Well, yes, yes we do. Promises were made. Promises that are not hard to keep
Climate Change Deniers Have President Trump’s Ear. But Now They Want Results
The past eight years have not been kind to people who dispute that the climate is changing. Leading scientists strengthened the case that the earth is warming and humans are at fault, while the Obama administration prioritized fighting its effects. As with so much else, the election of President Trump has ushered in a new day.
Over the past eight years, we saw the long continuation of the Great Pause, which caused Warmists to trot out well over 70 excuses to wish it away. They were caught numerous times manipulating data to accord with their Beliefs. Polls continued to show that ‘climate change’ was a low ranking issue with people in the U.S., Canada, Britain, and most 1st World nations. The passage of climate change policies in Australia caused the party that passed them to get obliterated in elections, especially those in Queensland. More and more studies have shown that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by Not-Man.
Since taking office, Trump has moved to gut Obama’s signature climate change regulations, signed executive orders to aid the fossil fuel industry and installed a critic of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as its head. And yet to some of the strongest opponents of Obama’s environmental policy, particularly those who deny the existence of global warming, Trump is not going far enough. Despite having called climate change a “hoax” before his election, these critics think Trump has been ducking bigger fights like withdrawing from the international Paris Agreement on climate change and undoing the scientific underpinning for the EPA’s climate change rules.
The schism reflects the larger divide inside the Trump administration between the disruptive nationalists, the establishment figures and the more centrist voices. In the case of Trump’s environmental agenda, those urging him to move even faster see the president’s daughter, Ivanka, her husband, Jared Kushner, and other advisors with New York ties, like Gary Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council, as their chief opponents.
“At some point it needs to be pointed out to President Trump and his administration that the people who elected Donald J. Trump are not wealthy Manhattanites,” said Myron Ebell, who was Trump’s EPA transition chief, “including his children.”
There’s plenty of criticism for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who appears to rather moderate on the issue, but, then, he hasn’t been doing much of anything. EPA Head Scott Pruitt has been accused of moving too slowly in scuttling ‘climate change’ regulations.
Trump has taken a number of steps to advance his environmental agenda, which includes some of the priorities Ebell laid out in the transition. Trump’s proposed budget defunds a wide range of EPA programs and calls for widespread layoffs. On March 28, he signed a sweeping executive order that calls for the EPA to review the Clean Power Plan with an eye toward eliminating it, kills a metric for assessing the economic effects of carbon dioxide emissions known as the social cost of carbon and rethinks how policymakers consider climate change.
Trump has done some good things. He needs to follow through and continue this push, along with pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord. Simply ignoring it is a poor option, as it would be left in place for future presidents.
Still, those who deny the science behind climate change are in a position to influence U.S. policy for years to come. Trump does not have a science advisor and his administration has turned to skeptics for guidance on energy and environmental policy issues. Lehr, who says the greenhouse effect plays a negligible role in the climate, delivered a presentation to administration officials designed to help Trump defend his claim that climate change is hoax.
Can you guess what really denies the science behind anthropogenic climate change? Science! The models are failures, the data is manipulated, peer reviewed papers are political and junk science. Their whole hypothesis is “it got warmer and man puts out some CO2, therefore, man is at fault, and I’m going to take lots of fossil fueled travel to tell everyone.”
TEACH: You inadvertently didn’t link to your graphic so that we could identify the source. It looks suspiciously like Roy Spencer’s thoroughly debunked graph where he fudged the start baseline to mislead his loyal readers.
… False. The models predicted warming.
… Unclear what you mean. Famed skeptics Roy Spencer and John Christy’s manipulation of the UAH satellite data is legend. They were forced to correct their erroneous calculations which confirmed the satellite data correlates with the surface record. ALL temperature data are corrected, none more than the satellite data. The raw data are available for analysis by skeptics and deniers and real scientists alike. No one has demonstrated untoward “data manipulation”.
… Silly and indefensible. Typed liked a science denier.
Anyway, we thought that “skeptics” no longer questioned whether the Earth is warming, and only questioned causation. It seems your return to the so-called “pause” and your rehashing of temperature “data manipulation” certainly make it appear that you still question whether the Earth is warming at all. Is the “pause” still going on?
The Earth has warmed about 1C the past century or so, and experts in the area are certain the unusual warming results from the increase in atmospheric CO2. Evidence from thousands of studies, not to mention the century old understanding of physics supports the theory. We are already seeing the effects of warming on the Earth and on human society and there is no reason to think the warming will stop on its own.
Since 1978:
Lower troposphere
UAH5.6 TLT: 0.155 ±0.062 °C/decade
HatCRUT4: 0.165 ±0.034 °C/decade
Global surface
GISS: 0.177 ±0.039 °C/decade
Oops. HadCRUT4 belongs under surface temperature.
[…] jQuery(mainContentMetaInfo).append(tdPostRanksHtml); } } }); © Source: http://www.thepiratescove.us/2017/04/13/climate-skeptics-want-more-action-from-trump/ All rights are reserved and belongs to a source […]
The generally accepted mean global temperature is ~ 59° F.
********
The statistical significance of temperature differences with 3 or even 2 significant figures to the right of the decimal point is highly questionable.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/12/are-claimed-global-record-temperatures-valid/
That is accounted for by the margins of error (2-sigma) provided.
Since 1978:
Lower troposphere
UAH5.6 TLT: 0.155 ±0.062 °C/decade
Global surface
GISS: 0.177 ±0.039 °C/decade
HadCRUT4: 0.165 ±0.034 °C/decade
One is not justified in using the approach of calculating the Standard Error of the Mean to improve precision, by removing random errors, because there is no fixed, single value that random errors cluster about. The global average is a hypothetical construct that doesn’t exist in Nature. Instead, temperatures are changing, creating variable, systematic-like errors.
Same article that you didn’t read.
The margins of error are not based on a naïve calculation of standard error. A team of statisticians at Berkeley reanalyzed the raw data, and they verified the finding of previous analyses. This chart shows the temperature anomaly, along with the error margins.
Annual Land-Surface Average Temperature (Anomaly)
Nice graph, kiddies.
Nice strawman, too.
No. It’s not a strawman to point out that the argument you posted is fallacious, and that are statistical means (such as Monte Carlo) which can determine margins of error for complex data trends.
The CRUT4 has 1.3C of fraudulent adjustments in it and doesn’t agree with reality at all. They’ve hidden past warming periods by making them colder. Periods that the record shows were when most of our warm temperature records were set and when we had significant glacial and arctic melting. Now, in CRUT4, none of that happened.
Statisticians at Berkeley reanalyzed the raw data and confirmed the conclusion of Hadley researchers.
Annual Land-Surface Average Temperature (Anomaly)
CRUT4: nothing but BS:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png
The periods of highest glacial melting, the 1940’s, are much colder than today. The 1960 – 1980 cold period has been erased. Nothing but BS.
Can you support with evidence your suggestion that the 40s were warmer than now?
According to the HadCrut dataset, the period from 1960 to 1980 was cooler than 1940. https://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Even your own HADCRUT citation shows clearly that the period 1960-1980 was cooler than 1940.
What makes you say this cool period was erased by manipulation?