Trump drops plan to establish independent climate review panel


Week Three: Ninth Anniversary Fund-Raising Drive for Behind the Black
 

It is now the third week in my annual anniversary fund-raising campaign for Behind the Black.


Please consider donating. I am trying to avoid advertising on this website, but will be forced to add it if I do not get enough support from my readers. You can give a one-time contribution, from $5 to $100, or a regular subscription for as little as $2 per month. Your support will be deeply appreciated, and will allow me to continue to report on science and culture freely.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

The Trump administration has abandoned a plan to create a more balanced climate science review panel to review the climate change claims within government research.

It appears that while the idea to put government-paid research under a wider range of scientific review was laudable, the White House could not figure out how to do it, even as factions within the administration fought the proposal.

The idea to create the panel has caused strife within the White House. Among its critics are deputy chief of staff Chris Liddell; Kevin Hassett, the outgoing chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council; and Kelvin Droegemeier, the president’s science adviser. Those supporting the plan include Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and Brooke Rollins, assistant to Trump in the Office of American Innovation.

An official at NSC disputed the characterization that the panel was dead, even while confirming that it had been indefinitely delayed. The plan has suffered several downgrades over the months. It was initially proposed as a rapid response team of climate science critics who would challenge government publications on human-caused warming. Recent discussions have centered on the idea of forcing government climate scientists to participate in a debate with critics of their work who deny that humans are causing widespread changes on Earth (Climatewire, June 6). Most recently, the plan was diminished to creating dueling white papers that would elevate climate denialism to the level of consensus science.

The bottom line remains that a lot of climate research being done on the government dime today is, at a minimum, very suspect, and at the worst, demonstrably corrupt. A house-cleaning is necessary, even though it will likely be accompanied by a lot of squealing from those who get cleaned out.

It seems that the Trump administration is not prepared to deal with that squealing, especially because it appears that Trump himself is not passionate about this subject. He went after EPA aggressively, cutting the size of the agency and changing how it did business, but these actions were because he saw EPA as an out-of-control government agency imposing inappropriate regulations on American citizens. Corruption and data tampering and the politicization of the climate research field does not concern him so much. It appears he does not see this as directly affecting the American citizen.

For now.

Share

39 comments

  • Phill O

    My bet is that the opponents had too much invested in this. RINOs everywhere.

    One cousin from Utah told me the key was figuring how to make money despite the administration. This was while Obama was in power.

  • Gary

    Although refutation of bad scientific practice is needed, this vehicle was unlikely to make a dent in the constant propaganda machine’s output because its conclusions, if negative for the climate disaster meme, would not be publicized by the biased media. Trump likely weighed costs and benefits and kept his powder dry. Much better to work behind the scenes on things he could control. Maybe in a second term a better version will emerge.

  • Andrew_W

    “. . and at the worst, demonstrably corrupt.”

    And the evidence you cite to support that claim? A blog. If you want to throw that charge around how about you at least cite something that’s not blatantly biased, blatantly pushing those charges, find a source that’s at least a tiny bit respectable.

  • Andrew_W:
    One does not have to look far for evidence demonstrating that NOAH reports fraudulent climate data; this agency (like the EPA] has been lying to the American public for years to support their loony leftist policy.

  • Cotour

    Why would Trump bother creating a “Review panel”?

    It will only be seen and characterized by its opponents as being biased and self serving, no matter what credible information that it might reveal.

    The ONLY solution?

    Winning and retaining political power and making rational decisions based on the best information taking into consideration the balance between the environment and the economy and what new technologies and techniques need to be promoted and implemented to best serve both.

    The hysteria that has been adopted by the fully indoctrinated likes of the AOC’s of the world are extremist and if they were to become further empowered they would be able to justify anyone who would oppose their “Emergency” interpretation as being a threat and then the “cleansing” would begin.

    Ignorance is bliss, and ignorance combined with real political power is truly dangerous for all concerned.

  • Andrew_W

    Slatey Cleavage
    Reference?

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You asked: “And the evidence you cite to support that claim?

    What a short memory that you have. You have been reading BtB for years and have seen on multiple occasions that NOAH, NASA, and others have surreptitiously modified temperature data without announcing the changes or explaining why. This is the very definition of fudging data, of corruption. The only reason that anyone knew that such changes had been made was that some people had copies of the legacy data sets and noticed that there were changes in the new data sets being supplied to them.

    That you pretend to have such a poor memory speaks volumes of your arguments.

  • Andrew_W

    Slatey Cleavage
    A guest post at Judith Curry’s blog, as I understand it the adjustments for US data show warming mainly due to a significant nationwide trend in the US towards taking temperature readings later in the day when it’s warmer.

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/

  • Andrew_W

    Correction to above comment, as this paper says:
    “Time of observation changes introduced a large cooling bias due to widespread observation time changes from afternoon to morning between 1950 and present. This results in a shift from minimum‐maximum thermometers occasional double‐counting of maximums to a double‐counting of minimums, with a net U.S. average negative bias of about 0.25°C [Vose et al., 2003]. The widespread transition from LiG to MMTS instruments between 1980 and 2000 also resulted in a cooling bias; MMTS instruments tend to measure maximum temperatures about 0.5°C lower and minimum temperatures about 0.35°C higher than LiG instruments, resulting in a net negative trend bias of around 0.15°C [Hubbard and Lin, 2006].”

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

  • Edward

    From the Judith Curry link: “Berkeley Earth developed a methodology for automating the adjustment process in part to answer the suspicions people had about the fairness of human aided adjustments.

    So they developed a methodology after the fact to try to hide their fudged data. Very nice.

  • wayne

    Q:
    How many of these observation stations, used to be in ‘rural areas,’ but are now surrounded by developed urban area’s?

    switching topics—
    Andrew_W:
    how is the gun confiscation thing’ going in NZ? (I honestly want to know.)

  • Andrew_W

    Dream on Edward.

    The scientists working on this are actually aware of the urban heat issue Wayne, but if you fear they have overlooked it or not corrected for it you probably should go see what they’ve done rather than relying on partisan blogs.

  • wayne

    Andrew_W:
    Yowza…. I never said the rocket-scientists weren’t aware of the urban heat issue. Just another “adjustment” the wizards of utopia are making on my behalf, the selfless folks they are, eh what?
    I don’t read a whole lot of blogs myself, you might be confusing me with others.

    tangentially– If I recall correctly,–weren’t there a whole bunch-o-Original-Data sets that were outright destroyed by this ilk? Nothing screams transparency like throwing actual data into the memory hole.

    just for fun…
    “Ideas Are Bulletproof”
    https://youtu.be/Ov9ynOC4lPE
    0:34

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “Dream on Edward.

    I don’t have to dream. That is what the paper said, as stated in the quote. It’s in their own words. The “methodology” for the adjustments was developed after the adjustments were made and after people became suspicious because the adjustments were discovered, not announced.

    As for the problem of temperatures suddenly coming from different times of day, etc., let’s assume this to be true.

    I find it interesting that climate science is so careless with its most valuable asset, its data. If the temperature data was so poorly handled, what about other climate data? Can we trust the rainfall, humidity, and cloud data? If the measured data was so sloppily collected or handled then what about the proxy data? I remember that in the 1960s tree-rings were an indicator of rainfall during a year, but three or four decades later it was supposed to be an indicator of temperature, instead.

    If I were as careless with data in my jobs, I would have lost my job, my boss would have been fired, and my boss’s boss would have been demoted to my boss’s position. (I know this, because it happened when a thermal engineer messed up one of my thermal vacuum tests.)

    Instead, the same climate scientists still have jobs and still apply for and get new grants. I really don’t understand why anyone would trust them, anymore — and that is without the Climategate information, in which some climate scientists, around the world, actually did try to hide facts that did not support their desired conclusions, actually lost their tree-ring data during a move, and actually did conspire to suppress skeptical or alternative discussion.

    In addition, if all this sloppy collection and handling of data is true, all previous conclusions and climate models are bogus, as they used incorrect data for their development. It means that we now have to start from zero, as long as we can trust the current and future data and can trust the current and future scientists. With the current track record and their own statements, this is unlikely.

    No matter how you slice it, poor practices or outright fraud, climate science is a cluster [bleep].

    Don’t complain to us about reading “partisan blogs,” because you get your information from blogs that are partisan on the “trust us, we’re the experts” side. Indeed, with all of the media, from the news to entertainment, continually declaring global warming/climate change/climate weirding/whaterver to be true without any skepticism, the only place to find any alternate hypotheses or discussion is from what you call “partisan blogs.” Being skeptical is not supposed to be partisan; it is supposed to be part of science. To deny skepticism is to deny science.

    By the way. It is almost 1/5 the way through the century. How are those rising oceans doing toward their predicted end-of-century levels?

  • Andrew_W

    “The “methodology” for the adjustments was developed after the adjustments were made and after people became suspicious because the adjustments were discovered, not announced.”

    No, the USCRN developed their own methodology to check that the methodology originally used by the USHCN was sound, they found that it was sound.

    “I find it interesting that climate science is so careless with its most valuable asset, its data.”

    You realize that the data being used was collected over the last 140 years and that modern day climate science didn’t really have a lot of input into that data? that the data collected in recent times has been collected using more consistent methods?

    “Don’t complain to us about reading “partisan blogs,” because you get your information from blogs that are partisan on the “trust us, we’re the experts” side. ”

    Really? If I cite a blog article it’s one that’s supported by peer reviewed papers, not just something a blogger dreamed up without even looking at the evidence.

  • Andrew-
    I could spend the rest of the day providing references demonstrating fraudulent climate “science”.
    Whether it’s manipulating data for political reasons or the in-your-face lying about the number of illegal aliens in America and the rationale for not asking if you’re a citizen of America in the 2020 census, this intent to deceive seems to be something the left excels in.

  • Slatey Cleavage: It appears you are putting the reference urls that you wish others to see in the “webpage” identification box that is asked of you when you post a comment. This isn’t the right place to put it, as people will have no idea that they need to click on your name to reach it.

    Either cut and past the url directly into your comment, or create a link using html. But do it in the comment itself.

    The link you wanted people to see:
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

  • Andrew_W

    The Washington Times article is just another he said – she said story, nothing to do with actual science, the media doesn’t do science, it sells papers.

  • Andrew_W

    Regarding one of Slately’s links and the claims of adjustments increasing the rate of US warming.
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi

  • Andrew_W

    Regarding claims of adjustments increasing the rate of global warming.
    https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley

  • Cotour

    I would simply remind everyone that the earth for the last 20 K ( thousand years) has been in a continuous, general warming trend. The sea level in that time has risen 400 plus feet because of this cycle. And it is reasonable to assume that that general cycle continues to some lesser or greater degree.

    How much has human industrial activity in modern times affected this natural cycle? Probably not nearly as much as is proposed by the extremist political agenda adherents that promote it. And because of this now well established tweeking of the actual data by these actors that desire a political outcome and not actual science and knowledge the truth of the situation can not be confidently known.

    The expectation by some on the planet that there exists some “set” static “Normal” climate setting that the earth is set at and that humans are some how screwing with it is just childish model of reality and has become a religion of sorts.

    The earth is a dynamic system for the many reasons that it is a dynamic system that we understand, and the many reasons we do not understand.

  • Andew_W: I only have one thing to say to you.

    The hallmark of science is doubt and skepticism. Expressing doubt and skepticism is what makes it possible to learn and correct errors.

    Therefore, the fact that some legitimate scientists have suggested that the modern global climate data has problems requires one to be skeptical of it, until a clear explanation is made for explaining those problems.

    In expressing doubts about the data does not mean one is also not skeptical about the claims. The point is to pursue the truth, to find out what is really going on.

    You however reserve all your skepticism to just those who question the data. You accept without question the claims of those who advocate the climate is warming, without any skepticism at all.

    That isn’t the pursuit of knowledge and truth, that is instead simply being partisan.

    And it certainly isn’t following the scientific method.

  • Andrew_W

    ” . . until a clear explanation is made for explaining those problems.”

    The reason for and methodology involved in the adjustments are apparently public accessible, have you taken the time to actually check the reasons for the adjustments or other matters that you doubt the veracity of in the issue? No? Well if you haven’t done so you’re not being scientifically skeptical, skepticism in science is based on scientific investigation. If you’re doubtful because it suits your politics to be doubtful you’re not a skeptic in the scientific sense, you’re an armchair critic, anyone can be a critic, it takes no effort, it has no value.

    “You however reserve all your skepticism to just those who question the data.”

    That’s because they produce no evidence, just doubt. You don’t link to or comment on exhaustive studies that undermine the case that AGW is real and significant, you just offer up blog posts and media articles, or “papers” in “open access” “journals”, why? Because there are no comprehensive studies that undermine the case that AGW is real and significant.

    “And it certainly isn’t following the scientific method.”

    Pot meet kettle.

  • Andrew_W

    And by the way I follow your commentary on AGW, Rands commentary on AGW and check in on sites like Curry’s and Watts’, so don’t accuse me of not looking at both sides, I do, one side does the work the other sits back and does little other than look for excuses to criticize.
    Show me a study that itemizes where the adjustments are not justified. You can’t, there isn’t one, it’s all “the adjustments are all in one direction” with the unscientific assumption that that in itself is evidence of fraud – they’re not all in one direction, and even if they were, if there’s a reason they are – for instance a nationwide practice that has been altered in the same way (time of day readings) the methodology would legitimately all be in one direction.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour:I” would simply remind everyone that the earth for the last 20 K ( thousand years) has been in a continuous, general warming trend. ”
    It hasn’t.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    Coming up with a methodology ex post facto that matches some data is not so hard, and that someone could do so does not mean that the data corrections are correct or that it was correct to do so. All it proves is that there is now a rationalization to the fudging that was done to the data.

    You wrote: “You realize that the data being used was collected over the last 140 years and that modern day climate science didn’t really have a lot of input into that data?

    They had a lot of input in the timeframe that was noted in the paper, late 1970 and on. Climate science was a science, back then, and they should have been selective as to what data they collected.

    Perhaps they were. Since we thought that there was a coming ice age, it is interesting that they seem to have chosen to use cooler times of day to sample. It would seem that they were attempting to prove a coming ice age so that they could justify rules, regulations, and laws that would supposedly head off that ice age.

    Or maybe they weren’t doing that but are now claiming that they were in order to rationalize global warming that is not happening so that they could justify rules, regulations, and laws that would supposedly head off some sort of global flooding that requires a bunch of Noah’s Arcs.

    No matter what, there was a pause in global warming that they could not explain, so the pause has conveniently been hidden by changed data that shows a new climb in warming. Sort of like hiding the decline.

    Changing the data is a lot more input than you are giving them credit for, as is hiding the fact that the data has been changed. Thanks to all this wonderful input, climate science is in terrible shape and cannot be trusted.

    If I cite a blog article it’s one that’s supported by peer reviewed papers

    In the climate science community, the peer reviewed paper lost its value a decade ago. (It has been shown to be ineffective elsewhere, too.) Once again, “I really don’t understand why anyone would trust [climate scientists], anymore.” Maybe you can enlighten us as to why you blindly believe politicians such as Al Gore, who made a fortune lying about Global Warming a decade after it stopped warming, or scientists who hide their fudging of data, apparently so that they could continue receiving grants from the lying politicians. Just like the Times article, they do it just to get money. The politicians do not fund the skeptics — because it is politically incorrect to do so.

    It was even politically incorrect for Trump to set up skepticism in his administration. So much for government wanting scientific answers. They just want political ones. It buys votes from the gullible who blindly believe the politicians when they tell us the sky is falling and that only they can keep it up.

    As a last point: That was not a rhetorical question; I have not been keeping up with the rising oceans, and I want an expert, such as yourself, Andrew_W, to give me an update on whether they are on schedule to meet the promises that were made by the scientists and politicians.

  • Andrew_W

    Edward go write a study that refutes the current mainstream position. You’re a clever fellow, if it’s full of holes I know you can find them all by yourself rather than relying on rubbish dished out on blogs.

    “In the climate science community, the peer reviewed paper lost its value a decade ago.”
    That’s a talking point, not supported by evidence, the evidence is that where a bad paper gets through formal peer review it’s refuted by subsequent discussion and later peer reviewed papers.

    “Maybe you can enlighten us as to why you blindly believe politicians such as Al Gore . . ”
    Where have I ever even cited Al Gore? I never would, your accusation is just more evidence that you’re clueless as to why I accept AGW is real and significant.

    “It was even politically incorrect for Trump . . . ”
    What the hell does Trump and politically incorrect have to do with whether or not the science of AGW is sound? Just more evidence that your motivations are political, not scientific.

  • Cotour

    Are ice age cycles no longer in operation? They have ended?

    Are we now in a new age of static and unchanging climate? (Except for how humans are now overwhelmingly affecting the climate and resetting the global thermostat from what it “should” be?

    Has the sea level not risen 400 feet over the past 20 K years?

    If the sea has risen 400 feet, then where did the water come from? (Effect / Cause)

    Geologists assert that that is indeed what has happened over that period of time.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour you can find the answer to all your questions on the internet, none of them are controversial. Just be warned that taking two points and drawing a straight line between them is unlikely to be a good representation of what actually happened between them, you will have likely missed 99.9% of the information.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “That’s because they produce no evidence, just doubt.

    The burden of proof does not lie with the skeptic. It is astonishing how little you know of the scientific method. Did you learn this in school at all?

    If you’re doubtful because it suits your politics to be doubtful

    You are learning nothing from this discussion. It has been pointed out to you multiple times that skepticism is part of science. The claims do not match the observations, so skepticism is absolutely necessary. The claims are largely based upon two assumptions that no science paper has ever verified: that the rise in CO2 is the cause of the rise in temperatures, and that man is the main contributor to the CO2 levels.

    There is plenty of evidence that historical CO2 levels rose after temperature rose, and it seems this happens because the warmer temperatures release carbon and carbon dioxide sequestered in tundra and even in much warmer soils. This could even be a larger source of CO2 than human activities.

    This means that there are no studies at all that present the case that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is real, much less significant. Just two assumptions that are easily countered.
    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2017/03/09/soils-carbon-climate/

    This would explain the temperature and CO2 swings that have been recorded from times long before 1940, when humans started to put large quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere. Just that one fact, alone, is serious evidence against AGW. The globe knows how to get warmer and cooler without man’s help, and the end of the Little Ice Age began long before the beginning of the industrial age and much longer before the industrial age matured. There is another fact that has already been presented but that you ignored, apparently because you need a paper in order to accept historical facts.

    Which just goes to show how little you know on the topic.

    you just offer up blog posts and media articles, or “papers” in “open access” “journals”, why?

    Because papers are evidence. Duh.

    Pot meet kettle.

    Coming from someone who has demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of the scientific method or of climate science. You don’t seem to realize that some of us have done this for a living and are wise to the ways of cheating or of confirmation bias. This is why skepticism is so important. Otherwise scientists could accidentally or even purposefully fool us. The Piltdown Man is an example of the latter.

    We ask questions about what is being said, not providing the alternate answers, but you, Andrew_W, blindly believe what is being said without question — then demand that we prove answers that we didn’t even present. When we ask you to support your point, you present us with alarmingly poor evidence, showing your inexperience in the realm of science.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “the evidence is that where a bad paper gets through formal peer review it’s refuted by subsequent discussion and later peer reviewed papers.

    I see. For you it is OK to be skeptical, just so long as we aren’t skeptical about anything that you blindly believe in.

    “What the hell does Trump and politically incorrect have to do with whether or not the science of AGW is sound?”

    Trump is the topic of this post. Hello? Are you paying any attention?

  • Andrew_W

    “The burden of proof does not lie with the skeptic.”
    The evidence for AGW has been offered, if you’re saying skeptics choose not to refute it, rather than that they’re unable to scientifically refute it, well that’s their business.

    “. . skepticism is part of science. ”
    Scientific skepticism is part of science, blog posts and newspaper articles aren’t scientific skepticism.

    ” . . that the rise in CO2 is the cause of the rise in temperatures, and that man is the main contributor to the CO2 levels.”
    As you know the scientific evidence for the GHE and increasing GHG concentrations enhancing the GHG is solid, the evidence that nature is a net sink for atmospheric CO2 is overwhelming, but you can pretend otherwise.

    “There is plenty of evidence that historical CO2 levels rose after temperature rose,. . ”
    There’s a theory as to what causes the glacial – interglacial cycles of the current ice age – as you know, so address it or don’t, if you want to pretend that science hasn’t addressed the forcings involved carry on believing what you want to believe.

    “We ask questions about what is being said, not providing the alternate answers, . . ”
    Correct, you offer no answers.

  • Cotour

    My only observation is that over the last 20 K years the general trend of the climate has been to warm resulting in the melting of the ice that resulted in the sea level rise and that ice that sat upon the land and lowered the sea level.

    The minutia and details of what exactly happened over those 20 K years is not really an issue here because there were not enough humans to make any difference in the end result.

    Conclusion: We are still in a general warming trend on the planet. The evidence? The 400 foot sea level rise that is agreed has happened over that period of time by both geologists and archeologists. If the ice melts the sea will rise.

  • Andrew_W

    “Trump is the topic of this post. ”
    Oh, sorry, I thought you were addressing that part of your comment to me, but since I haven’t commented on Trump I guess you must have been addressing it to Mr. Zimmerman.

  • Edward

    There’s a theory as to what causes the glacial – interglacial cycles of the current ice age – as you know

    And part of this theory also explains the current rise in global temperatures.

    Meanwhile, all you present is ex post facto rationalization for fudging data, created after the fudging was discovered, not the original methods or reasons for fudging the data.

    Correct, you offer no answers.

    Because we don’t have to. The burden of proof is not on the skeptic, it is on the one who has the hypothesis. It is the task of the skeptic to point out where the hypothesis is weak, and that is what we have been doing. Removing those weaknesses is the task of the one who defends the hypothesis, and fudging data does not do that.

    You still fail to understand how science works, and you continue to try to use your ignorance to explain science to someone who has worked in science.

  • Andrew_W

    “And part of this theory also explains the current rise in global temperatures.”
    Ah, no.

    “. . .created after the fudging was discovered”
    No evidence of “fudging” has been offered.

  • pzatchok

    I thought all NOAH weather sensors were now automated and digital. Changing their sample times is up to NOAH.

    But no matter.They admit to changing data sets and have given no scientific reasoning behind the change.
    Nothing explains why they change satellite data either.

    All i have to do is look out side and see that at least half of the hyperbolic claims of the AGW crowd are BS. Otherwise the oceans would have risen several feet by now and flooded Manhattan and Florida. But alas, neither are building dikes to keep out the flood of water.

    I am old enough to remember the world wide fear of Global Cooling and the coming ice age back in the 70’s.
    Many of the very same scientists who were proponents of that later changed their minds and started pushing global warming when evidence didn’t fit their original theory.

    I look at Andre_W’s belief as akin to a belief in a God.
    No real scientific evidence but a lot and fervent belief.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W wrote: “Ah, no.

    Ah, yes.

    Extra points for the excellent and mature argument style.

    No evidence of ‘fudging’ has been offered.

    Once again, Andrew_W didn’t pay attention and didn’t learn anything. No evidence was offered except for the part where I had explained that making changes without notification or explanation is the very definition of fudging data. But, like a good liberal, Andrew_W changes word definitions without notification or explanation. How Orwellian.

    It is too bad that there will not be an independent climate review panel to ask the important questions as to why the many promised ill effects of the AGW crowd keep failing to materialize.

    When the U.S. met the Kyoto requirements despite not signing on, why was there no cheering but instead an insistence to impose “carbon taxes” and to peddle “carbon credits?” We do the right thing, but we are not rewarded, just punished.

    Just as the U.S. was meeting its Kyoto requirements and there was a pause in warming, why was there no cheering from the AGW crowd that the pause was proof that we had saved the planet? Why was there, instead, an effort to surreptitiously recharacterize the data so that it shows no pause?

    If we do the right thing but the data is recharacterized to show that the desired effect did not materialize, why should we continue to do anything, since there is no reward for the effort?

    We do the right thing, the correct effect materializes and saves the planet, yet somehow the response from the politicians, AGW advocates, and even the climate scientists was the opposite of what it should have been. This does not inspire us to continue going out of our way to do the right things.

    pzatchok,
    Thank you for the update on the progress of the rising oceans. Andrew_W has not been kind enough to do so. He just contradicts the scientific method, ignores observation, and chooses to blindly believe the lying politicians.

    To reword your update to better match what I was looking for: so far, the rising oceans are behind schedule to meet the promises that were made by the scientists and politicians. Fortunately, there are eight decades for them to catch up. Unfortunately, this lack of oceanic rise does not inspire confidence that the climate scientists or the politicians are giving us good information.

    This is all the more reason to be skeptical.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *