by Judith Curry
So . . . what can we expect from the Trump administration on environment/climate/energy?
There is much angst among the ‘greens’ about what to expect. This is typified by this morning’s headlines from the Huffington Post:
SET TO BOIL: Trump Racing to Scrap Landmark Climate Deal
China Calls Move Ludicrous… ‘GAME OVER’: Scientists Fear Disaster With Donald… ‘Election Of Donald Trump Could Be Devastating For Our Climate And Our Future’… ‘Trump Has A Profound Ignorance Of Science’… Donald Taps Climate-Change Skeptic To Dismantle EPA… Oil Exec Eyed For Sec. Of Interior… New Push For Keystone Pipeline Fires Up…
Lets take a closer look at what President-elect Trump has actually said in recent months, including his policy/issue statements.
Hoax
Whenever the issue of Trump and climate change comes up in the world of the ‘greens’, the first thing they mention is that he said climate change is a ‘hoax.’
Politifact has done a good job of summarizing this (January 2016):
The clearest example comes from a tweet sent by Trump on Nov. 6, 2012. “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
On Jan. 18, after Sanders had attacked Trump’s climate change views in the Democratic debate, Trump told Fox & Friends, “Well, I think the climate change is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money. I know much about climate change. I’d be — received environmental awards. And I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China. Obviously, I joke. But this is done for the benefit of China, because China does not do anything to help climate change. They burn everything you could burn; they couldn’t care less. They have very — you know, their standards are nothing. But they — in the meantime, they can undercut us on price. So it’s very hard on our business.”
On Dec. 30, 2015, Trump told the crowd at a rally in Hilton Head, S.C., “Obama’s talking about all of this with the global warming and … a lot of it’s a hoax. It’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, OK? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.”
In August, he stated: “I’m not a big believer in manmade climate change. Nobody knows for sure.”
Lets first look at the definition of ‘hoax’, here are a few I spotted by googling:
- a humorous or malicious deception.
- to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous
- a plan to deceive a large group of people
- a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.
With these definitions in mind, here are two examples that qualify as hoaxes that I have previously written about:
- The UNFCCC definition of ‘climate change’ arguably qualifies as a hoax: climate change is a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods. [link]. This perversion of the definition of ‘climate change’ was designed to mislead people into thinking that all climate change is caused by humans.
- The propaganda from the UNFCCC that misleads people into thinking that the planned emissions reductions will have any discernible impact (that emerges from natural variability) on the 21st century climate [link], even if you believe the climate models.
So in terms of climate hoaxes, perhaps it is NOT Donald Trump’s whose pants are on fire.
Trump’s answers to ScienceDebate
ScienceDebate.org asked the Presidential candidates questions on a range of science-related issues. The answers to the climate change questions are [here]. Trump’s statement:
There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of “climate change.” Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.
Well, I find it difficult to argue with any of this. In fact, I like this statement quite a lot.
Paris
The big news over the weekend is that someone from Trump’s transition team has leaked that Trump plans to pull out of the Paris UNFCCC agreement [link].
Robert Stavins has a concise analysis of Trump’s road ahead re climate change [link]:
Trump, if we take him at his word, will try to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement on tackling climate change. But it will take four years to do that, now that it has come into force. (It came into force quickly — with countries accounting for 55 percent of global emissions ratifying it — only because countries were afraid of Trump being elected, and wanted to lock the United States in.)
Despite the fact that the Obama administration has already submitted the instrument of ratification through executive agreement, Trump might submit the Paris Agreement to the Senate, where, of course, it would fail in a ratification vote. Or he might just announce that we will not comply with our already submitted nationally determined contributions, a 26 to 28 percent reduction below 2005 emissions by 2025. The big question is what effect all of this will have on the positions of China, India, Brazil, etc. It will surely not encourage greater action.
Domestically, he wants to “bring back the coal industry,” but the problems of the U.S. coal industry are competition from low-price natural gas for electricity generation, not environmental regulation. Also, that’s inconsistent with his pronouncements supporting fracking, because that increases gas supply and lowers gas prices, which hurts coal.
Could he try to amend the Clean Air Act itself? That would be unlikely to succeed, as Democrats in the Senate would filibuster, I assume. Would he eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency, as he also promised at one point? No, again that would require an act of Congress. But he could try to starve the agency through low funding. And he will be appointing people to hundreds of key positions.
A more thorough analysis is provided by Paul Voosen: What Trump can – and can’t – do all by himself on climate.
Energy
Trump’s campaign web site issued a Position Statement on Energy:
DONALD J. TRUMP’S VISION
- Make America energy independent, create millions of new jobs, and protect clean air and clean water. We will conserve our natural habitats, reserves and resources. We will unleash an energy revolution that will bring vast new wealth to our country.
- Declare American energy dominance a strategic economic and foreign policy goal of the United States.
- Unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves.
Become, and stay, totally independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC cartel or any nations hostile to our interests. - Open onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands, eliminate moratorium on coal leasing, and open shale energy deposits.
- Encourage the use of natural gas and other American energy resources that will both reduce emissions but also reduce the price of energy and increase our economic output.
- Rescind all job-destroying Obama executive actions. Mr. Trump will reduce and eliminate all barriers to responsible energy production, creating at least a half million jobs a year, $30 billion in higher wages, and cheaper energy.
Read Donald J. Trump’s 100-Day Action Plan, here.
Read Mr. Trump’s Remarks at the Shale Insight Event, and at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference.
KEY ISSUES
- Energy costs the average American household $5,000 per year. As a percentage of income, the cost is greater for lower-income families. [Fox News, Sept. 3, 2015]
- Shale energy production could add 2 million jobs in 7 years.
- The oil and natural gas industry supports 10 million high-paying Americans jobs and can create another 400,000 new jobs per year. [The New York Times, June 20, 2015]
EPA
Anyone interested in the environment is abuzz with the news that Myron Ebell is leading the transition re the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This Wikipedia article summarizes why the ‘greens’ would be alarmed at this appointment.
The Hill has an interesting article: Myron Ebell is Perfectly Suited to Lead the Transition. Excerpts:
Consequently, Ebell has expressed concern about EPA positions, including the Clean Power Plan. The EPA’s controversial power plan is based on an inadequate understanding of global warming and should not drive our middle class into energy poverty against congressional will.
It is critical to understand that while the federal government, through Congress, establishes the overall goals of environmental protection through laws like the Clean Air and Water acts, the implementation of those laws is by state governments.
State governments and their citizens have demonstrated the ability to implement programs that protect our environment without destroying the very thing that makes environmental protection possible: a strong economy.
Over the last eight years the Obama administration has abandoned this successful approach to environmental protection as envisioned by Congress. Instead, they have turned to special interest groups to drive centralized planning. Prime examples include the 2015 EPA Power Plan and the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule.
These rules contain illusory flexibility to states when in reality they represent a huge shift of control from states to the federal government. Even the current administration acknowledged that the power plan was symbolic and would do little to improve air quality.
The power plan would be expensive and shut down energy plants that have not yet been paid for, thereby stranding those costs with ratepayers. It would harm the industrial sector by significantly increasing electricity rates, which would throttle manufacturing industries that require low energy prices to compete.
Similarly, under WOTUS land use decisions would be federalized. Our nation’s agricultural industry would be hamstrung by costly and unnecessary land use restrictions, which would stifle growth opportunities. The expansion of manufacturing, commercial and residential development would be left to federal bureaucrats.
Fortunately, dozens of states and state agencies stood their ground against the federal government and won stays against these rules. We hope the Trump EPA will review existing rules and base its policy decisions on sound data and measurable results.
History has demonstrated time and again that just as “all politics is local,” so is environmental protection. State and local governments know best how to apply the many tools available to protect the environment and public health.We still need the EPA, but not the EPA of the past.
Returning control of our environment to the states also limits the dark money from self-serving lobbyists and deep-pocketed special interest groups masquerading as environmentalists.
Environment
I spotted this statement from Trump on the Wikipedia:
Everyone deserves clean air and safe drinking water regardless of race or Water infrastructure will be a big priority. We need to work to protect natural areas, but in a balanced way. End Obama EPA mandates that cost too many jobs, are opposed by most states, and too often have negligible benefit for the environment.
Sep 16, 2016
One of his tweets: “Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air – not the same old climate change (global warming) bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense.”
Some additional hints from outsideonline:
Don Jr. told reporters: “[W]e’ve broken away from a lot of traditional conservative dogma on the issue, in that we do want federal lands to remain federal.”
Trump himself put it like so to Field & Stream last January: “I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land.”
The next month, however, Don Jr. gave a more nuanced reply to a reporter’s question about revised leasing requirements coming into place on some federal lands, to enhance protections. “We do have to preserve those lands, and what I’ve seen thus far has been pretty reasonable,” young Don asserted.
JC reflections
In my post Trumping the elites, I stated that Trump’s election provided an opportunity for a more rational energy and climate policy. Many in the blog comments and the twitosphere found this to be an incomprehensible statement.
Here is what I think needs to be done, and I do see opportunities for these in a Trump administration:
- a review of climate science that includes a faithful and transparent representation of uncertainties in 21st century projections of global and regional climate change
- reopening of the ‘endangerment’ issue, as to whether warming is ‘dangerous’
- a do-over on assessing the social cost of carbon, that accounts for full uncertainty in the climate model simulations, the integrated assessment models and their inputs.
- support funding for Earth observing systems (satellite, surface, ocean) and research on natural climate variability.
Even if politics are to ‘trump’ the conclusions of these analyses, it would be clear that the Trump administration has done its due diligence on this issue in terms of gathering and assessing information. If the Trump administration were to accomplish the first 3 items, they might have a scientifically and economically defensible basis for pulling out of the Paris agreement and canceling Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
Environmentalists and ‘greens’ should look for the promising avenues to work with Trump, e.g.:
- Trump is clearly a supporter of clean water and clean air
- Trump seems dedicated to being a good custodian of federal lands (don’t underestimate Don Jr’s influence on this one)
- Trump wants the U.S. to be energy independent; this is easier without an over reliance on fossil fuels
- Trump seems to support win-win energy solutions; e.g. solutions that reduce cost and increase energy security while at the same time reducing emissions.
- Trump is a builder that wants to improve water infrastructure, which will help ameliorate the impacts of droughts and floods.
Working together on these issues would be a good start, if the ‘greens’ can get past the climate hoax thing. Donald Trump does not seem to be particularly beholden to the fossil fuel sector.
In closing, some insights from Andy Revkin:
Is this end times for environmental progress or, more specifically, climate progress? No. The bad news about climate change is, in a way, the good news:
The main forces determining emission levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide will be just as much out of President Trump’s hands as they were out of President Obama’s. The decline in the United States has mainly been due to market forces shifting electricity generation from coal to abundant and cheaper natural gas, along with environmental regulations built around the traditional basket of pollutants that even conservatives agreed were worth restricting. (Efficiency and gas-mileage standards and other factors have helped, too, of course.)
At the same time, the unrelenting rise in greenhouse-gas emissions in developing countries is propelled by an unbending reality identified way back in 2005 by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, when he said, “The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge.”
At the same time, as well, other fundamental forces will continue to drive polluted China and smog-choked India to move away from unfettered coal combustion as a path to progress. An expanding middle class is already demanding cleaner air and sustainable transportation choices — just as similar forces enabled pollution cleanups in the United States in the last century.
That’s why the Paris Agreement on climate change will continue to register progress on emissions and investments in clean energy or climate resilience, but only within the limits of what nations already consider achievable .
So if you’re a working-class family, and dad has to drive 50 miles to get to his job, and he can’t afford to buy a Tesla or a Prius, and the most important thing to him economically to make sure he can pay the bills at the end of the month is the price of gas, and when gas prices are low that means an extra 100 bucks in his pocket, or 200 bucks in his pocket, and that may make the difference about whether or not he can buy enough food for his kids — if you just start lecturing him about climate change and what’s going to happen to the planet 50 years from now, it’s just not going to register.
Pingback: Trumping the climate – Enjeux énergies et environnement
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
With respect to Paris and CPP:
UNFCCC is a Pact with a 1 year opt out. Paris is under US law an. Ecutive agreement persuant to UNFCCC. Trump can serve Opt out notice on UNFCCC, and that would undo both the Pact and the subservient Paris EA in 12 months. Or, he could stay im UNFCCC and serve opt out notice on the Paris EA, with US exit in 2020. As the US INDC is nonbinding the four years delay requires nothing be done in the meantime.
With respect to CPP there are three paths since the rgulations have been finalized and Trump has no authority to undo them directly. Redoing the endangerment finding is a lengthly process and woild certainly lead to subsequent very awkward litigation. It may well be possible to amend CAA to remove CO2 as a pollutant. Reid changed and arguably weakened the cloture rule for legislation at the same time he applied the nuclear option to all appointments except Supremes. Plus there are some Dem senators from coal states who might go along. Or, he can make a Supreme Court appointment and wait for the unconstitutional CPP case to rise there. Since CPP is stayed until resolution because the unconstitutional argument is likely to prevail based on Harvard Law comstitutional expert Larry Tribe’s brief, there is no harm in waiting.
The CPP calculus will depend on a read of the Senate’s ability to invoke cloture under its present rules. If doable by amendment, then amend the CWA also, as EPA’s WOTUS regs have been stayed on the same constitutional overreach grounds.
Before pulling the plug on UNEP, the President designate has a duty to take his K-Street crew of climate non-scientists off life support .
His new Chief of Staff should recall that politicizing and corporatizing science contributed to John Podesta’s downfall
The Senate didn’t approve UNFCCC. It’s non-binding already and will never be binding given the election results.
And CPP is nothing more than an EPA rule. It can be reversed or dropped by the EPA under Trump. I guess I’m not seeing the problem here.
Trump really does need and honest EPA director…any takers?
Judith…
Is this a joke?
On you?
Since when do robots have a sense of humor?
Bender, Bender, Bender.
Good answer Willard.
Though he is a cartoon robot.
I was referring to that bot, TimG.
The federal budget submitted by the new administration will tell the story.
Is anyone NOTfor clean water and air? Of course not; but calling CO2 a pollutant isn’t accurate and helpful, and an expensive distraction. Focus on real problems so we don’t have any repeats of the Flint MI disaster.
A pollutant is something that has a negative effect on the one defining it. CO2 is itself neutral, but an EXCESS of CO2 sufficient to disrupt Earth’s climactic system results in it being a pollutant for the life currently living on the planet.
UR, only under the circular current CAA poor pollutant definition. Legislation can easily fix that.
Well like a good robot you are true to your programing.
CO2 is plant food. Write that down.
There is no actual real data that supports the case that CO2 has ever or will ever disrupt Earth’s climate system.
There is a lot of actual real data that supports the case that more CO2 makes green things grow better with less water.
CO2 is more than 40% higher than it was in the Roman and Medieval warm periods and the temperature above the modern normal is more than 40% lower.
There is something really wrong with thinking this is any kind of bad thing.
CO2 is itself neutral, but an EXCESS of CO2 sufficient to disrupt Earth’s climactic system results in it being a pollutant for the life currently living on the planet.
Given that co2 fertilization takes place at levels even fourfold greater than current, it’s hard to make the case that we’ll ever see a CO2 level from fuel use.
Many try so say: ‘Look at the global Temperature!”
But global temperature just doesn’t correlate with bad things happening.
People can read the various IPCC WG2 reports for the negatives, but I suspect they won’t. These are in the areas of food and water supply, sea-level and coasts, diseases, fires/droughts, floods, ocean life, biodiversity, etc., for example in their SPM.
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Right Jim D,
The section for Policy Makers, which has repeatedly been shown to be unsupported by the actual science in the rest of their report. How about pointing to actual evidence that any of the supposed negative consequences are occurring.
CO2 is itself neutral, but an EXCESS of CO2 sufficient to disrupt Earth’s climactic system results in it being a pollutant for the life currently living on the planet.
Historically the CO2 level has been about 30,000 PPM for most of the planet’s history.
We are desperately short of CO2 to the point that plants don’t grow well. Development of C4 plants is a sign of CO2 deficiency and C4 plants will extinct as soon as the CO2 level returns to a normal level for an extended period.
It isn’t practical to return to the “normal” 30,000 PPM. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
While up to 1200 PPM will be beneficial to plant growth, without massive fossil fuel subsidies it will be difficult to exceed 460-480 PPM. Which means we will probably always be burdened with C4 plants.
Given that we have a massive deficiency of CO2 there is no possibility of it being a pollutant.
What I’d like to see Trump do:
Hold a series of hearings, before Congress, live for the world to watch, listen and learn- and bring in people like michael mann AND Roy Spencer, phil jones AND Judith Curry, peter gleick AND Richard Lindzen, and so forth, to testify to ALL of the science currently going on in climate change.
ClimateOtter
Well done Dr. Curry!
Like a breath if fresh clean air!
Like a drink of clean water!
Wonderfull!!
“So in terms of climate hoaxes, perhaps it is NOT Donald Trump’s whose pants are on fire.”
So let’s read it again:
“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
Do you really believe that? The Chinese? To undermine U.S. manufacturing?
It was Mrs. T, closing coal mines, pensioning off Arthur Scargill and changing over to the gas power stations.
did you see the part where trump said this was a joke? also, did you not like my argument about focusing on what he has said recently (i.e. 2016, or better yet the last few months)?
“did you see the part where trump said this was a joke?”
Sounds like your definition of a hoax:
“a humorous or malicious deception.”
“better yet the last few months”
“months” seems like a long use-by date for Trump statements. The wall seems to be now maybe mostly fence. And as for Mexico paying, well, as summarized Gingrich:
“He may not spend much time trying to get Mexico to pay for it. But it was a great campaign device.”
Nick, *sigh*, have you never heard of trump’s “art of the deal”? Reagan used to say that if he got 80% of what he wanted then he was happy. Trump in essence modifies that by asking for 125% of what he wants and ends up getting 80% of that (or 100% of what he wants). Take the wall… ask mexico to pay for it, mexico says no, trump says o.k. we’ll pay for the wall. Mexico ends up thinking that they stood up to trump so they walk away happy. Trump gets his wall so he ends up happy. Everybody ends up happy (except nick stokes… ☺)! If people don’t think that mexico is gullible enough to fall for this, just note that every other media outlet (including fox news) fell for it. It’s amazing how gullible the masses can be. After all, we all fell for the hoax called AGW, didn’t we?
” Everybody ends up happy”
Well, how about the people who voted for Trump thinking they would get a wall paid for by Mexico. Sept 1 2016:
Then they find out it was just a great campaign device.
Nick, trump voters are just simply elated that they don’t have to listen to hillary cackle for eight years…
So when Trump says Saudi Arabia and Japan should have nuclear weapons, what is he trying to negotiate, or are some of his statements just blunders with no clear path to anything sensible?
@Stokes – Mexico will pay for the wall one way or another. For instance about $25B in money is sent by individuals working illegally in the US to individuals living in Mexico. We can impose a tax on those repatriations.
@Jim D – paraphrased “what was Trump negotiating saying Japan & others might need to become nuclear armed” he is negotiating cost sharing with countries who enjoy living under the US nuclear umbrella.
Thanks for asking!
DS, so if he wants Saudi Arabia to have nuclear weapons, is that a negotiation with Israel to buy more?
Jim D, I can’t think of anything that would frighten China more than the thought of a nuclear armed Japan. There is a history there. Just bringing up the idea may make China more reasonable when it comes to applying pressure on N Korea. Yes, I would consider that a negotiating position.
Every voter, even the most deplorables, knows that campaign soundbotes are what they are, soundbites and they perfectly know that Trump will make a deal and will do anything to get the best out of it for the US? Yet it will be a business deal not some kind of political back room treaty or pact or whatever, just plain business.
And he wíll revoke many, many trillions of climate money paid to the UN and other black holes and use it nationally for infra structure and also some local climate projects. As long as it is local, all the money streams going abroad will dry up.
steven, the US has a history with Japan and nuclear weapons too, and I think there’s a few Americans that were also frightened by Trump’s statement. However, he has not repeated it which is a sure sign of a backtrack in the way Trump does things. How about Saudi Arabia? Is that for the money or to get Israel thinking?
Come on Jim, think. Who is Saudi Arabia fighting a proxy war against in Yemen?
Russia is allied with Iran. How does Trump choose sides here?
Jim D, My guess is he picks the US side. If you discover something different let me know.
Nick,
You do know there already is a wall, right. It just doesn’t run the entire length of the border.
Then there is the part of how reasoning folk interpret Trump’s “wall” pledge. As in it’s not so much about a physical wall stretching the length of the border. The “wall” is a symbol for placing a greater emphasis on controlling illegal immigration. Even ignorant deplorable’s with high school educations can usually grasp that one. Maybe I should ask “What high school did you graduate from?”
He later walks things back by saying he was joking, but is somewhat vague about which part and what he really means. This is his way of fooling some of the people (the uneducated) all of the time. They probably also missed his walkback, such as it was, of the Obama birtherism, and half a dozen other walkbacks and softenings of messages during the campaign. They take him at his word for the first thing he said, sadly.
He later walks things back by saying he was joking, but is somewhat vague about which part and what he really means.
Ya, kinda like “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
I took that one to heart, and in retrospect, that was silly.
95% of Democrats probably wouldn’t have stood for that, only fringe elements wanted to hears that.
To cobble together coalitions, candidates say these things to keep the fringe elements on board.
This just in: politicians lie.
More news: they lie because the voters want to hear lies.
Suffering some from the clear result? Tough. He won. More honest than either ‘hope and change’ or ‘pay to play’.
And in case you didn’t take the HLS course on negotiation, initial deliberate misframing and misanchoring are standard strawman tactics cleverly used at the table in order to flush silly other side stuff out early, in order to then set a proper mutually agreed frame and anchor bounding all possible negotiated outcomes.
‘Art of the Deal ‘ by another name (Legal Negotiation when I was there) is a semester optional course at Harvard Law. Together with HBS, they also offer(ed?) a 3 day primer a couple of times a year for anyone willing to pay. Had to drag several business colleagues there several separate times for boot camp education. Like vaccination booster shots for me.
Trump has some difficulty with stating facts, and is too used to having yes-men around him. His lying rate was something like 70% on the campaign trail, and while this works for the Art of the Con, people do check, and he has to retract. This is why he does not like the media. Facts are inconvenient, and he didn’t have to stand for dissent in Trump Tower. This is a new thing to him. Lying and bluffing work in an authoritarian environment like his business, but not so well when the media are recording him.
What rud said.
In spades.
SM, we seldom agree. Thanks on this tactical point. Regards.
Jim D, still with the “uneducated” lie?
I bet there are a large number of people here who both voted for Trump and have better education credentials than you do.
Pollsters this morning were accounting for their error in the rust belt as an underestimate of the uneducated percentage, which is a hard number to get accurately. They had assumed 50%, but it may have been two thirds in those states. States with the biggest polling errors had this in common.
Careful, Jim D –
It isn’t politically correct to discuss education levels. This crowd wants a safe space where no one brings that up.
Michael Moore knows this demographic. They are the ones with unskilled jobs who lived in these small towns all their lives. The educated ones got out and went to the big cities. It was their cry for help, using their vote as a Molotov cocktail according to Moore. Again, I recommend his monologue about this issue, one of several, in his Trumpland movie, now on cable (On Demand, Showtime).
> initial deliberate misframing and misanchoring are standard strawman tactics cleverly used at the table
Sir Rud extended that technique past “initial.”
Willard, you just cannot resist the offensive sir part. How about a substantive refutation instead, My offensive to you ‘Sir’ guesses you cannot. And, see further comments below.
No safe space necessary Josh.
Just straight forward discussion. Something you struggle with.
> How about a substantive refutation instead […]
That presupposes there is substance to refute, Sir.
Since your proof is a proof by assertion, there is none.
How you redefine misleading as anchoring is interesting, though.
How post-truthful of you.
“SM, we seldom agree. Thanks on this tactical point. Regards.”
I didnt get the deluxe classes, had to settle for Karrass.
Then many years as the official bad cop in negotiations..
For all those complaining of the ignorance of Trump voters, I believe we can assume there is some minor correlation between intelligence and education, and income. It sure looks like Romney was right about his 47%. People who take from the government voted for Hillary. Those that give to the government voted for Trump.
The king of all whoppers remains “If you like your health plan your can keep your health plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. The Affordable Care Act will lower the cost of health care for everyone.”
Trump is starting to make healthcare promises about pre-existing conditions now, so hopefully he holds to them, because that was the one that really helped Obamacare to improve over the old system, and we do need to keep that.
charles, that typical Republican-elitist view does not explain the result we had. There were shifts within these populations that were different from last time. Many rich people vote Dem and many poor people, that you would ignore like Romney and Trump didn’t, vote GOP. The shift was more subtle than that. Trump didn’t get as many votes as Romney, but the change of distribution helped, even as Hillary got more votes than Romney.
I love the way the dumb voters out smarted the edumicated pollsters, pundits and prognosticators.
Lets see.. the only person I know who actually GOT the trump voter was this dropout..
from Michigan of course
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore
If we’re talking about voter qualifications like education and income I’d like to add in consideration for military service.
Should people who haven’t been in the military be voting for commander-in-chief of the military?
Should people who don’t have enough civic pride to volunteer for military service be allowed to vote?
People who live in glass houses with regard to some voters being more qualified than others shouldn’t throw stones!
David
Bearing in mind this was seen as a pivotal election I was surprised at the low voter turnout.
In our recent pivotal vote-Brexit-the turnout was historically pretty high.
Were the two candidates generally viewed as being too poor to vote for or was something else going on here? Perhaps they didn’t care enough about the outcome or perhaps they recognised that the swamp needed draining?
If Democrats had turned out in sufficient numbers they could have easily won the election, but they didn’t (like our young voters on Brexit)
tonyb
Hillary fell short of Obama’s numbers and a lot of that was young voters. They were for Bernie, but many never made that transition.
Consensus liberal colleges do not graduate people who are skeptic. Scientists must be skeptic and it is difficult for skeptic people to get a college degree.
You contradict yourself. Scientists are skeptical. That’s how science progresses, by first being challenged and only moving forwards when the challenges fail.
JimD and Moshpit, did you see the 100 days speech from Trump? If so can you link me to the lies he tells in there?
Steve you missed someone besides Michael Moore who got it right and did so well before Michael Moore. That person being Ann Coulter and she’s from New York.
Michael Moore’s follow-up prediction is that Trump will not last 4 years due to some scandal, and also that he won’t follow through on his promises to the rust belt which will quickly lose those people.
Michael Moore also had this stupid movie where he said we Canadians don’t even lock our doors at night. Pity the poor American who actually believes that.
I still think Coulter should be Press Secretary.
“imD and Moshpit, did you see the 100 days speech from Trump? If so can you link me to the lies he tells in there?”
Nope. I think I watched his Victory speech and that was it.
Didn’t watch much of the debates and generally do not watch
american TV. I made an exception for election returns. Watched a
bit. Pretty happy with the results.
Mosher someone “got it” besides Michael Moore…
https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/14/week-in-review-politics-edition-13/#comment-818524
Ahem. Impeach Barry on October 19th said Trump might not need Florida if he can run the rust belt. Which he did and won by more than Florida’s 29 votes.
Yeah, I’m that good.
You contradict yourself. Scientists are skeptical.
No contradiction, Scientists are skeptical, the “so called” consensus scientists may have a degree that says science, but they are not real scientists because they are not skeptical.
Springer,
I’ve been a fan of the franchise being dependent on prior service to the nation since reading Robert Heinlein. I wouldn’t limit it to military service only, but the concept that citizens have to serve to earn the right to vote is one I like. One can’t argue it isn’t egalitarian, as there are few if any limitations on volunteering to serve.
Of course when asking that voters present ID is seen by a certain element as being extremely prejudicial, fat chance of instituting a requirement to serve happening.
Nick, that is exactly the effect of Obama’s China climate deal. US promises to hobble power production and industry, China promises to do nothing until 2030. Wooly stupidity about US setting an example. Voters got it.
You make the same mistake Clinton and her enablers did, taking Trump literally and not seriously. The voters took him seriously and not literally. Rrsult Electoral College 306 to 232. Your comment is a perfect example of the fundamental progressive mistake.
Serious US climate policy change coming very soon. Warmunists Trumped.
Please remind me who won the popular vote.
You’re to be reminded that the goal was not to win the popular vote, rather electoral votes. Had the goal been to win the popular vote the outcome of the popular vote may well have been different. Your doubling down on stupid here is precisely why trump won the presidency. WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR ALINSKY BEHAVIOR…
No one won the popular vote. As Springer points out, all the votes aren’t even counted, so no one knows who won that. If needed, mail in ballots are counted. But if the outcome is clear, they aren’t.
Well … according to Snopes, all votes are counted. And California has a lot uncounted, so many if not most would go to Billary. Never mind :)
Robot,
Please remind us how that matters.
Hillary DID NOT win the popular vote. Here’s why.
She may win the number of votes counted, but not the votes cast.
States don’t count their absentee ballots unless the number of outstanding absentee ballots is larger than the state margin of difference. If there is a margin of 1,000 votes counted and there are 1,300 absentee ballots outstanding, then the state tabulates those. If the number of outstanding absentee ballots wouldn’t influence the election results, then the absentee ballots aren’t counted.
Who votes by absentee ballot? Students overseas, the military, businesspeople on trips, etc. The historical breakout for absentee ballots is about 67-33% Republican. In 2000, when Al Gore “won” the popular vote nationally by 500,000 votes and the liberal media screamed bloody murder, there were 2 million absentee ballots in California alone. A 67-33 breakout of those yields a 1.33 to 0.66 million Republican vote advantage, so Bush would have gotten a 667,000-vote margin from California’s uncounted absentee ballots alone! So much for Gore’s 500,000 popular vote “victory.” (That was the headline on the N.Y. Times, and it was the lead story on NBC Nightly News, right? No? You’re kidding.)
So, the next time someone says “Hillary won the popular vote” you can give them this little election lesson, as most people have no idea that hundreds of thousands of ballots are never even counted. Statistically, there is no way Hillary Clinton won the popular vote this year.”
UR, the latest figures now put Trump 700,000 votes. So he won it all, convincingly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory_us_5827a2c5e4b02d21bbc91bbc
It should also be noted that HRC, like her husband twice before her, had more people vote against her than for… Trump did remarkably well even in the popular vote considering that johnson siphoned off a substantial percentage of his vote. Ditto for Gore, who had nader to contend with. (not to mention buchanan who siphoned off 3,000 of his votes in florida… ☺) So, for a host of reasons these popular vote totals mean next to nothing. Trump may have gotten less than 50% of the vote, but he got 100% of the presidency. That libs are going nuts over this means one thing and one thing alone. They are doubling down on their own stupidity which is what propelled trump into the white house in the first place. And, i might add, gave him majorities in the house and senate. As well, the SCOTUS should remain right leaning now for a good long time. Way to go libs! Your alinsky bad behavior should keep america center right for at least four maybe eight years or more. Pat yourselves on the back. You should be proud that you were able to do what the republican party could not do for themselves. (couldn’t have done it without you)…
Clinton cannot “win” the popular vote until all absentee and provisional ballots have been been opened and counted.
Write that down.
jim2: And California has a lot uncounted,
4.3 million, as of last report. The break in the absentee ballots is not the same as the break in the election-day votes. If, as has happened before, the CA vote broke 60:40 for Republicans, then Trump won the popular vote, pending the absentee ballot votes in the rest of the states.
Not all states count the absentee ballots.
In short, it is not yet known who won the popular vote, and it may never be known.
Stay tuned.
Interestingly, Clinton’s margin in the CA vote is 2.9 million, but her margin nationally is 0.7 million, meaning that outside CA (on present counts), Clinton lost. To avoid dominance by a few large states, like this, is why the Senate and Electoral College were created. The other large margins were provided by NY City, Philadelphia, and Chicago.
What federal law requires states to count all absentee ballots if there aren’t enough of them to change the result?
Snopes falls short of that and instead refers to a private, non-government website called vote.org who also fail to provide more than an empty claim that all absentee ballots are counted by all states.
In any event certified results from the states are not due until December 6th.
That was very interesting about absentee votes not being counted.
My first thought is that it is unfair not to count absentee votes but I suppose as your system uses an electoral college, rather than the popular vote, I can understand it seems pointless to count them if the election has already been won.
On the other hand, it might have stopped the protests that are still going on. Also, it seems that although a person took the trouble to cast their vote it is not considered important enough to vote. Surely counting them adds to the legitimacy of the result?
tonyb
David Springer: What federal law requires states to count all absentee ballots if there aren’t enough of them to change the result?
There is no such law: such counting is up to the states.
However, a complete count might show that Bush and Trump won their respective races, and put an end to the push to end the Electoral College.
Also, if a state (say OK) passes a law that awards its Electoral College votes to the popular vote winner, then it will be necessary to know the popular vote winner.
remind yourself who one the presidency !
Not only should you focus on the present, but Trump evolved during the race as he learned more about the issue. He will be evolving like crazy with the information tidal wave coming his way.
I’m not upset by this because I believe he will keep the little guy in mind as he goes about his Presidential dealings. If the details change, so be it.
Ya.
In my opinion, Trump saw the opportunity in being vague – most voters realise that the issues that remain are difficult and don’t have easy answers. If there were easy answers, they wouldn’t BE problems! By saying things like “we need to talk about this” and “maybe the answer is”, I think voters saw someone who wasn’t telling them they weren’t allowed to talk about what worried them, or someone who said they already had an answer, but someone who was saying “THIS is an issue, I want to solve it, tell me what YOU think about it and how YOU’D solve it”. Someone looking for a variety of possible solutions and with a history of maybe falling in the manure, but still managing to get out smelling like a rose.
What’s not to like?
He’s abrasive? – ALL politicians are, most just hide it better.
He’s crude? – we all are from time to time, it just shows he’s a real person.
He’s arrogant? – show me a politician who isn’t.
He’s rich? – who else can afford to run for president without racking up favors to the “donors”?
He changes his mind? – at least he has the guts to state an opinion before his minders do a survey, and the respect to change course when voters tell him he’s wrong.
That is your best shot Nick?
Cherry picking one sentence?
No cherry pick. The post has a whole section headed hoax. That was the conclusion.
And you could come up with only one quote out of that section?
Also, go to where the UNFCCC gives their definition, and it also compares and contrasts this to the IPCC definition.
https://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf/press_factsh_science.pdf
Hardly a “hoax” in the sense Trump uses the word repeatedly. By either definition, climate change is not a hoax. His Dec 30, 2015 statement did not refer to China, so it is not the one he said was a “joke”. He has yet to walk that one back, and the “skeptics” can help him by telling him it makes him look stoopid to everyone including them to continue to use that word. Congress even voted very specifically in January 2015 that it wasn’t a “hoax” in one of their carefully considered votes, so Trump needs to take that on board if he hasn’t heard about it by now.
Jim D,
From your link –
“Working Group I: The physical science
• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal and can now be firmly attributed to human activity.”
No mention of any GHE, just an unsupported assertion relating to some sort of undefined “climate system”. Typical half-truths, weasel-words, and wishful thinking presented as fact.
This is science?
Cheers.
“Also, go to where the UNFCCC gives their definition”
Yes, the UNFCCC was quite explicit about the status of their definition. It was a definition of their working purpose – ie what they could actually do something about (my highlight):
MF, catch up, will you? Read it again.
Jim D,
I was just pointing out some of what you chose to ignore.
Don’t you think that a statement implying that CO2 is evil, is a wee bit deceptive if it doesn’t actually mention CO2?
Or maybe it’s a hoax, because the UNFCCC knows that the ability of CO2 to cause a temperature rise is precisely zero?
Maybe it’s not a hoax, and the UNFCCC are being totally truthful by not saying that CO2 heats anything. If so, they’ve certainly hoaxed the GHE cultists into believing that the UNFCCC supports the magical heating properties of CO2.
What do you reckon? Hoax, ignorance, misdirection, or just plain stupidity?
Cheers.
It mentions emissions of greenhouse gases. Read it again slowly.
Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by America-haters to ruin the US economy.
Explain.
thanks NIck, that’s quite enlightening. The late 20th c. is is indistinguishable from “comparable time period” of early 20th c. rise. So according to IPCC definition there is no “climate change”. IPCC are climate change deniers. I never realised that. Thanks.
I would say that there is a distinction, just eye-balling the 30-year temperatures.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:120/mean:240/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1985/trend
“What do you reckon? Hoax, ignorance, misdirection, or just plain stupidity?”
The first is clearly too harsh, the second certainly has a place, the third seems more like than the second, but the forth is most likely in the majority.
Just plain misunderstanding what UNFCCC were explaining.
As mentioned by Stavins, he needs a reality check on “bringing back coal”. Natural gas is taking over because it is more efficient. Without coal, you don’t get steel back, so Trump’s construction business has to continue buying its steel from China for the foreseeable future, and he has to figure out another industry for the rust belt if he wants to get their jobs back. He will find this all out in due course.
Why not bring coal back? There is nothing wrong with burning coal.
Natural Gas prices are temporarily low but that isn’t going to last. With rapidly increasing consumption we will run out of natural gas first.
PA, likely true, but the time frame is centuries not decades. Stram coal will suffer from fracked gas because CCGT is both cheaper and more efficient. Trump cannot fix that. He can only level the playing field.
He refers to “clean coal” which is expensive to clean making it unviable when gas is plentiful. Gas should also be used to back up renewables rather than as a first resort because it is limited. Good planning is needed to make the best use of limited resources.
See my previous guest post Clean Coal for factual details.
As far as clean coal, I’ve shoveled coal before. It is pretty clean if you are careful and don’t spill it.
With a little care coal is clean enough now.
As far as natural gas supplanting coal it won’t be competitive for long
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_wellcost_s1_a.htm
I believe you are incorrect. Your viewpoint is not supported by the data.
Ask the Chinese about coal. Lack of regulation means lack of blue skies.
New US coal power plants are fine. They are much cleaner than my grandmothers furnace and that gave off just enough emissions to give a pleasant coal smell to the air.
When I look up “clean coal” the result is disturbing.
Half the benefit of coal is more CO2.
That someone would actually waste valuable research dollars trying to limit coal CO2 emissions is a disturbing misuse of government funds that should be investigated for criminal wrong-doing.
In fact the first thing Trump should fully fund research into the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere, and armed with the results start investigating who has suppressed this research in the past.
PA,
I shoveled coal a couple times. From the coal bin to the furnace in my grandparents place in Vintondale. Pretty dirty. And I haven’t even touched on what my coal miner Uncles looked like coming home from their shift in the mine.
From the coal bin to the furnace in my grandparents place in Vintondale. Pretty dirty.
We didn’t have that problem. Like I said, if you are careful you can have clean coal without doing anything special.
the first thing Trump should fully fund research into the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere
The research on that has already been done, just provide links to it.
The research on that has already been done, just provide links to it.
Well, no. More research needs to be done on CO2 benefits (just take all the money from the CO2 harm study grants and put the money on something useful) and they need to invest heavily in multiple CO2 benefit analyses using the same type sloppy analysis and exaggeration that the CO2 damage analyses use.
The benefit from more CO2 could be $10 – $20 trillion per year for all we know. And the studies that return the highest CO2 benefit should be awarded follow on study grants.
Trump is talking ‘big infrastructure’ improvements.
Back of the envelope calculation I use is 1/2 ton of coal per ton of steel and 1/4 of coal per ton of cement.
A simple and useful rule of thumb.
“Also, that’s inconsistent with his pronouncements supporting fracking, because that increases gas supply and lowers gas prices, which hurts coal.”
Export it, the UK has recently taken some.
Damn good point that. The US is building more LNG terminals, it just takes time.
Between US and Australia, LNG prices are set to be less than half of 5 years ago for decades to come. When Iran gets in the LNG game from North Pars (Total deal just announced), many decades.
Yes, coal is inefficient to transport. Liquids are ideas for export. LNG or compressed are good.
EXACTLY the right priorities. Well done, Mr. Trump.
Revkin’s offering, IMO, condenses it down well:
“So if you’re a working-class family, and dad has to drive 50 miles to get to his job, and he can’t afford to buy a Tesla or a Prius, and the most important thing to him economically to make sure he can pay the bills at the end of the month is the price of gas, and when gas prices are low that means an extra 100 bucks in his pocket, or 200 bucks in his pocket, and that may make the difference about whether or not he can buy enough food for his kids — if you just start lecturing him about climate change and what’s going to happen to the planet 50 years from now, it’s just not going to register.”
Family first, some nebulous future 2nd.
Polls showing concern levels w/r/t CC/GW do not (that I’ve found) ask how much can one afford (not be willing) to contribute to addressing. I’ve sent requests to Pew for inclusion. No response.
Obama demonstrated that there were amazing things with the Executive’s power and the traditional limits and concepts were almost without meaning. If nothing else, you could throw a wrench into the works until a more lasting mechanism came together.
What Revkin also misses:
Energy efficiency continues its relentless reduction of energy used.
Demographics mean reduced national emissions.
And economic development increases efficiency and reduces population.
Reblogged this on CraigM350.
It might be that overuse of Executive power, (if I’ve understood it correctly), could lead to the situation where one President proposes, but the next President disposes.
A pitfall of being “too clever by ‘alf”?
Cheers.
Great goals, who could disagree? The problem, as always, will come down to the trade-offs. I don’t expect anyone to be reasonable about this, and it will be interesting to see how Trump manages the fallout.
Politically more correct to fix disasters than to plan for them? Plenty of jobs created. FEMA better double their budget. Republicans can help if they get a new FEMA agency head who is dialed-into the new administration. Win-win.
“it will take four years to do that, now that it has come into force.” No. Both Voosin and Stavins don’t seem to understand the nature of an Executive Agreement. It wasn’t submitted to Congress, it isn’t a ratified treaty. The next president can just announce that he isn’t bound by it, and it’s gone.
So puzzling what happened to JCurry – she has apparently lost any ability to apply her scientific training to serious policy analysis. Does she really think that M Ebell cares about science? Does she not understand that he is a paid shill of the fossil fuel industry? Does she really think that the planet can absorb more human generated CO2 without a major change in the climactic system? Does she think that the immutable forces of physics will somehow give humanity a pass and preserve the stable environment in which our civilizations have grown? Whether Trump thinks a hoax is a joke or not we are running out of time to adjust and cannot afford to goof around with our only home.
“So puzzling what happened to JCurry – she has apparently lost any ability to apply her scientific training to serious policy analysis.”
It is the policy maker who carries the burden in regards to “serious policy analysis” not the scientist. If the scientist themselves are the policy maker then a robust skill in mediation is required. Mediation between different scientific fields and mediation between science and politics. Dr. Curry, to the best of my knowledge, is not a policy maker but she appears to hold stronger skills at mediation than you.
Uncle Robot
I thought you guys were hoping for change?
I suggest next time being more specific.
There is an entire cannon of genie jokes based on this principle and accessible to those with a sense of humor.
dang … that should be one ‘n’
Whether Trump thinks a hoax is a joke or not we are running out of time to adjust and cannot afford to goof around with our only home.
Huh… let’s review the flaws in your thinking.
3 million years ago the CO2 level was 400 PPM.
During the last ice age the level hit 160-180 PPM. At 150 PPM we lose all the C3 (99% of plants) at 25-50 PPM we lose all the C4 plants.
At the 3 million year trend, 20 million years from now there would just be bacteria and insects small enough to feed on bacteria. Period.
Humans saved the planet.
1. The environment is absorbing 7 GT/Y of carbon (multiply by 3.664 for CO2 ). About 210 GT of carbon (multiply by 3.664 for CO2) cycles in and out of the environment every year. The lifetime of CO2 is somewhere between 5 years and 2 decades.
2. A UCB study from 2000 to 2010 reported in 2015 that 22 PPM increased caused a 0.2 W/m2 forcing increase or 0.64 °C for doubled CO2.
3. At the KT boundary the CO2 doubled and the temperature increased 0.6°C. From this we can conclude that the ECS roughly equal to the direct forcing or about 0.6°C. Since the test has already been run on the whole planet the claim we shouldn’t test 2X CO2 on the whole planet is a mute (or is that moot) point.
4. CO2 increases plant growth and cuts water consumption. Not burning all the fossil fuel is like taking money out of our pocket and flushing it.
5. In the last 120,000 years it has been 2-3°C warmer (or more) a couple of times. 0.5 to 1.0°C of warming isn’t going to bother the plants.
6. If it is a hoax (as seems obvious) we aren’t running out of time, there is no clock, and it isn’t ticking.
“Environmentalists and ‘greens’ should look for the promising avenues to work with Trump.”
Most seem instead to be taking the path of least resistance, the emotive path, the low road, which leads to interpreting everything Trump says as pretty much a declaration of apocalypse. However if Revkin can manage not to lose his head, maybe others will calm down too.
One Step Backward Taken
‘Not only sands and gravels
Were once more on their travels,
But gulping muddy gallons
Great boulders off their balance
Bumped heads together dully
And started down the gully.
Whole capes caked off in slices.
I felt my standpoint shaken
In the universal crisis.
But with one step backward taken
I saved myself from going.
A world torn loose went by me.
Then the rain stopped and the blowing,
And the sun came out to dry me.’
Robert Frost.
Beautiful. And also remember my namesake’s Kipling poem, IF.
Uncle Interesting article in Nature http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428
Greens and lefties tend to over react to even reasonable statements and policies. They are in meltdown because Trump says what he thinks without scripting and never poll tests his statements like the snowflakes are used to. The first casualty of political correctness is truth and honesty. The good news is Trump I doubt cares what Greens think. The energy and climate policies you describe in this post are really not bad. We might even embark on a nuclear power building program. A key will be Trump’s appointments to key positions.
Example of that – Initiative 732 in Washington. A revenue neutral carbon tax which the greenies came out in full force against. It had been touted in some circles as a possible template for other states. What do all of the environmental NGO’s do? Oppose it because they say it falls short on social justice issues. Shows how much they are really worried about the impacts of climate. Those take a back seat to political objectives.
Whatever the climate sensitivity may be, the hypothesis that surface temperaure can be controlled by changing the rate of fossil fuel emissions requires evidence that atmos co2 is responsive to this change. This evidence does not exist.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2862438
Re: Stavins: “Trump, if we take him at his word, will try to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement on tackling climate change. But it will take four years to do that, now that it has come into force.”
This is fundamentally wrong as I explained at a post at Lucia’s. The “agreement” is unenforceable so Trump can simply
“Paris Executive Agreement:
….
This is all a kerfuffle over a nothing public relations document. According to John Kerry ” ‘this [agreement] doesn’t need to be approved by the Congress because it doesn’t have mandatory targets for reduction, and it doesn’t have an enforcement-compliance mechanism’.” See https://works.bepress.com/david_wirth/125/ Since it has no enforceable targets, Trump can simply announce that he is ignoring it and nothing, of legal consequence, will happen.
….
John Kerry forced the negotiators to substitute the word “should” for “shall”, making even clearer that the Paris Executive Agreement is basically a public relations ploy. See http://www.politico.com/story/…..toc-216721 In the same article it states that “”shall” implies legal obligation and “should” does not.” [which I agree with]
….
Additionally, if Obama had tried to sneak through a potentially binding agreement, it would have almost certainly be invalidated by the Medellin case applying the Youngstown Sheet & Tube analysis pertaining to executive power. See http://www.bing.com/search?q=s…..F83323C351 Medellin specifically authorizes what I would call puff piece non-substantive agreements stating: “”While a treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be “self executing ” and is ratified on that basis. See, e. g., Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 314. The Avena judgment creates an international law obligation on the part of the United States, but it is not automatically binding” (Medellin is discussing treaties here, but treaties are more powerful instruments than executive agreements, so this analysis would also have force with respect to executive agreements. Medellin also discusses executive agreements, construing them narrowly, and in that case found that there wasn’t an executive agreement.)
…..
For people interested in this issue, I would suggest reading Medellin. It is not unduly technical, and I think it is understandable for lay people.
JD
Second paragraph at ending should have said “can simply ignore it.”
Pingback: Bits and Pieces – 20161113, Sunday | thePOOG
As Chief Executive, how much control would Trump have over the EPA. Could he command them redefine CO2 as not a dangerous gas? Surely he would have a strong hand there.
The answer is that Trump has a lot of power, but it is a very subtle question exactly how it would work. Going by memory (don’t have time to review case), the Massachusetts v EPA case, simply held that the President was entitled under the statute to consider CO2 to be a pollutant that needed to be regulated but that the President didn’t have to do so.
JD
JD, it was less subtle. It was basically a sue and settle SCOTUS deference to Congressionally established agencies. Conferring great deference to their sue and settle determinations.
Rud, the issue you raise is complex because the court went off in a number of directions. However, the money quote for me is: ” If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rulemaking petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” §7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. Pp. 30–32.”
I believe the last sentence quoted gives Trump a lot of power but that there are a hornet’s nest of issues. Also, the Trump administration could argue that the scientific evidence in support of catastrophic global climate change has weakened and present additional evidence. I would add that the original case was very poorly argued by the Bush administration.
JD
JD, late reply but I agree. Revisiting the post Mass v. EPA endangerment finding opens a can of worms, just inviting uncertain litigation by watermellons. Far better to attempt to amend circular CAA definition of pollutant, ditto CWA to solve the WOTUS equivalent of CPP, also stayed on equivalent unconstitutional grounds.
Trump’s Policy: Energy Independence
President Elect Donald J. Trump’s formal energy/climate policy is posted at GreatAgain.gov
Perfect. Thanks.
Just ran across this article:
““While there are many reasons why the growth in emissions has been halted, a key contribution has been the efforts made by the world’s two biggest emitters, the United States and China, to reduce the consumption of coal,” Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said in a statement. “However, Donald Trump as President could undermine this achievement if he carries through with his threat to scrap the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan, and encourages an increase in the use of coal for electricity generation.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/13/stunningly-good-news-for-the-planet-carbon-emissions-were-flat-for-the-third-straight-year/
Two words: Bob Ward.
Nice pickup Danny
Danny
So temperatures reach record levels whilst co2 levels plateau. So, is there a lag involved? In which case where does it lie? The oceans? Ice? Soil? The biosphere?
Some might say however that perhaps there is not the cause and effect often claimed.
tonyb
Jim D appears convinced it’s a lag. OHC to poles I gather.
Wish we could figure out where ‘blob’s’ come from and strips of cool water to form La Nina’s vs. masses of warm.
Suggests some levels of uncertainties especially after four years of data counter to Mauna Loa. Got any ideas?
Danny
My answer is that we know nothing like as much about the climate as we think we do.
I always liken the climate to a coachload of passengers-perhaps fifty of them. They all swap around during the journey so some are in the driving seat whilst others shuffle to the back. Before they can change direction a dozen of them have to gang up together. (sun, ocean currents, jet stream, particulates, ice etc etc)
Co2 is in there but I doubt if it is often in the driving seat, although it may be one of those dozen involved in the change of direction.
tonyb
It isn’t CO2 levels that are plateauing; rather, it is the rate of CO2 addition to the atmosphere that has plateaued. CO2 levels continue to increase.
@Danny Thomas
Something doesn’t add down. Could it be we are not the cause?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends
Judith,
Thank you for this. I am really pleased to see you make these critically important points in “JC reflections”:
I’d suggest they need only accomplish the two I’ve quoted to “have a scientifically and economically defensible basis for pulling out of the Paris agreement and canceling Obama’s Clean Power Plan.“
Pingback: Trumping the climate — Climate Etc. | Friends of Science Calgary
Hopefully we will put an end to the EPA’s phony eMPG ratings propaganda…
The climate still holds the ‘trump’ cards: (it’s official) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/11/11/la-nina-is-here-heres-what-happened-in-d-c-the-last-time-this-happened/
If, and this is a big IF, the Rooskie scientists are correct and we are headed to a solar minimum around 2050, we are going to need a lot more energy than we are using right now. Roof top solar panels and coastal wind farms are not a good energy solution investment because of their intermittency and grid destabilizing effects.
Already people who are dependent upon electrical medical devices to keep them alive at home (home oxygen concentrator for instance), have been adding home generators, not the few watt Honda kind from Home Depot, but the natural gas or propane gas powered $5,000 kind. I know I know, the price will come down when more and more elderly are being cared for in their homes in an effort to save nursing home costs. Something of an amenity when going to sell the homestead.
All it will take is for the grid to go down for some disabled person, even a brown out, and the law suits will come flying that the utility didn’t maintain a consistent grid. Bye bye roof top solar panel industry. If people can sue a utility for a brown-out that zaps one’s refrigerator and all the food spoiled, think of the public outcry when mom or dad dies because somebody’s windmill went on the fritz and screwed up the grid. Separate circuit breaker to prevent such a catastrophe is an added cost, and baby, have you ever heard one go or seen the sparks fly when that breaker trips? Bang! Wow. Fourth of July like. Not good to have any combustibles around or else…
If the Rooskie scientists are correct about the impending solar minimum, a Maunder Minimum, people around the world will be back to burning coal, and lots of it.
Hmmmm. Nuclear on the other hand is another possible energy source. Well, one hopes the cooling towers don’t freeze.
I guess you’ve seen the pix of a helicopter deicing wind mills. That can’t be very cost effective, now can it?
RiHoo8: Another LIA – if we are lucky enough to get one – will reduce GMST about 1 degC (2 degC in Greenland due to Arctic amplification). If GHGs remained constant and if there were no committed warming left to experience, that would return temperature back around 1900. However, CO2 is rising at 2 ppm/yr. ARGO shows us that 0.5 W/m2 of heat is flowing into the ocean, meaning that warming has only counter about 75-80% of current forcing (2-2.5 W/m2). Aerosols WILL fall when China and India do something about their air pollution problems. We don’t know much about what CH4 will do, but with increased reliance on natural gas and fracking, my guess is up, along with some of the other minor GHGs.
So a change in solar activity equivalent to the LIA (which is as large as any transient cooling event in the Holocene) isn’t going to send us back to 1900. And the LIA may not have been driven solely by a change in the sun. If the consensus is right about climate sensitivity (ECS about 3 K), then we can eliminate only 1 K AT MOST from the fairly scary consensus projections if the sun becomes much less active. If the optimists are right ECS (1.5 K), temperature could remain fairly constant or rise a little for the next century with a very inactive sun.
franktoo
Thank you for your response. Two points:
“And the LIA may not have been driven solely by a change in the sun.”
No question that there is a lot more to know about onset and recovery from “little” or major ice ages. This leads me to my next point:
ECS, Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. Is it 1.5 or 3.0 or maybe 0.8? Plug in your favorite number into your favorite climate model and voila, out comes: all hell breaking loose, or a more comfortable Fall and a later Winter, or, really a cold and horrible time for people on this planet.
If we knew why we get Ice Ages large and small. If we knew if ECS is a regional or global number. If we knew the carbon cycle sinks and sources. If we knew how the sun influences our weather way up there. If we knew if other sources of water heating is causing Antarctica melting. If we knew the heat content of the oceans. If we knew what causes abrupt changes in climate. If we knew….
Unfortunately, the precision of mathematics requires at least an equal precision from the input of numbers used in equations that yield outcomes of future events having been plugged into models that reflect reality.
The sun is one variable to which we aspire great confidence in our understanding. Alas, the beginning to understand is just that. A beginning to tease apart some of its mysteries.
Previous observations of low sunspot counts have been associated with lower earth surface temperatures; hence, the Maunder Minimum and possibly its return. Thirty five years or so from now, we’ll see if the Rooskies were right.
JC
“In my post Trumping the elites, I stated that Trump’s election provided an opportunity for a more rational energy and climate policy.”
But there are concerns.
At another site I see misgivings that Climate Scientists might refuse to work with Trump and worse that they fear they may be put on trial for misleading the public.
While Judith will have a good laugh after being picked on this way as a skeptic scientist this swing the other way might yet be a cause for concern, for after sorting out the Mann, Lewindowsky’s of this world The pendulum might still swing far enough to affect ethical scientists. I hope not.
Will the Republicans now get the e-mails they are seeking or can Obama declare them off limits as he leaves?
angech
This is a bit like the earthquake scientists in Italy being imprisoned for not forecasting a devastating earthquake.
Mann and others merely illustrate that our knowledge of climate is currently very imperfect. So perhaps he is guilty of hubris. Is he guilty of deliberately falsifying his results? I have always taken the view that a deliberate hoax needs to be demonstrated in which case there might be a case for prosecution.
However, where people have done their best with available data a prosecution could not be countenanced
tonyb
Pingback: Los deplorables y el Calentamiento Global Acojonante | PlazaMoyua.com
– In my post Trumping the elites, I stated that Trump’s election provided an opportunity for a more rational energy and climate policy.
It’s been “moralized” since the beginning. And morals is not something to be discussed, but to be imposed. That’s the dynamics, the nature of morality.
Alternative jobs for climate scientists would be first on my list.
Try to encourage an interest in actual physics, and less interest in regressions.
Cosmology would be great for a lot of them.
On second thought, then we’d have universe alarmism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy_Writers_of_America
NO! NO! NO!
They’d fill the genre up with dystopian climate catastrophe junk. Mostly without good plotting or characterization.
Maybe they could flip burgers. In joints I don’t patronize.
Don’t panic. All it involves is changing the filing category for existing books on Amazon and in Barnes & Noble from “science” to “science fiction”. They might even sell more that way.
Be careful what you wish for. If they move to cosmology you’ll be seeing a lot of this: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/record.htm
rhhardin: “Cosmology would be great for a lot of them.”
Are you sure you don’t mean astrology?
It’s considered statistically more effective as a predictive science than either Climate “science” or cosmology.
And certainly more so than economics.
The MSM keeps playing the game and it’s disgusting. CBS just did a piece on Miami. The “super moon” caused a higher tide and flooded some streets there. So, instead of talking about the real culprit, subsidence, they instead blamed it on sea level rise. Ijits.
Sharyl Attkisson update on Fed Election compromised
pro-Clinton reporting by US medja. They have their leftist
agenda political (and cli-sci) and they’re sticking to it.
https://sharylattkisson.com/newsgate-2016/
jim2 – …instead of talking about the real culprit, subsidence…
For a different conclusion seeIncreasing
flooding hazard…Case study of Miami Beach, Florida.
Pat, subsidence is about 6 CM per year. According to the sea level rise map at Colorado U, sea level rise around Miami is about 1 mm per year.
jim2 – This article in the Miami Times (as well as the article cited above) contradicts your assertions.
Sorry, the Miami New Times –
Looking around a bit more, it seems scientists can’t agree if Miami is sinking, rising, or stable. At any rate … time, and hopefully better data, will tell.
Also, see this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/11/9-mmyear-of-sea-level-rise-in-south-east-florida-only-if-you-cherry-pick/
This past week I read a WSJ article on “likely” coming actions by President Trump on energy & the environment:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/on-energy-and-climate-donald-trump-to-chart-a-new-course-1478711336
One part of this article (which relates to our CE Blog) that piques my attention was about challenging scientific findings used by the Obama Administration from 2009, providing the legal underpinnings for climate change actions.
The WSJ author expressed skepticism if this challenge would be successful.
What “exactly” would be challenged here?
The basis of my question goes back to a previous post I made, where Dr. Curry has repeatedly stated that her “best guess” is that human-driven Global Warming is about 50%. This is very different from opinions like Dr. Wojick’s (and Others who agree or close to his views).
From a “laymen’s” perspective, it would appear that what is going to be challenged is sensitivity? (e.g., TCR)
My question is not about pro or con arguments on anything — rather it’s simply to define the specific issue (or issues) that would be argued in a legal underpinnings context. Thanks.
Stephen, if I recall correctly, the issue has to do with how the EPA reached its endangerment finding. Supreme Court ruled that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA was within its charter to regulate CO2, since it had been determined (by the EPA) to present a danger to the public. There was no ruling on the Endangerment finding itself.
The issue with the finding is that the EPA did no research. If you go to their website you see only one reference. The IPCC. Even their own Inspector General called them on failure to follow their own internal guidelines for conducting an Endangerment finding. They just swept it under the rug.
I’m assuming that someone thinks that the EPA’s original finding is on questionable enough grounds that challenging it based on the science can succeed. I am not knowledgeable enough on the process for challenging EPA findings to make an evaluation. However I do think that if the EPA is forced to follow their own guidelines that there is more than enough scientific evidence to call their original finding into question.
Good analysis. Problem 1. IPCC carris weight that the EPA innits judgement is allowed to use. 2. Reversal would be litigated to death. Easier to amend CAA, in my opinion.
Even if coal is non-competitive, removing artificial stresses on the market, like the social cost of carbon, will give it a marginal boost. We actually import some coal even as we export more. Perhaps the export market could be expanded. No matter what, lower operating costs will be a good thing.
A lengthy vox article on trump: environment, climate, energy
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/11/14/13582562/trump-gop-climate-environmental-policy
Thanks for that, it buoys my spirit.
Disingenuous crap. Most climate sceptics and republicans are quite happy that we cleaned up the air quality and water pollution and don’t want to revert that. They are not insane. What many people are not happy about is taking that true environmental progress as an excuse to enforce an anti-democratic, unconstitutional world-view under the pretence of that it is environmental protection.
They are so full of hubris that they think the average Joe is too dumb to see through it.
I don’t believe it was to be interpreted as we start putting arsenic in the rivers again. Sheesh!
This law [ REINS ] would radically constrain EPA’s ability to issue new environmental regulations as situations and science evolved
well since “science” now seems to be defined by a group or political activists pretending to be scientists, it seems perfectly normal that there should be statutory oversight by congress.
Perhaps the radical EPA needs radically constraining.
very interesting article by Mike Hulme: Anglophone political populism and the cultural rejection of climate change
https://theconversation.com/anglophone-political-populism-and-the-cultural-rejection-of-climate-change-68694
Perspective of “Majority Climate Scientists”
What a Trump Win Means For the Global Climate Fight
Illogical arguments from mixing of / equivocation over the scientific and political definitions of “climate change”.
Dr. Richard Tol had an interesting tweet today:
“Countries are now looking to China to lead the international climate negotiations, and China seems comfortable in that role.”
With the U.S. exiting the global stage on GW/CC — this will create a void that China will be more than happy to fill on one key aspect: INTERNATIONAL TRADE
For some time, Dr. Tol has been advocating a global approach to a carbon tax involving “trade clubs/agreements”.
Also, Jon Huntsman (a former Republican Governor, and Ambassador to China) has advocated a Climate win/win quid pro quo economic trade policy between the U.S. & Developing Countries — e.g., Vietnam imports more textiles into U.S. markets in exchange for Vietnam buying and implementing U.S. low carbon equipment and services.
China will exploit this U.S. void for their economic gain.
Stephen Segrest: China will exploit this U.S. void for their economic gain.
Are you referring to China’s announced intention to increase its coal consumption by 20%? I am sure that the US, Australia and the other coal exporting countries will alert the rest of the world to this.
Stephen
How much credibility do you think China has got, bearing in mind they are already the worlds largest co2 emitters and have a free pass to stoke up their emissions until 2030?
That Richard Tol unfortunately has a somewhat authoritarian streak became apparent to me a few days ago when he dismissed the brexit vote as ‘silly’ and seems content with it being overturned as the result didn’t agree with his world view.
Many nations have lots of coal and using it would create energy security. Surely it cannot be beyond our whit to decarbonise coal should that be considered a necessary condition to using it? That doesn’t mean at ‘any’ cost to the environment either
tonyb
Tony — I replied in the wrong thread, just below.
“Surely it cannot be beyond our whit to decarbonise coal should that be considered a necessary condition to using it? ”
WTF? ‘decarbonised coal’ is about as non nonsensical as ‘carbon free’ sugar.
If you take the carbon out of coal you are left with H , O and some sulphur, uranium and mercury. ie polluted water.
Greg
You knew perfectly well what I meant. It must be possible to de- demonise coal as many countries have a Lot of it and it is a good form of energy.
There are others I might prefer but we know how to build coal fired power stations and they are relatively cheap and quick to get into operation.Also the fact that they would provide energy security needs to be factortoto to the overall equation as to whether they are tolerably good or irredeemably bad.
Tonyb
I gave this advice to our newly elected Mr. Trump:
I advise our president elect to make American science great again. For too long has the political and globalist thrust of climate science distorted our EPA and DOE and academic grants system. I recommend Dr. Judith Curry be selected as an advisor in matters of integrity in science. Reference her qualifications at the website: https://judithcurry.com/about/
Thank you, Dr. H. H. Paalman
Go and do likewise at: https://apply.ptt.gov/yourstory/
Check out the land-only RSS temp chart. Land temps are plummeting. Will the pause turn into the fall?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land
Tony — I’m talking about the present and future of international trade. Can you adamantly tell me that the issue of “Climate Change” had no or little impact on the U.K.’s Hinkley decision (where China has tremendous involvement)?
Did China’s position on coal have anything to do with the Hinkley decision? Don’t think so.
A lot of what people here at CE call GW handouts by the U.S. Government are things like loan guarantees (etc) for the international financing of U.S. manufactured energy products (specifically nuclear).
Isn’t there nobody here at CE that knows the tremendous posturing/battles that are going on, especially in Asian developing economies? It’s looking more and more that China will be the winner.
Stephen
Hinckley was a product of the UK under David Cameron cosying up to China. We urgently need more energy and china provided a means of getting it plus finance.
Teresa May took 3 months to review it. It is a crazy deal that is too expensive and uses unproven technology. However, under the circumstances in which we found ourselves-post Brexit- I would have also waved it through to show Britain was open for business and so as not to alienate two important trading partners China and France.
I strongly suspect that had it come up for the first time post brexit it would have been dismissed out of hand as it is a terrible deal. There are better nuclear alternatives.
tonyb
Tony — But did the policy topic of Climate Change have zero to little impact in the UK on the Hinkley decision? Did Climate have zero impact on the UK’s Review after Brexit?
The Hinkley decisions were made straight up on engineering economics involving zero or little influence from Climate policies?
Stephen
We have a legal obligation to reduce our carbon emissions. We have been very tardy in creating grown up power stations that will provide a base supply. China was the flavour of the month so everything fitted together at that time.
As back up, if our energy supplies should fail we have lots of large diesl generators!
So the naïve posturing of tony Blair Gordon brown and David Cameron is an age that is passing.
We hopefully will be more pragmatic in our choice of energy sources in the future and the lunacy of following the biggest co2 polluter on the planet will hopefully weigh large with a more level headed govt whose ideals are much more those of the middle class.
tonyb
Yes, the politically vilified TPP was actually the US effort to counterbalance China in SE Asia, but it is now more likely that China expands there without rivals. Taking the TPP off the table is an own goal for the US in the global picture. Many Republicans supported the TPP because it was good for business. Protectionism/isolationism versus full participation in the global markets is a major debate area now. While the rest of the world benefits from more open trade among themselves, the US wall themselves off which doesn’t work in a 21st century globalizing trend. That is old thinking.
Yes, the politically vilified TPP was actually the US effort to counterbalance China in SE Asia
Right – the TPP is NOT ‘free trade’ but a political posture of restricted trade with China.
Free trade means increased volume, which means increased efficiency, so in principle, it’s a good thing.
But, as with other laws, we don’t actually know what’s in it. And how much local custom are you willing to forgo for free trade?
The French like fois gras.
The British animal rights think fois gras is inhumane and want to ban it.
But they couldn’t because they were both in the EU.
You do sacrifice sovereignty and standards to have free trade.
And there’s a larger point. Declining working age population for much of the world has already meant a slowdown in global trade. Friedman calls this the crisis of the exporters. About 10% of US GDP is exports, so we’re not greatly affected. About 50% of Germany’s economy is exports, so they’re very vulnerable. About a third of China’s economy. Like everything else, free trade has limits.
Yes, globalization is not free trade. It is trade deals of which TPP was one. Not having trade deals with countries hurts exports and disadvantages us with countries that do have those deals with each other. Brexit is going to show the value of making deals because they have to start over again outside the EU. The snap-back from EU deals to WTO defaults is a net negative, and those have to be replaced. There was just recently a BBC World interview that was very informative to me on this.
JimD, “While the rest of the world benefits from more open trade among themselves, the US wall themselves off which doesn’t work in a 21st century globalizing trend.”
The rest of the world tends to have a VAT system and use non tariff trade barriers. Germany for example has a 19% import VAT they call a leveling tax or some nonsense plus they have “standards” required of autos operating in German that can be a bit restrictive and take time in money to meet. If the US had just a matching VAT, custom revenues would be about $400 billion a year instead of about $35 billion a year.
From one of your favorite sources :)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/how-do-other-nations-bala_b_628157.html
You are in dire need of JA’s course on Globalization and Markets.
The average 7th grader has a better grasp of the subject after their course than you exhibit Jim.
Stephen Segrest: It’s looking more and more that China will be the winner.
Because of their anti-CO2 leadership? I would give more credit to the combination of the East Asian Development Bank (lacking World Bank anti-coal bias) and their growing military capability.
matthew
Yes, China doesn’t tend to lecture its clients or allies on all manner of things including human rights, democracy and using types of energy that may be unsuited to their current levels of development. If the western electorate doesn’t like being preached at and told what to do, I am sure the developing nations have an equal dislike of these traits
tonyb
Matthew,
Their growing military capacity is what has their neighbors interested in TPP in the first place.
The desire for trade agreements isn’t going away. Trump’s campaign promises simply provide for a better bargaining position.
And hopefully, Trump will negotiate small, understandable, and very transparent agreements with individual countries. A fine-tuned, no-one-size fits all trade policy.
The Vox article and the Hulme article spoke to the politics of potential changes to environmental regulations and laws; ie, what can be and what likely will be done under a Trump/GOP administration.
What was not discussed was the evolution of the environmental movement from clean air and water, protecting habitat, to now programs of social engineering.
What is also not discussed has been the evolution of climate science, that we have learned a lot more since those early days and the “data” has become less reinforcing of the dire litany. Predictions have not come true, and predictions of distant future events run against the public knowledge that the future is still unknown and likely to remain as such for the near future at least.
The science of confidence intervals. The science of uncertainty. And just recently, the science of modeling, even with the incorporation of the holy grail of mathematics, has somehow failed. Big data failed. And, in the not too distant future, even evidence medicine will be rightly viewed ensconced as the evidence is sparse, at times contradictory and recommendations are still the province of “experts”, many times agenda driven. Who would have guessed?
What is most likely, environmental law will change. Policies and regulations will change. And, psychologically, what many people fear is change, any change. Hence, the energy that is likely to be called upon to resist change, those who implore against environmental law change will focus mainly on, again, dire predictions out to some future time.
What our recent election shows however, change and adaptation are the rules of our society. Keeping something frozen in time is wasting resources and in the end futile.
Every religion known to man has changed from its inception, catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is no exception.
These people don’t need college to work in farms, trades, restaurants and stores. That’s their life. Nothing against them.
Do you mean Democrats, Republicans, or just the people?
‘That’s their life. Nothing against them.”
I bet you even number a few of them amongst your friends, right Jimbo?
“That Harry may only be a farmer, but he’s not a bad bloke, surprisingly”.
While it’s good to see that Andy Revkin has walked up to the edge of the moral precipice … it’s too bad he didn’t take the last step. He says:
He sees the problem … but he doesn’t. The issue at hand is not that “it’s not going to register” when you start lecturing the working dad.
The issue is that it is morally wrong to force that man to take money from his childrens’ health on the basis of a vague hope that you will be helping the poor in 50 years. It is the imposition of that terrible burden on him which is the real wrong, not the question of whether Revkin’s arguments “register” on him … as is far too often the case with Andy, once again it’s all about Revikin and whether his arguments land, and not at all about the burden he wants to impose on the man and his kids.
Finally, note that despite recognizing the problem, Andy’s solution is NOT to reduce the burden on the man and his kids.
Andy’s solution is to rephrase his argument so it convinces more people, and the man and his kids get screwed nonetheless.
And people wonder why there is a populist revolt???
w.
This is typical, he still thinks it’s just a “communication problem”. It’s like the average Brit tourist in Spain. If the dumb spaniard is does not understand when he talks in English, he just tries again and shouts a bit louder.
Pingback: Trump, And Climate | Transterrestrial Musings
Excellent article. I have one suggestion for the list of opportunities in your “JC Reflections.” Add the following two bullets:
* perform an independent assessment of the unsubsidized cost of replacing fossil fuels with “renewable” energy, both in dollars and environmental impact.
* perform an independent assessment of the cost in human lives and life expectancy associated with lowering humanity’s energy usage, regardless of where the energy comes from.
British media has gone nuts about 2016 being the warmest year ever. All the experts are making big deal of already being 1.2C above pre-industrial level..
On plus side we are 1.2C further away from the new ice age, at least for time being. We should count ourselves lucky since the global temperature could have swung the other way by 1.2C.
How come only western liberals freak out about climate change?
Maybe global warming needs to be treated as a psychological disorder.
Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke this evening by telephone with the US President-elect Donald Trump.
In a statement the press service of the Russian president said that Putin and the Tramp agreed that Russian-American relations are in a “very unsatisfactory state” and urged for active joint efforts in the direction of their normalization and return to the path of constructive cooperation in a wide range of issues.
Putin and Trump agreed to continue phone contacts with the possibility of a personal meeting as conveyed by the TAS news agency
Now (nearly one hour later) with more details on the BBC news website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37981770
On the good side, Putin will be telling Trump to leave the Iran deal alone. On the bad side, he will be looking for Trump’s support in his bombing of Aleppo’s civilians and propping up Assad for his Russian naval base interests in the Med.
Some folks were concerned about Hillary’s ‘hawkism’: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-bolton-secretary-of-state-donald-trump_us_582a314ee4b02d21bbca46b2
Propping up Assad might save a good number a US lives as well as treasure. We need to start thinking in those terms more often, not less.
Assad has done things that amount to genocide, but I guess Trump won’t care about details like that.
We aren’t the genocide police, are we?
It isn’t about genocide. It’s about gas.
For me it’s about having our own boys killed for something happening in the Middle East. We shouldn’t wade into every problem around the world. We should consider who’s doing it and to whom it’s being done.
I think Trump’s focus on ISIS it correct. ISIS and Islamic Terrorists have vowed to hurt us. We need to go after those sorts of people and leave other problems over there alone.
IMO that was considered.
While Germany isn’t a particular friend of the US, the elitist types running Germany were/are friends of the similar types who just lost our election. Germany suffers from Russian leverage using their natural gas.
There were two pipeline proposals through Syria, one would have brought gas from Iraq and nearby sources across the Bosporus into EU markets, the other would have been Russian gas by another route.
Assad said yes to the Russian pipeline, no to the other. That made him a deadly enemy of Germany, and the outgoing US government jumped in to help.
Germany badly needs a pipeline for gas from non-Russian sources, so that Russia can’t bully them.
Nobody cares about genocide. They just use it as an excuse when it supports their realpolitik.
Given the fact that Trump appears to want a real reset with Russia, do you think he might be able to make progress on the pipeline?
I dunno. I’m not sure why Russia wants that exclusive gas-vending status so badly. I don’t blame them, the way
Germanythe EU tried to screw them over Crimea.I’m not sure why Germany’s so eager to surround Russia and reduce it to 2nd class status.
Of course, they’ve been totally scared of each other for centuries.
One possibility would be for Israel to build a sea-bottom pipeline to Greece. They could probably be depended on to keep their promises, as long as
Germanythe EU didn’t incite Palestinians against them.Of course, IMO it would be a great policy move for Mr. Trump to champion an undersea pipeline to Britain. Or perhaps 3-5 parallel lines, in case of breeches.
That would give them more leverage with the EU, help solve their own energy problems, and allow the EU market access to a different source than Russia.
Some of those might work, but no matter what, I like that you’re thinking outside the octagon.
Quote. Putin wished Trump success in implementing “The Election Programme”. See how I can make a conspiracy out of that.
“See how I can make a conspiracy out of that.”
I suppose other addle minded individuals like yourself might see it that way.
See how I can make it into the rambling of a loon.
In the distant past mandarins of the Whitehall were envy of the foreign affairs apparatchiks across the continents.
Not so any more as the today’s London Times says:
“The PM treats Boris (Johnson) like a fool who cannot be trusted to do his job.
When did Nigel Farage become our de facto foreign secretary?
The pinstriped, pint-swilling, chain-smoking, small-minded buffoon seems to have become the face of Britain on the world stage. There he was, standing shoulder to shoulder with Donald Trump, in front of the enormous gold doors to the president-elect’s penthouse suite — the first foreign politician to be granted an audience with the next leader of the free world.”
The Brexit ‘brains’ have and are letting nation down.
you don’t know what you’ve got until you lose it
Jim D,
I’ll start worrying about your calls of genocide when I know you have skin in the game.
Jim D: “Assad has done things that amount to genocide”
I think you are confused as to the situation in Syria.
The so-called ‘opposition’ to Assad are ISIL, and are propped up and trained by Obama.
It is ISIL who herd Christian girls into iron cages and burn them alive, under Assad’s essentially secular regime all denominations enjoyed protection under the law. One of the first actions of the supposed democratic opposition when they gained territory was to force a couple of hundred Coptic Christians into a church and burn them to death.
As for Libya, the best governed state with the highest development coefficient in Africa, what was done there by Hillary, Obama and Co. was tragic and a major war crime.
A very good friend of mine was a project manager in the petrochemical industry and only just got out with a whole skin, leaving all his possessions behind, and a whole gang of insurgents migrated to North Nigeria and det up Boko Haram, another bunch of cruel, barbaric vermin who took a couple of hundred young girls from a school and used them as sex slaves.
Now, it’s total hellhole, run by three Islamic warlords who have installed Sharia law and are flogging women for not wearing the veil.
I hope you’re happy with what the warmongering Democrats and teir EU cronies have done to Africa, vast numbers of Africans certainly aren’t.
“The pinstriped, pint-swilling, chain-smoking, small-minded buffoon”
Utter bollocks.
Farage is currently the most influential politician in the UK, and has a fair bit of influence as an MEP too.
He was practically single-handedly responsible for forcing Cameron to call the referendum, and begin the process of regaining our sovereignty from the Eurofascist kleptocracy.
Ah, but I forgot, you’re another sad, bitter Remoaner, aren’t you.
Get used to it, you lot lost.
Hi Catweazle
Nice to hear from you. Of course I voted remain.
Unless you want a Soviet United Kingdom, you shouldn’t really insist that people should get use to it and shut up.
It appears that Brexetirs have no idea what they want, they want the UK parliament to be sovereign, but insist on by-passing it, they want the UK judges to rule on points of law, but they reject their verdict.
I suppose you might dispute yesterday’s statement by a supreme court judge that the referendum isn’t obligatory.
Huh, another day, another tank-tank says the Brexit organisation is shambles, another fine mess Brexitiers got country into.
Perhaps I should go were I came from, but over there they are in even a bigger mess; btw. isn’t your hero Nigel Farage a Belgian?
vukcevic: “Unless you want a Soviet United Kingdom…”
It is precisely I don’t want a Soviet United Kingdom – having personal experience of the USSR during the mid-1960s – that I voted for Brexit.
Are you acquainted with this quote from Mikhail Gorbachev on the EU?
“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
He knows what he is talking about, and he is 100% correct.
As to the rest of your comment, I won’t dignify it with a reply.
Hi again
Yes, I am well familiar with Gorbachev’s vies. He also said “If people don’t like Marxism, they should blame the British Museum.” He is an intellectual and those seldom make great leaders.
Alternatively, we could have had United States of Europe. From the time of Julius Cesar and Charles le Magne, not to mentioned the French and more recently German intentions to ‘unite’ Europe, its nations stumbled through history ending were we are now.
I think, you may disagree, that ‘the now’ is the best time the Europe and its people ever had.
Why wreck it? there is a good chance of that happening.
Catweazle
Great news today about the unemployment rate being the lowest in a decade and more people are in work than ever before. Google just announced 3000 new jobs
Great news yesterday that the inflation rate was lower than expected.
I think it was the previous day that the great news about the quarters GDP being much greater than expected was announced.
Even the pound has recovered much of its lost ground against the euro. We don’t want it to rise too much more though or we wil lose the competitive edge gained through Brexit.
Trump doesn’t seem to like the EU much does he?
Tonyb
climatereason: “Trump doesn’t seem to like the EU much does he?”
Damn right he doesn’t!
Yet another excellent reason to support him, even from this side of the Pond.
“He is an intellectual and those seldom make great leaders.”
Who, Mikhail Gorbachev? You’re kidding, right?
Actually, he was one of the greatest leaders of the twentieth century!
Perestroika unlashed forces for which the world was not prepared, break-up of Soviet Union, disappearance of ‘the spheres of interest’, the prevailing world order at the time. It led to the brutal civil wars in Balkans (the time when the British and Russian tank regiments were racing each other to a crucial military airport) and ultimately the various Arab ‘springs’ (more likely nightmares) across Islamic countries of the middle east.
Returning back closer to home, if the far-right leader Marine Le Pen wins France’s presidential elections (a distinct possibility) due to the rise of populist politics initiated by the Brexit and the success of Trump, it might spell an end to the European Union.
Prospect of Germany, France and the UK squabbling over trade arrangements and rights of millions of people found themselves as the residents on wrong side of the borders, is not a prospect that any rational person should relish.
Our views appear to be based on irreconcilable differences, so I wish you all the best.
Maurice Strong is in a gleeful lather, six feet under. His spawn, Creepy Uncle George, is still bound and determined to deny Hillary’s defeat…and The UNFCCC is still blowing smoke-rings from the corner of its ma ma ma ma-mouth. Hopefully the Donald will turn off the spigot.
Trump could turn off the spigot by reminding the public that
In 1977, Peter Toth asked in Nature, “Is the Sun a pulsar?”
In 2007, a paper on the Sun published in the Proceedings of the IEEE, 95 (5), 1085-1132 admitted Earth itself “Moves (vibrates) to the rhythm of the Sun,” http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMJJYUL05F_index_0.html
No,the Sun is not a pulsar. If it were, we would know via simple maths:
F=GmM/r^2.
For the love of God please just say that’s nice and don’t argue.
That’s nice Omanuel. Thanks for pointing it out for the jillionth time buddy! I wrote it down. Got it.
Craig Thomas and David Springer are invited to address the error in the post-WWII definition of energy that obscured human destiny:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/HUMAN_DESTINY.pdf
“Chinese emissions were down 0.7 per cent in 2015 and are projected to fall 0.5 per cent in 2016, ”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/global-warming-carbon-emissions-stall-us-china-coal-use-drop-reduction-a7416011.html
China and the US show that emissions are not coupled to growth. This assumption of a coupling has been a major fallacy in the skeptical framing.
Link, please.
Their emissions are decreasing and growth rate is positive. Decoupled.
What’s the matter Jim? You forget the rest of the story? As in the coupling part having to do with how emissions get reduced?
Craig,
The twenty Science News photos that were accessible in the middle of this article were more interesting than the article. First, because in the article they mentioned the Chinese numbers were unreliable, a problem every potential investor in China mentions in evaluating the reality of their assertions.
Secondly, because two of the photos were highly relevant to a comment I made about the Australian PV tomato greenhouse story Dr. Curry linked to a few weeks ago. I had mentioned that the prototype’s technology might be saleable to the Saudis or even Elon Musk, for his proposed fantastical Martian colony. One photo, using a picture from the movie, “Martian,” mentioned Europeans had been able to grow produce with simulated Martian soil provided by N.A.S.A. Another mentioned that saline water had definitely been proven to exist on Mars. Can sitting down with Little Green Men to enjoy a Green Fried tomato dish be in our near future?
At last, we have someone with a commonsense energy policy (although I’d like to see more emphasis on nuclear power). We may be on the verge of the greatest expansion in US history.
I just hope that the new administration doesn’t play nice with all the legal action that is being threatened. They also need to be ready to kick some tails at the EPA and NOAA–both will have activists who try to slow everything down. Suggestion: if you can’t fire them, transfer them to the VA (the VA has lots of nice out-patient clinics in rural Alaska).
An article that will depress ~97% (plus or minus 2%) of CE’s most vocal denizens: New Administration will not attack Renewable Energy
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/trump-energy-policy/430205/
Label Warning For ~97% of the most vocal CE Denizens, be sure to take your daily meds before you read this story:
Trump supports biofuels: http://biofuels-news.com/display_news/11323/us_biofuels_industry_welcomes_trump_election_victory/
New market initiatives to save existing nuclear plants from Retirement: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/with-cpp-on-ice-utilities-seek-organized-market-reforms-to-save-baseload-p/420892/
More bad news for Jim2, Wagathon, etc. — Included in Trump’s massive infrastructure projects will be transmission line upgrades & smart grids (according to people in the know, especially in Western States where currently there is more Federal control).
Republicans in U.S. Congress: When there is a Democrat President, the Federal Deficit is a critical issue (will shut down Government over the issue). When a Republican is President (Bush and now Trump), the Deficit is not so important:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/deficit-donald-trump-republicans-231372?cmpid=sf
Why is that bad news?
And as for your other “bad news”, for most here subsidies and R&D dollars for renewables is not a cause for heartache. The heartache tends to come from mandates on utilities to source renewables.
We’ll see if Trump goes for a smart grid. I wouldn’t count on any specific action right now.
Jim2 — Gosh, I just don’t want to pile on, on a day of so many stories from Trump Insiders of how wrong you’ve been. I’ll provide the smart grid stories (where they will at first be targeting western states and why this is) at a later time.
I’m a compassionate conservative.
“I’m a compassionate conservative.”
No you’re not, not really.
No need to get upset SS. Trump isn’t President yet, so I’m pretty sure I’m right about him not doing a smart grid right now. I don’t believe he can do that unilaterally at any rate.
But, if you’re feeling stressed; try a beer, a joint, and a Valium at the same time.
President Trump Will Make America’s Energy Sector Great Again– Christopher Helman, Forbes
I wasn’t able to get into wordpress this weekend. Here’s a comment I meant to post:
I actually think there may be good reason to revive the coal. I’d much prefer nuclear, but a modest increase in coal should probably be a small part of our energy mix.
I think we’ve been neglecting a potential energy security problem. I don’t think we should be rely on natural gas so much for our base load. I think we should create excess capacity for production, distribution, and storage to weather shocks in demand (and supply). That makes some room for coal, and hopefully nuclear”
Subsidies are tenuous and often grow out of control, but, in the past, they’ve probably been a necessary evil. They are a part of R&D, which lead to the technology that grew our fossil fuel industry which is responsible for much of our health, safety, and easy living (and are important for development of new technology we will need in the future). They also play a role in food and energy security. Disasters will happen and I think having excess capacity will allow us to respond. Coal is more expensive than gas and inefficient to transport, but it can be burned cleanly and fairly cheaply. If we develop gas, but use it below capacity, we will have it for emergencies. And, as a wealthy nation, using a variety of energy sources frees up this efficient fuel for export to the developing world where it can do far more good.
Reasonable position.
It is interesting how the Left in America never questions France’s handling of nuclear waste.
Rescinding Obama Regs? No so fast or easy, legal scholars say:
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060045632/
Just very interesting stats on new Presidents’ ability to eliminate prior Presidents’ executive orders.
“Just very interesting stats on new Presidents’ ability to eliminate prior Presidents’ executive orders.”
I really don’t see a problem – new executive order says it supercedes any and all previous ones. Most surely the president can sue for peace after declaring war, can (s)he not?
Hi Judith
How about adding this little cartoon at the end.
A drawing can tell more that thousand words.
Sorry, it is for the former blog.
Trump’s Coal Con: http://blogs.wvgazettemail.com/coaltattoo/2016/11/14/president-elect-trumps-coal-con/
My last Blog: Could Trump Deliver U.S. Energy Independence?
http://greenenergy.blogspot.com/2016/07/could-trump-deliver-us-energy.html
From the Wall St. Journal — Pro and Con Debate on Nuclear Power: http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-nuclear-power-vital-to-hitting-co2-emissions-targets-1479092761
Give it up Stephen, you lot lost.
For all your straw-clutching, all your crackpot schemes are now going right down the plughole, and a damn good thing too.
Would you like a Kleenex?
Ban must think Trump does not understand the meaning of “market forces.” He’s in for a shock. From the article:
…
Ban said Trump, as a “very successful business person”, would understand that market forces were driving the world economy towards cleaner energies such as wind and solar power, which are becoming cheaper, away from fossil fuels.
…
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/global-climate-change-action-unstoppable-despite-trump-u-102204797.html
Dear old UN. They lecture the US on climatology, on human rights (remember when Ghaddafi was on a human rights commission?) and now on market forces. What market force makes the US support the UN?
That would be a market farce.
Megyn Kelly is going to be on Dr. Phil. She’s been upping her public exposure lately. It appears she is trying to expand her sphere of influence.
I used to watch her on Fox, thinking she was conservative. I’m sure many other deplorables also watched her, so to an extent got her where she was just before the election. She broke left at a critical time, the 2016 election. I felt betrayed.
I think Kelly probably was, from a legal standpoint, sexually harassed. It does not appear her job depended on sexual favors.
But that aside, the deplorables did have a lot to do with her ascension. Given that she has continually attacked Trump, I think it’s time the deplorables boycotted Kelly. JMO.
From the article:
…
2016 will be the hottest year on record, UN says
World Meteorological Organisation figures show global temperature is 1.2C above pre-industrial levels and will set a new high for the third year running
…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/14/2016-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record-un-says
Only according to the
computer games climate models and the Mannipulated temperature databases.In fact, it’s cooling, and is going to do so for some time.Grrrr!
Time this blog got an editor, or perhaps a show before publishing facility.
Listen carefully to the news from Marrakech. When Hollande or Moon refer to US “Commitments”, they aren’t talking about reducing CO2 emissions or saving the planet. It’s ALL about the 100B/yr that they and their friends are planning on getting their grubby hands all over – and nothing else.
Mr. Trump, Don’t give them a dime!
PULL THAT PLUG!
DRAIN THAT SWAMP!
Let them get their money from the Chinese.
New oil discovery. From the article:
…
In a troubled oil world, the Permian Basin is the gift that keeps on giving.
One portion of the giant field, known as the Wolfcamp formation, was found to hold 20 billion barrels of oil trapped in four layers of shale beneath West Texas. That’s almost three times larger than North Dakota’s Bakken play and the single largest U.S. unconventional crude accumulation ever assessed, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. At current prices, that oil is worth almost $900 billion.
The estimate lends credence to the assertion from Pioneer Natural Resources Chief Executive Officer Scott Sheffield that the Permian’s shale could hold as much as 75 billion barrels, making it second only to Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar field. Irving-based Pioneer has been increasing its production targets all year as drilling in the Wolfcamp produced bigger gushers than the company’s engineers and geologists forecast.
“The fact that this is the largest assessment of continuous oil we have ever done just goes to show that, even in areas that have produced billions of barrels of oil, there is still the potential to find billions more,” Walter Guidroz, coordinator for the geological survey’s energy resources program, said in the statement.
…
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article114931993.html
The “problem” with this CE Blog is its overwhelming negativism. If one pushes back at all (like I do), the knee-jerk reaction is to label as a “Liberal, Socialist, Tree-hugger”.
Let’s take the use of coal as an example. Two years ago, I wrote on my Blog “Where Obama is Wrong on Coal“:
http://greenenergy.blogspot.com/2013/11/where-obama-is-wrong-on-coal.html
I’m not anti-coal. I’m very much pro efficiency for all energy technologies, but especially coal — things like ultra-super critical coal boilers, gasification, etc..
This is where I know Trump is making a mistake if he simply walks away from Paris. The U.S. Government should be doing everything possible to encourage the development & implementation (especially through Trade!!!) of high efficiency technologies — such as companies like Babcock & Wilcox are doing on coal.
This was/is the message of Jon Huntsman (a Republican), who has extensive experience/knowledge in Trade.
If Trump “just walks” from Paris, I guarantee that China will find a way to exploit this to enhance their export of energy technologies — especially to developing economies in Asia, Africa, and South America.
Stephen Segrest, were Paris about technology and a cleaner brighter future, I could agree with you. But it’s not. It’s about the Green Climate (Slush-) Fund and all the people that want to make a buck off it, and i don’t think i’m being negative if i think that walking away from it and spending the money to develop technology in the USA is about the best idea i’ve heard in a while.
cheers, ken
Ken W — Within the context of a concern for all of mankind, do you think the government of China cares about Global Warming? I don’t think so.
I believe that China is only motivated by their national interests — and specifically economic growth.
At a minimum, instead of walking away from Paris, the U.S. should replicate the “game” China is playing. Did you see Dr. Richard Tol’s comment on Trump and China? (where China is increasingly viewed as the “responsible” person in the room) Incredible — no, more than incredible.
I believe the U.S. should join other Developed Countries to help in raising developing countries out of poverty. But this shouldn’t be just altruistic. It should include the export of U.S. technology.
For example, use coal in Vietnam but with U.S. technology of high efficiency ultra supercritical power plants from say, Babcock & Wilcox. Strike a deal with Vietnam allowing greater access into say, U.S. textile markets IF Vietnam uses U.S. energy technology.
Call it “low carbon economy” or anything you want — but create high tech jobs in the U.S.
I believe that this “concept” is what China has in mind and is doing.
Stephen Segrest, We somewhat agree. Developing clean efficient energy technology must be a priority for the US in the coming years because we can’t depend on fossils forever and it is in our (and everybody’s) best interests that we actively support the developing world in implementing such technology. Fine. We can do that.
However, the UN Climate Process and the Paris Accord have nothing to do with technology or 2°, or saving the planet. The shock in Marrakech is because they (western investors and third world elites) see their multi billion dollar gravy train going off the tracks. Any money sent their way will only foment the corruption which has become globalized and massive just like everything else. Stop Paris, Terminate the UN Process, Save the World, Go Donald!
New oil discovery!! Oil can last a very good long while!
https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/13/trumping-the-climate/#comment-824289
Stephen Segrest: I guarantee that China will find a way to exploit this to enhance their export of energy technologies — especially to developing economies in Asia, Africa, and South America.”
Really…
Guarantee it, do you?
Had you been paying attention, you would have noticed that China has been doing precisely that for some time. They don’t need to find a way to exploit anything.
China will continue to do as China does, notwithstanding any or all COP agreements, and notwithstanding anything Trump does.
And China will tell the West whatever China feels like telling the West too, and anyone believing it is probably in the market for a nice bridge.
For example, are you aware that one of the reasons that China is building a large quantity of generating plant, on the surface far more than can be justified by their economic situation?
And that there is a rumour that the Chinese are planning to build an ultra-high voltage DC line running at 1100kV line to sell power to Germany?
China looks to export surplus energy to Germany
Selling power to central Asia and beyond falls into Beijing’s ‘one belt, one road’ ambitions
China’s proposed investments in long-distance, ultra-high voltage (UHV) power transmission lines will pave the way for power exports as far as Germany, the head of the national power grid said on Tuesday as he launched an initiative for cross-border power connections.
https://www.ft.com/content/68cdef50-f66a-11e5-803c-d27c7117d132
Of course, it the line gets to Germany, the transmitted power will be accessible across the whole of Europe.
It appears that China believes the price of this power will be considerably less than the current European price.
SS – “…call me a Liberal, Socialist, Tree Hugger…”
I wouldn’t call you a tree hugger – you cut trees down for biofuels. Right? I would call you a “rent seeker”.
As my friends would sing, ” aye aye aye aye, canta y no yores…”
No yores! Vaya se! Adios!
justinwonder — I don’t know what a rent seeker is, but I assume its nothing good and that I’m not gonna get a Christmas card from you this year. Darn!
Ken W (and Others) How and why is China supporting the Paris Agreement? I Don’t think they are supporting western investors and third world elites.
Stephen
Surely they have the double advantage that they can appear virtuous and thereby increase their credibility as a potential green supplier whilst knowing that the Paris agreement does not affect them at all as they have a free pass to do what they want Until 2030.
They mus be laughing their heads off at the gullibility of Obama in particular and the West in general
Tonyb
Stephen Segrest: “How and why is China supporting the Paris Agreement?”
If you believe China is supporting the Paris Agreement, I’ve got a really nice bridge I think you will be interested in!
Stephen Segrest,
Paris is not about technology or reducing GHGs. There are no national climate requirements, or sanctions. The howling in Marrakech has nothing to do with meeting any 2° target. It’s about cash flows.
The Green Climate Fund is going to make some people very, very rich.
It’s an incentive for corruption on a global scale like we’ve never seen before. It will make Food for Oil look like a Ladies Auxiliary bake sale. A million for some face time with the spouse of the SOS? Fake carbon credits anyone? Peanuts! This is about Terrabucks.
When the cash starts flowing, the global corruptocracy will be in charge for good. It will buy constituencies and pay for propaganda. It will prop up dictators and arm their security forces. Nobody gives a dammn about science. Those on the inside of this deal, salivating at the possibilities, are the ones tut-tutting Trump about American “commitments”.
China, in particular, supports the agreement because they see a big opportunity to sell their technology all over the third world and be paid with our money. If we try to compete, the price of kickbacks in Africa will only skyrocket.
Catweazel666 Thanks, that was an interesting story on China. I was aware of Chinese efforts in Asia, but not Europe (Germany).
Pingback: Trump and the impact of social media | Climate Scepticism
It’s got to the point now that gainsaying AGW is not only scientifically and logically daft, but also financially daft as well (as a long-term strategy).
The World has moved on and will continue that course with or with the US (for a while at least).
They will eventually have to “cotton-on”, and by then the Chinese will have cornered the market.
BUT: Trump is a business-man. We shall see if that impulse overcomes the ideological rejection of AGW science (if he has – does anyone know beyond “It’s a hoax by the chinese”.. ..”I may have said that”?)
The likes of Elon Musk should be given support, especially if Trump wants to renew infrastructure. Musk plans to build the “Hyperloop” after all.
Infrastructure need money and if Trump plans to cut taxes …. well something/one has to pay for it.
Let’s support billionaires, they need our money.
If you have a system such as the US has, then seemingly so.
Trump is a “billionaire” is he not?
By his own self-aggrandisement anyway.
Tony, your idea: “The likes of Elon Musk should be given support.”
I said support not money.
“One day, you will get a surprise. Noe will it be long new, I suspect.”
Oh. When do you “suspect” will that be then?
When Trump provides evidence that the world’s Earth scientists are corrupt, or just incompetent?
Because why?
Could it be that they work for the government, who are *pushing* AGW?
So they do what they want to keep their jobs?
Like Muller did when he took the Kocks’ money?
Like the Exxon scientists did?
No Tony.
This lady is your biggest enemy, not Trump.
She is going to bury you.
You can bet the farm on it.
Tony Banton: “It’s got to the point now that gainsaying AGW is not only scientifically and logically daft, but also financially daft as well”
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you just keep right on flogging that dead horse.
One day, you will get a surprise. Noe will it be long new, I suspect.
Oh, and it’s a shame the world just doesn’t conform to the way you want it.
Innit?
One more Republican loyalist I forgot to thank:
“Ingraham gave a high-profile speech at the Republican National Convention in July 2016 in Cleveland. She used the opportunity to chastise fellow Republican hold-outs for not supporting Donald Trump in his nomination bid, which was ultimately successful.”
The International Energy Agency released today (Nov. 16) its annual World Energy Outlook 2016 report. This year’s report focused on the relationship between prospective energy supply/demand and meeting climate change targets in the Paris Agreement. The IEA Press Release summarizes as follows.
Global oil demand continues to grow until 2040, mostly because of the lack of easy alternatives to oil in road freight, aviation and petrochemicals, according to WEO-2016. However, oil demand from passenger cars declines even as the number of vehicles doubles in the next quarter century, thanks mainly to improvements in efficiency, but also biofuels and rising ownership of electric cars.
Coal consumption barely grows in the next 25 years, as demand in China starts to fall back thanks to efforts to fight air pollution and diversify the fuel mix. The gas market is also changing, with the share of LNG overtaking pipelines and growing to more than half of the global long-distance gas trade, up from a quarter in 2000. In an already well-supplied market, new LNG from Australia, the United States and elsewhere triggers a shift to more competitive markets and changes in contractual terms and pricing.
The Paris Agreement, which entered into force on 4 November, is a major step forward in the fight against global warming. But meeting more ambitious climate goals will be extremely challenging and require a step change in the pace of decarbonization and efficiency. Implementing current international pledges will only slow down the projected rise in energy-related carbon emissions from an average of 650 million tonnes per year since 2000 to around 150 million tonnes per year in 2040.
While this is a significant achievement, it is far from enough to avoid the worst impact of climate change as it would only limit the rise in average global temperatures to 2.7°C by 2100. The path to 2°C is tough, but it can be achieved if policies to accelerate further low carbon technologies and energy efficiency are put in place across all sectors.”
see http://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/november/world-energy-outlook-2016.html and http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/massive-energy-report-economic-growth-and-carbon-emissions-decoupled/.
I hope this is useful.
Regards,
MK
Post-truth declared word of the year by Oxford English Dictionary.
“It is defined as an adjective relating to circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals.”
Just saying.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37995600
” This perversion of the definition of ‘climate change’ was designed to mislead people into thinking that all climate change is caused by humans.”
Just when I thought Dr Curry couldn’t make her position in the climate science community worse, she posts a clanger like that.
No, it’s a perfectly good analysis of a propaganda move. Anyone who didn’t already know this is somewhat naive. Anybody who didn’t see it when pointed out is lost in denial.
The background of the UNFCCC definition wasn’t provided. Here it is,
https://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf/press_factsh_science.pdf
Misleading, not. Quoting it out of context – misleading.
This particular context actually proves how misleading it is, except to those rare readers who actually look at what it says:
Custom built for scammers to play semantic baid&switch.
They provide both definitions, the IPCC one first, so even impatient readers with short attention spans will not be misled unless they try very hard to be.
It’s only good analysis if you start offfrom a *certain* position.
Actually “Climate Change” predates “Global Warming”.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
Tony Banton | November 17, 2016 at 2:49 pm |
Interesting question, Tony. Google has a couple of tools to display this, ngrams and trends. Ngrams go further back in time.
TL;DR version is that “climate change” started to get used around 1970, and “global warming” around 1980. However, it’s more complex, check out the links above.
w.
What you think of Dr Curry is of zero importance.
tmg56: “What you think of Dr Curry is of zero importance.”
As much as zero? I wouldn’t have rated it that high myself.
AK.
“No, it’s a perfectly good analysis of a propaganda move. Anyone who didn’t already know this is somewhat naive. Anybody who didn’t see it when pointed out is lost in denial.”
Projecting much?
Jim D.
Quite right. The IPCC and UNFCCC simply defined their usage of the term “climate change”. Only a perverse interpretation would suggest anything nefarious about.
Harry Twinotter,
I wonder if you deny the weather has remained inconstant for as long as there has been an atmosphere.
Hopefully not.
As the weather changes, so does the average of weather – climate.
The climate has changed ever since the atmosphere existed.
GHE enthusiasts think this is unusual, for some bizarre reason.
Climate always changes – no human influence required.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn.
A gee, for a second there I thought you were going to stay on topic for a change. But noooo – subject change!
In a way this means you agree with my comments about Dr Curry misrepresenting the IPCC.
Something unusual happening with temperatures at the DMI Daily Arctic mean temperatures north of 80N.
Way above normal for this time of year and prolonged.
Either DMI has some more serious explaining to do or something weird is happening to the climate.
I certainly hope the former.
Raising some questions to me about ECS as well.
“Something unusual happening with temperatures at the DMI Daily Arctic mean temperatures north of 80N.
Way above normal for this time of year and prolonged.
Either DMI has some more serious explaining to do or something weird is happening to the climate.2
The AO oscillation has been in -ve territory for some time and forecast to be so through December too.
Means descending/warming/diverging air. The cold air is over Russia/Asia.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Might be start of the hypothesized quasi-cyclical sea ice sawtooth event. Ocean burping up a bunch of heat into the arctic atmosphere as a large mass of ice forms.
A little treat for all my friends here
David,
That was a treat.
Thanks. It seemed like a lost cause with both estabalishments and the mainstream media plus the brownshirts attacking the peasants but a great victory. Now to return to science and observations based hypothesis developments. Fracking and energy improvements will lead the way out of doldrums economics.
Here in California we can keep improvements in solar sysatems till they become economic for future developments. We are rich and technical and also moving to desalination for water shortages. New nuclear and fusion eventually can free people from energy shortages but that must happen elsewhere.
Very optimistic, Trump won against the world powers.
Scott
This perversion of the definition of ‘climate change’ was designed to mislead people into thinking that all climate change is caused by humans.
You might have a point except that: no one really cares what was written in a 1992 document when the subtleties of climate change were not yet understood; the IPCC use a better definition of climate change that includes natural effects; there has been no “natural” climate warming for at least half a century.
Last minute news
The UK is poised to ratify the world’s first comprehensive agreement on tackling climate change.
Yet another positive story — Trump and Clean Coal:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/17/theres-actually-a-way-trump-could-help-both-coal-and-the-climate/?utm_term=.2084e7dbefd8
I have disagreed with Rud in the past about carbon capture. I believe its too early to make judgments. For example, the gasification operations at the Southern Co. Mississippi plant will not even begin until next year. We need to focus on marginal costs when the plant is fully functioning.
The above Washington Post story talks a little about the concept of bioenergy and carbon storage. I’ve been involved in this work (co-authoring ~20 mostly peer reviewed papers with the DOE, USDA, EPRI, Oak Ridge National Lab, University of Florida schools of engineering and agriculture).
A key part of our Ag research has been on soils:
http://www.treepower.org/soils/soilorganicmatter.html
Stephen.
Thanks for the article on clean coal. Hard problem because the high temperatures required eat the he** out of steel but solutions could be on the way with the right incentives.
Scott
There are so many good things Trump could do. Is he a politician or a philantropist or a climate expert? A complete novice. Keep your fingers crossed.
There are so many good things Obama could have done. The situation in 2016 is even worse than one in 2008.
The UK Foreign Secretary and the Brexit leader Boris Johnson signed the Paris accord on climate change document with enthusiasm and relish
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38014611
So much negativism here at CE on Renewables and Bioenergy specifically.
Compared to the common visual paradigm presented here at CE on cutting down old-growth pristine forests, here is an example of the what’s actually going on.
Ag is focusing on utilizing millions of acres of degraded lands throughout the world. A major focus is degraded lands from mining that are now all too often over-run by invasive plants.
Here, we took a mined site (originally mostly wetlands) that was now dominated by cogongrass (a very nasty weed):
Here is what the same site looked like after a little over 3 years with our energy crop trees. Interesting Ag aspect of these trees is that they re-grow after harvesting for energy use (called coppice):
Stephen
Renewables are fine provided the correct ones are chosen for the specific location and they do not need a long term subsidy.
As regards the former, our powers that be insist on inflicting large scale solar energy projects on the UK despite our poor sunshine record. Similarly the wind farm association confirms we are not windy enough for viable wind energy. In addition both types of energy tend to be built on our finest upland landscapes and then need unsightly pylons to get the power to where it is required.
Most renewables by now are relatively mature technologies and should be able to stand on their own feet.
It may be of course that solar farms, for example, are a great idea in desert areas but not in high latitude countries with limited sun.
Coppicing has been used for energy for hundreds of years. Again, it will work well in certain circumstances. Good luck to you with your projects..
tonyb
Subsidies are usually the rub between Stephen and small government types, like me.
Don’t leave out Trump and his subsidies! His stack up to millions of dollars. Gotta have ‘big government’ in order to afford his type.
Stephen,
Perhaps changing the terms you use might eliminate some of the negativity you complain about. What you describe is soil restoration. There are aspects of renewable energy and biofuels that one can raise valid concerns about. Talking about the percentage of US corn crop directed towards ethanol production is a valid talking point, which does not detract from what you show us here.
What we call the “Genesis Effect” of soil building with our energy crop efforts:
What is new about your circular diagram,?
This was common knowledge when I first ventured into Ag in the mid 1960s.
It has no discernable link to fighting climate change or similar post-truth concepts.
If you are an enthusiastic expert, how about some words on how the burial of carbon in soil can or cannot influence CO2 concentrations in the air?
Seems to me to be yet another expensive non-scientists emotional scam.
Geoff.
Stephen Segrest,
Top marks for use of eye catching colours!
Cheers.
stephan,
What kind of tree?
Scott
With trees, we are working with eucs, cottonwoods, willows.
After soil repair, we move into other energy crops — such as sorghum and energy cane for the production of ethanol. We also do a lot of crop rotation with covers like white radish and minimum till to continue building soils.
This is an old mining site — see the mountain of mining waste tailings in the distance?
More pics at: http://www.treepower.org/sweetsorghumpictures/main.html
Stephen
Why would you think anyone here would have any objections to the sort of projects you are involved in?
Tonyb
Most people here have promoted them.
Only caution is that such projects often turn out hard to scale up effectively.
Another aspect to state of the art bioenergy is the gasification from our crop wastes (i.e., called presscake and/or bagasse).
Soil organic matter has 2 components — an active fraction (e.g., greenchop) and a stable component.
In gasification at an ethanol plant from the presscake, biochar (a stable component) is created which is then applied/recycled back into the soils (a form of carbon capture):
Brief overview is here: http://www.treepower.org/biochar/main.html
Stephen Segrest | November 17, 2016 at 11:50 am
Stephen, while your projects look laudable, surely as an expert in the field you must know why the negativism exists …
Large swaths of tropical forest have been cut down for palm oil plantations, and large areas which were producing food corn are currently producing ethanol, the ethanol is wreaking havoc on old and new engines, while tortilla prices in Mexico continue to rise. Brilliant plan.
And yes, your reclamation project looks good … but for every acre under that kind of management, there are thousands of acres of palm plantation where forest once stood.
Next, your linked site says:
What if? Well, if that were true, then both food prices AND energy prices would likely go UP, that’s what’s always happened in the past … and that is the part they’re not discussing. The addition of ethanol to US fuel stocks has cost us billions of dollars, to no visible or measureable gain of any kind. Sorry, I’ll pass.
Finally, the combination of fracking and the recent discovery of the largest oil field ever discovered in the US means that alternatives like biofuel are unlikely to be economically competitive for a long, long time. I fear you’ve placed your bet on the wrong industry … your wood coppicing project on old mine sites looks very good because of the side benefit of reclamation, but biofuel is generally a non-starter for economic reasons.
Best regards,
w.
Willis As I gone back and forth with Captain Dallas here at CE — I can cite sources from the DOE, USDA, and NGOs (like the prestigious Stockholm Environmental Institute) which refute what you’ve written. But, nothing I cite will matter.
Also, your view of the future is not my view. The critical aspect of ethanol (which never gets discussed) is octane. A revolution is occurring in automotive engine design which MIT calls the “incredible shrinking engine” using turbo design — requiring much higher octane levels.
This, I believe will be the future direction of ethanol.
I talk about ethanol and octane here: http://greenenergy.blogspot.com/2015/02/is-ethanol-being-forced-down-our-throats.html
I have a pet hypothesis that CO2 fertilization will increase calorie production to the point that we need to ferment to get the nutritional content we want in some foods. Could be combined with food security initiatives. Create stores of grains for food security, turn over the stores by fermenting as stores reach such/such age and are replenished by new crops.
CO2 fertilization might already be a big part of obesity problem.
Problem is, how do you do it without taking food out of the mouths of the poor?
aaron: “…to the point that we need to ferment to get the nutritional content we want in some foods.”
We already do.
Have you never come across single malt whisky?
Steven,
Maybe you have a confusion in your mind about attribution.
You might note that pioneers in land reclamation decades ago were from the mining industry.
Vehicle engines are forever developing. Do you have proof that pushing for greater use of ethanol actually drove the engineering that you mention – or would it have happened anyhowvas vehicle engineers react to peak oil scenarios and similar forecast drivers?
Geoff — If I have given the impression that ethanol is driving the engineering advancements in engine turbo performance — then this is incorrect. This is not what I tried to communicate.
If I had to pick “one thing”, I’d pick the U.S. auto (CAFE) MPG targets. Turbo boost engines will play a big factor in achieving this.
Stephen Segrest | November 17, 2016 at 3:51 pm |
Thanks, Stephen. First, I have no idea what you are trying to “refute”, as I made a number of very different claims. It would be helpful if you would quote my exact words that you disagree with, so we can all understand what you object to.
Next, once you’ve clarified exactly what words of mine you object to, you absolutely need to provide citations from whatever you think supports your objections.
Finally, if you think that “nothing you cite will matter”, you’ve defeated yourself before you start. This is a scientific site, and things you cite may well matter very much. Give yourself some credit, better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
That may well be the future of ethanol. However, like far too many folks with a good idea, you want the world to sign on to your plan today, before the technology is more than a lab proof-of-concept.
Finally, in the article The Incredible Shrinking Engine, it says:
A few points. If this is the future of ethanol, and you only need to fill the ethanol tank every 5,000 miles when you change the oil … that is a very, very tiny market. If that becomes the dominant technology, we’ll have a huge oversupply of ethanol. The proposed system only uses a tiny amount of ethanol to spray-cool the combustion chamber.
Next, it’s a 25% increase in efficiency, but about a hundred percent increase in complexity, with two tanks, two fuel delivery systems, two separate fuel injectors, and of course a turbocharger spinning at 20,000 rpm … the engine might shrink, but not “incredibly”, and meanwhile the cost balloons.
Anyhow, I’ll come back when it’s real and on the market and we can discuss real numbers about the system.
Best regards,
w.
Willis — Unfortunately, I do not think that CE is a “scientific” site for agriculture and engineering discussion. In Ag, Rud is knowledgeable and can be objective. In engineering, both Rud and Planning Engineer are clearly knowledgeable but not very objective in presenting the whole “big” picture (or often silent on many comments I know they know are incorrect).
In the future when I cite credible scientific sources when I object to claims made here at CE — feel free to jump in.
The Pope and Trump are boating on a lake. A sudden wind gust takes Pope’s hat away. Trump gets up, walks on waters, picks up the hat, brings it back to the boat. Washington Post reports: Trump can’t swim.
Curious George Yet if there is a negative story on AGW or Renewables, it will find its way to CE — which to you is OK because objectivity on AGW and Renewables isn’t necessary.
A short recap:
Stephen Segrest | October 8, 2016 at 9:37 pm | Reply
Example of the “Wicked Problem” also in Ag from the prestigious SEI — As plants absorb larger amounts of carbon dioxide through the plant pores on the leaf surface (stomata), they also absorb pollutants such as ozone at higher rates.
https://www.sei-international.org/-news-archive/3400
Curious George | October 9, 2016 at 10:28 am | Reply
Stephen, let’s see:
1. A concentration of CO2 in the air is rising.
2. Therefore plants need to breathe less air to get a needed CO2.
3. Therefore they get less, not more, pollutants from the air.
4. Or maybe not – if a pollutant concentration rises faster than CO2 concentration. But that is likely nor a CO2’s fault.
5. The most frequent word in the prestigious article is “COULD”. (Just joking, but it feels that way.)
Stephen Segrest | October 9, 2016 at 11:15 am |
You need to change your label/moniker to Uncurious George — since you already know everything about Ag. And your “expert opinions on Ag” are reflective in how many peer reviewed papers you’ve written?
Please avoid negativity by all means.
Curious George,
I like it!
You’re not hinting the MSM occasionally gives a slight impression of bias, are you?
Surely this can’t be true!
Cheers.
CG,
And Brietbart reports: Trump shames Jesus, impresses pope, saves hat with Made Great in America label. (America, China……….if you recall made in USA, Japan)
“This rumor was almost certainly a tongue-in-cheek joke inspired by someone’s noticing the coincidence of a town in Japan named Usa ” http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/usa.asp
Enjoy!
From Ag Industry “EXPERT” Curious George — Climate Change in Agriculture is NOT a wicked problem. All one has to know is that CO2 is simply plant food — end of discussion, end of story. Things like Ag Laws of limiting factors — well they are just stupid things that Tree Hugger Socialists (like Segrest) come up with.
I can’t help but sympathize. All those biologists and physicists ignoring the wicked problems of materials attainment, materials of construction, capital, and the law of diminishing returns that engineers keep harping about when talking about naive projections of capability, energy, economics, and incremental costs.
johnpittman — Have you ever studied macro integrated grid “engineering economics”? I don’t think so.
The Trump Impact on Energy & Environmental Law:
http://www.eenews.net/tv/2016/11/17
Very insightful interview with perhaps the future Administrator of the EPA. I especially liked how the interview ended with the message: We need to find common ground.
This is from a post I made on FB near the election. The video is actual from Judith’s twitter feed.
“We need to find common ground.”
Hey there’s more and more common ground appearing on Greenland.
Someday there might be enough green in Greenland that they can raise cattle and grow apples again. One can only hope.
Drill baby drill. I love it so!
aaron — thanks for the university of Richmond link. I listened during lunch, very good on both sides.
Glad you enjoyed it.
EEN was good too.
For all my friends in flyover country who stood up and took our country back on November 8th, 2016
California unprocessed ballots update: as of today, there are 3.1 million ballots that have not yet been processed, and Clinton’s lead over Trump has increased to 3.2 million. To date, the unprocessed ballots have not broken for Trump, but Clinton’s lead in the unprocessed votes has been smaller than her lead in the election-day votes.
I’m not sure where that number came from, but CNN keeps a tally of popular vote. Right now it stands at 1,112,217 favoring Clinton. Sure ain’t 3 million.
It refers only to California, the state of Solyndra and Ivanpah.
jim2, sorry I have been unclear. I am only referring to California vote totals.
Clinton carried CA by about 3.2 million (so far), but lost the rest of the US by about 2.1 million.
UNFCCC’s definition of climate, particular to that instrument, is a ‘hoax?’
I followed the links to see how the definition was pitched by UNFCCC.
It became instantly clear that the definition was in line with normal practice of clarifying usage of phrases/terms when,
1) terms have more than 2 meanings, or may be read in more than one way
2) terms are lengthy and are shortened for clarity/ease of reading
Various bodies define terms in ways that are specific to their terms of reference, such as ‘private’, ‘refugee’, ‘child’, ‘instrument’ etc etc.
The criticism of UNFCCCs definition is inane. UNFCCC does not REdefine ‘climate change’, it simply defines it in line with its specific remit. Had UNFCCC failed to define it WRT its remit, but simply used it under an assumed definition (anthropogenic), then there might be cause for criticism.
If this line of argument is meant to reconstruct Trump’s comments regarding AGW being a hoax, it fails in the first instance, but is also quite beside the point because Trump is on record on the matter.
We don’t yet know what line the Trump admin will take on climate change
(cf UNFCCC definition), but if it is consistent with his remarks we can expect policy more in line with POTUS 43 (the early period).
(The link to UNFCCC doc on climate change definition is dead in the old post, by the way. Here is the link: https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf)
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #249 | Watts Up With That?