poor get justice? Aid for the non-aristocracy to become lawyers/judges – if not judges will always rule for their boys.

        And so on…

        Like most quants they have no general knowledge or curiosity in non-object/numerical topics. Autists look retarded, because in a very real sense they are.

        AESTHETICS DONT LIE

        The Philosopher

        December 13, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    • “libertarians…i hate them with absolutely every fibre of my being .”

      Many people who say they’re libertarians are broad fans or have no idea what they’re talking about–or do, and are plants.

      Many commenters here know even less.

      Robert

      December 12, 2016 at 11:10 am

  20. Lion,

    As President, Trump will have a lot of power, but what makes you think he can change the consensus on climate change? Can he change the consensus on the virgin birth?

    gothamette

    December 11, 2016 at 10:23 pm

  21. Big Hillary supporter goes batshit (again, she’s a former druggie):

    gothamette

    December 11, 2016 at 10:37 pm

  22. https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/twitter-re-instates-white-nationalist-leader-richard-spencer

    I dunno how many strobe lights and sirens you need before Richard/others get the message that he’s replaced crusty ol’ David Duke as the new Dem campaign surrogate.

    snorlax

    December 11, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    • The fact is that Spencer is a fairly good advocate for things people on this blog believe, even although none of us are WNs. Spencer is doing great work and makes our less overtly racialized policies look more moderate in comparison.

      Otis the Sweaty

      December 12, 2016 at 2:44 am

      • he can be pretty good but a lot of his stuff is just wacko and he needs to tone it down. the nonsense about an all white empire superstate is just scary to normies and frankly, is scary to me. the idea is stupid and it will never work. also heilgate demonstrated he cant control himself.

        james n.s.w

        December 12, 2016 at 9:56 am

      • The fact is that Spencer is a fairly good advocate for things people on this blog believe, even although none of us are WNs. Spencer is doing great work

        Great work running the alt-right into the ground.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        December 12, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    • Haha, is this what they call controlled opposition? Perhaps Twitter is running short on enemies who still have an account after all the purges. Nothing there to denounce anymore.

      Glengarry

      December 12, 2016 at 4:50 am

  23. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, about .04%. You know how on a cold but bright sunny day the inside of your car gets really hot because of the greenhouse effect? How strong would that greenhouse effect be if you eliminated 99.96% of your car’s windows and instead that was all open to the environment? Your car’s interior would be at the same temperature as the cold environment, there would be no greenhouse effect.

    Manmade global warming/climate change is a hoax and a scam: it’s all about the money, the power, and the poontang certain people derive by getting other gullible people to believe in their scam.

    hard9bf

    December 12, 2016 at 9:46 am

    • LOL wow, this guy aint a scientist.

      james n.s.w

      December 12, 2016 at 10:01 am

      • Maybe not, but he’s right. Have you noticed that anyone who pushes this AGW BS lives pretty high?

        And good for Leo. He gets some fine pootang too.

        Vincent

        December 12, 2016 at 11:05 am

    • big surprise, celebrities are idiot virtue signalling hypocrites. who cares what they think. i accept climate chance on the basis of the evidence and i drive a toyota corolla coupe. i used to ride my bike everywhere but it got stolen, probably by aboriginal kisd.

      james n.s.w

      December 12, 2016 at 9:25 pm

      • For one last time, don’t be such a sucker. Seriously. Best of luck.

        Vincent

        December 13, 2016 at 9:39 am

      • the average climatology/environmental science phd is probably not actually living “high” by the way (my friend kiera can attest to that!). your argument could easily be turned around to show off the fancy jets and 10,000 square foot houses of coal and fossil fuel company executives as well, but i don’t consider their quality of life relevant to this argument either.

        james n.s.w

        December 13, 2016 at 10:24 am

  24. As an environmentalist who thinks that the best ways to combat climate change are to limit migration from poorer countries to wealthier countries, and through protectionism (since both world population growth and world trade are the key drivers of carbon emissions), I find these threads hilarious. I’m genuinely rooting for you guys to succeed.

    Ed

    December 12, 2016 at 10:22 am

    • Ed,

      Ever notice how environmentalists never address mass migration as a problem for environmentalism? That should clue you in.

      map

      December 12, 2016 at 2:18 pm

      • “Ever notice how environmentalists never address mass migration as a problem for environmentalism? ”

        They did address mass migration before they started taking corporate contributions.

        Ed

        December 12, 2016 at 6:59 pm

      • If they compromise themselves so easily, then on what else have they compromised?

        map

        December 12, 2016 at 11:27 pm

      • “Ever notice how environmentalists never address mass migration as a problem for environmentalism? ”

        For some mysterious reason, all of the proposed solutions for climate change just happen to fit in with the Leftist agenda: More money and power for the Left; stricter economic regulations for First World nations; wealth transfers to the Third World; taxes and regulations which target economic activity in Red states.

        The last item bears special mention. The Left absolutely hates the fact that young men in places like North Dakota are making a good living in oil and coal extraction.

        sabril

        December 13, 2016 at 2:37 am

      • “The Left absolutely hates the fact that young men in places like North Dakota are making a good living in oil and coal extraction.”

        They are giving up the opportunity to become smart by going to college and having a self-actualizing career for some easy money that’s not going to last and which they will waste on big trucks and prostitutes.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 13, 2016 at 9:17 am

      • some still do. for example the australian greens party was anti-immigration until 1998 and they got rfeaked out of their immigration stance by the rise of a One Nation, a nationalist anti-immigration party that gained a lot of traction at the time. they wanted to differeniate themselves from one nation in order to not be racist anymore, demonstrating theyre spineless and unprincipled. there is another party, the sustainability australia party, who makes the obvious connections between immigration, population growth and climate change. a lot of the anti-immigration set down here is motivated by environmentalism, for example mark o’connor who wrote the excellent “this brown land”.

        i dont know if the situation is different elsewhere but im sure if you looked hard enough you could find a lot of principled environmentalists who really understand what theyre talking about. you need to extricate the virtue signallers from the people who really care.

        james n.s.w

        December 13, 2016 at 5:39 am

  25. That rising CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an overall increase in mean global temperature is well-understood. Sorry, that’s physics. Are blog comments more powerful than equations governing black-body radiation and the fundamental qualities of trace gasses (absorption and emission spectra)? You decide.

    The *scientific* issue isn’t “whether” or “how much” — the answer to the latter is “about 1.3 C per doubling of [CO2]. Rather, the issue is, “what are the feedbacks in the actual climate system?” As one skeptic upthread observed, water vapor has a much more powerful (though varied) effect than CO2. Taken together, the feedbacks of rising [CO2] might be positive (climate alarmists) or neutral/slightly-negative (lukewarmers).

    That’s the range of actual scientific opinion. Sorry.

    BTW I am quite aware of the damage that politicization of “climate science” has done. A few years back, I attracted some minor level of scorn and derision from Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, concerning the infamous upside-down use of the Tiljander lakebed sediment proxy. (My blog posts on that sorry subject are still around.)

    amac78

    December 12, 2016 at 10:30 am

    • Once CO2 is already absorbing 100% of the infrared radiation that it can absorb, adding more CO2 can’t cause more than 100% to be absorbed.

      This is like light leaking through a sheet of paper. Once you have enough sheets of paper, 100% of the light is absorbed and adding more sheets doesn’t accomplish anything.

      Untestable theories about how more CO2 can still retain more heat because of upper-atmosphere stuff is not a theory that can be trusted to be true, especially considering that the theory was invented to explain global warming rather than it being something independently discovered by physicists.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 12, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    • ” Are blog comments more powerful than equations governing black-body radiation and the fundamental qualities of trace gasses (absorption and emission spectra)? You decide.”

      See this is exactly the problem. A climate scientist will take some kind of uncontroversial subject from another field and use that as an example to support his own field. Apparently, climate science is true because of physics. Yet, climate science, unlike physics, still fails to provide a set of interesting and accurate predictions, predictions that are significant and non-obvious.

      Imagine a chef with a table of exotic ingredients in front of him. He can tell you everything about the ingredients: their history; how they were sourced; how they came to be used; what flavors are enhanced; who made their discoveries. Yet, despite all of this knowledge, each and every meal turns out terribly, so terrible, in fact, that it is clear the chef has no idea what he is doing. That is climate science. Unlike the terrible chef, however, the climate scientist still has a job.

      map

      December 12, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    • CO2 is an extreme bit-player in the atmosphere, not even one tenth of one percent. It has no discernible affect on climate or weather because its effects are utterly masked by Sun output, water vapor, cow farts, volcanoes, parking lots, and HVAC systems. Yes, HVAC systems: puny CO2’s effects are dwarfed into irrelevance by your fireplace, they’re so miniscule they can’t be teased out of all the monumental effects I cataloged above.

      Globalclimatewarmingweatherchaosdisruption change is a hoax and lines the pockets of a select few men.

      hard9bf

      December 12, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    • “That rising CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an overall increase in mean global temperature is well-understood. Sorry, that’s physics.”

      LOL! Smug much? I love these sorts of categorical statements followed by the sniff of contempt!

      Speaking of physics, and physicists…

      “A new paper published in the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change by renowned professor of physics and expert on spectroscopy Dr. Hermann Harde finds that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is only about [0.6C], about 7 times less than the IPCC claims, but in line with many other published low estimates of climate sensitivity. The paper further establishes that climate sensitivity to tiny changes in solar activity is comparable to that of CO2 and by no means insignificant as the IPCC prefers to claim.”

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/yet-another-significicant-paper-finds-low-climate-sensitivity-to-co2-suggesting-there-is-no-global-warming-crisis-at-hand/

      Oh that’s just one.

      The climate is influenced by countless things. Some of the biggest which are just starting to get unraveled involve the orbit and tilt of the earth in relation to the sun, and the earth’s position in relation to other planets. There are weird climate cycles that repeat over multi-thousand year periods, which clearly have bupkiss to do with CO2. Hell, 400 something million years ago we had an ice age and CO2 was ten times what it is now.

      peterike

      December 12, 2016 at 4:43 pm

      • “Harde finds that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is only about [0.6C], about 7 times less than the IPCC claims”

        Harde determined this by using different data in his climate computer model because he didn’t have an alternate Earth on hand where he could double CO2 levels from .04% to .08% of the atmosphere and see what happens.

        He’s not even wrong, this isn’t even science.

        This is fake news.

        hard9bf

        December 13, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    • peterike, I wrote

      “The *scientific* issue isn’t “whether” or “how much” — the answer to the latter is “about 1.3 C per doubling of [CO2]. Rather, the issue is, ‘what are the feedbacks in the actual climate system?’”

      In the paper that you linked, Harde et al. says:

      “The increase of TE at doubled CO2 concentration (from 380 to 760 ppm) defines the CO2 climate sensitivity as a measure for the response of EASy on a changing CO2 concentration. In this case, at clear sky conditions and without any feedback effects, we find a climate sensitivity of CS = 1.11 ̊C which is in surprisingly good agreement with the IPCC value also of CS = 1.1 ̊C (without feedback processes, but generally assuming mean cloud cover)…”

      So, from memory, I gave the feedback-free value as 1.3 C. Seems that was 0.2 C high.

      In his discussion of climate dynamics, Harde says:

      “When the Earth and the atmosphere are considered as black- or grey-body radiators, emitting the radiation power PE at an average surface temperature TE and the power PA at a mean atmospheric temperature TA, the Stefan-Boltzmann law [5, 6] provides a well-known relationship between the radiated power and the temperature.”

      On this topic, reference 20 is Harde citing earlier work by well-known consensus-following climate scientist Kevin Trenberth.

      So alarmist Trenberth and super-lukewarmer Harde don’t see eye to eye on climate sensitivity. But they do agree on the equations governing black-body radiation and the fundamental qualities of trace gasses.

      amac78

      December 12, 2016 at 7:39 pm

  26. Lion, I think he can, but is this really what the appointment means?

    Robert

    December 12, 2016 at 11:12 am

  27. Manmade globalclimatewarmingweatherchaoschange is fake news.

    Miniscule changes to Earth’s already miniscule quantities of atmospheric CO2 does nothing.

    hard9bf

    December 13, 2016 at 12:36 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: