I was on the Charles Butler show this morning (starts at around 28:00) and Charles said he would forward some key climate talking points over to the Trump campaign. Democrats are very organized with their climate talking points, and have the media trained as attack dogs. Their propaganda is easily countered by a few simple points.
Almost all of our heat, light, cooling, communication and transportation is done using fossil fuels. All of our food and medicine is transported using fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels, every tree would get cut down by people needing to burn wood for warmth. The air would be thick with smoke like China. People would be starving to death and freezing in the winter. There would be no Internet, mass transit or communications. If we “keep it in the ground” or “make electricity prices skyrocket” like Democrats want to do, it would be an immediate catastrophe like nothing mankind has ever faced.
- There is no 97% consensus of scientists. In a 2013 survey of the professional members of the American Meteorological Society, only 52% believed that global warming was primarily man-made – much less dangerous. No group in the survey came anywhere close to reaching 97%.
In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences said “The climates of the earth have always been changing.” Blaming every weather event on humans is not science, it is superstition.
2. Heatwaves are not getting worse. According to the EPA, the worst heatwaves in the US (by far) occurred during the 1930’s – when the Midwest commonly saw temperatures over 110 degrees, and as high as 120 degrees.
High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change | US EPA
Almost half of US states set their all-time maximum record temperature record during the 1930’s. Only one state has set their all-time record since the year 2000.
UNITED STATES EXTREME RECORD TEMPERATURES & RANGES
3. Droughts are not getting worse. According to NOAA, the US has been getting steadily wetter over the past century.
Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
In the 1930’s, drought covered 80% of the US, as poignantly described by John Steinbeck in “The Grapes of Wrath”
4. Scientists say that California has had much more severe droughts in the past, lasting as long as 200 years. The past 100 years was the wettest century on record in California.
California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say – Mercury News
5. Hurricanes are not getting worse. The US is experiencing a record quiet period for hurricanes.
Jul 27 2016
No hurricanes have entered or developed in the Gulf of Mexico since September 2013, a stretch of well over 1,000 days. By the end of this week, the streak will be the longest on record, dating to the 1800s.
Gulf of Mexico Hurricane Drought Likely to Become Longest in 130 Years | The Weather Channel
U.S. in longest “hurricane drought” in recorded history – CBS News
6. According to the Danish Meteorological Institute, the Arctic Ocean is full of thick ice. There is more ice on the Russian side than there has been in years, and a group of global warming sailors are currently blocked by impenetrable ice in the Northeast Passage.
Home – The Polar Ocean Challenge
Scientists predictions have consistently failed.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’
Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014
The Argus-Press – Jun 24, 2008
The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search
7. Polar Bear populations are not decreasing.
Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001 | polarbearscience
8. Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years, since the end of the last ice age. Most of that time much faster than now. It has nothing to do with humans.
File:Post-Glacial Sea Level.png – Wikimedia Commons
9. According to NOAA, sea level is only rising 1.7 to 1.8 mm/year. At that rate, it will take thousands of years for Manhattan to drown.
the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year.
10. According to NOAA, sea level at Manhattan has been rising at about the same rate (2.8 mm/year) since the 1850’s. There is no indication that humans are affecting the rate of sea level rise.
Sea Level Trends – State Selection
11. Glaciers have been melting for a very long time. In 1879, John Muir (founder of the Sierra Club) found that Alaska’s largest glacier had retreated 48 miles since 1794. Twenty thousand years ago, Chicago was buried under a mile of glacial ice.
Glaciers and Icebergs of Glacier Bay National Park in Southeast Alaska
The glaciers of Greenland were reported by scientists to be “nearing catastrophe” – even before Bernie Sanders was born.
06 May 1940 – Greenland’s Climate Becoming Milder – Trove
12. Forest fires are not getting worse over the long term. According to USDA, the US had five times as much burn acreage in the 1930’s as we do now. The New York Times confirmed this.
Indicator 3.16: Area and percent of forest affected by abiotic agents
13. Climate models have failed, and greatly over-predict warming.
Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems
14. Our most accurate systems for measuring global temperature, satellites, show that this year is no warmer than 1998.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
15. NASA shows that global surface temperatures have fallen 0.54 degrees C over the last four months. The largest drop on record in such a short time.
These points are unassailable, and backed by government data. If Trump memorizes them, it will help Make America Great Again.
…damn good post! saved it
Please send a quick note with a link to Sundance at the Conservative Tree House. Tey have a huge following.
The Last Refuge Rag Tag Bunch of Conservative Misfits – Contact Info: TheLastRefuge@reagan.com
I would do it but with a banned IP address I am very limited in who I can talk to via the net.
(I could not send e-mail to my own husband until he sent an e-mail to me first!)
I did, thanks
so far doesn’t have a “Climate Change” category under the “Positions” tab. He needs one.
He needs an anthropogenic climate change category. See my note below.
No, he should call it anthropogenic global warming. Don’t give in to those who try to hide behind ambiguous language.
CAGW is the most accurate name for their hypothesis. Leaving off the “C” is entirely improper.
A very fine compilation,Tony.
You can change (or mask) your IP address.
Outstanding rebuttal of every point in “Climate Change” malarkey.
One question: Because this entire sham is based on CO2 generated from human activity, is it worth noting that 1) the amount of anthropogenic CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year is truly trivial, even negligible (~3%–4% as I understand it) and therefore of no consequence, and 2) that the dominant greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which exists at 1%–4%?
In areas with high humidity, CO2 has very little effect. During the winter and near the poles, CO2 is more significant.
Then why has there been no SoPol warming in the whole of the satellite era?
I might do some analysis of summer vs winter SoPol temps from UAH later today.
Umm.. sorry Tony,
CO2 doesn’t seem to have much winter warming effect in the Antarctic. (summer = DJF, winter = JJA)
disclaimer….. Haven’t had morning coffee yet.. and not enough sleep either.
Could someone check my work please.
Just double checked this morning’s graph. Seems ok.
But these cold tablets aren’t helping !
Keep researching Tony. One of these days you will realize that your statement “CO2 produces warming” was WRONG.
Even Alan Watts agrees that CO2 causes slight warming, just not enough to be dangerous or probably even provable.
Mr. Heller, I’m sure you’ve seen this study on the original 97% claims. Is it no longer an accurate representation of the percentage that believes AGW, or is your more modern study simply the people who are too terrified NOT to “believe” in it?
There were two studies the lates John Cook paper and the older Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus claim. They are both bogus.
WUWT ripped both to shreds.
Listing of the multiple articles through the years at WUWT:
There have been many consensus failures in the past,yet science illiterates continue to push this broken talking point like little kids.
And that AMS poll showing 52% of members believing in predominant AGW climate change is only that high because a number of us former members could no longer stomach the pure advocacy coming out of that organization.
Regarding the 97% I would count myself with the 97%. As I recall the criteria requires three points:
1. Belief that it’s warmer. Yes, it’s a little warmer than it was in 1850 by about a degree or so.
2. CO2 plays a role in the warm-up. Yes it’s a green house gas, absent feed backs it should warm things up about 1.2°C per doubling.
3. Human activity has increased CO2. Yes the Keeling curve is real and no doubt an artifact of the use of fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t “Climate Change” or “Global Warming”, it’s “Environmental Disaster.”
I doubt that 97% of scientists believe the run-up of CO2 is leading to a catastrophic environmental disaster.
1. Probably less than 1°C of highly beneficial warming
3. Yes man has , thankfully, added some CO2 to the atmosphere
2. The theoretical 1.2°C calculated by radiative physics is immediately countered by convection, which rules in the lower atmosphere. The possible warming effect of CO2 is totally nullified.
Hey AndyG55! Correct me if I am wrong about that 1.2 degree doubling figure. I think that the 1.2 degrees is what the doubling would be if the atmosphere did not have any water vapor. In the real world, of course, there are large amounts of H2O in the air and the absorption bands of H2O overlap those of CO2 to a great extent. Since H2O is already soaking up most of the CO2 bands in the IR, the practical effect of CO2 (even discounting convective effects) is only a fraction of a degree. Add in convection and the effect of doubling CO2 is essentially zero.
As I say, those of you who understand this better correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the 1.2 degrees is the non-convective, theoretical, dry air effect.
As I always like to tell Warmists, the debate isn’t about warming, it is about causation. Warmist proposition that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, especially “carbon pollution. Yet, for all their caterwauling, they refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels and go carbon neutral.
From following this for a long time, I say it’s about 10-20%, and it is mostly agriculture and landfills for global, as well as UHI and land use.
GRRRrrr, my IP address ban means I can no longer comment on your blog Teach. Please check your trash (not spam bucket)
a fellow Tarheel who is saving up feathers. (I already have the buckets of tar)
16. The Dems were at pains to repaint Hillary as someone who cares about children. The media were gaga over it, but then where was she, when she was First Lady and then Madeleine Albright (Clinton’s Sec of State) infamously answered (as then United States Ambassador to the United Nations) “The price was worth it” when asked on CBS 60 Mins if sanctions Pres. Clinton enforced killed 500,000 children (just upto 1996) were worth it?
Lets be clear, Hillary supposedly cares about children but when her husband’s Ambassador to the United Nations said that 500,000 children dead was ok, she never uttered a word then, nor since, condemning the inhuman remark.
Hey GC! That video of Albright may not have ever gotten much air time here in the US, but I can guarantee you that it was played over and over throughout much of the Middle East. I remember the lead up to those deaths. Bill Clinton ordered the US Air Force to bomb (in violation of international law) the civilian infrastructure, including the water and sewage treatment plants. Combined with the ongoing embargo against most medicines (and against chlorine for water sterilization) the resulting sickness and disease killed over a million people in Iraq.
I was a bit more naive twenty years ago. I really, really expected that the officers and pilots of the US Air Force would stand down and refuse the illegal bombing orders. They did not.
” . . only 52% believed that global warming was primarily man-made – much less dangerous.”
Tony – 52% of what part of global warming? All of it — or some of it . . that part of it that may have some anthropogenic footprint on it.
The skeptical (skeptical of it all being caused by man, and that it’s leading to some catastrophe, community) should lead Trump to distinguish between naturally occurring GW/CC and AGW/ACC.
When asked if one (or Trump) ‘if he believes in GW/CC, or if it’s a hoax, etc.,’ the response should never be a simple yes or no; rather it should be something like:
“Let’s make sure that I/you know what you’re speaking of. Are you speaking of naturally occurring global warming (or global cooling)/CC or, are you asking me about some additional human footprint on naturally occurring GW/CC. We call that AGW and ACC?”
From that point forward, there is a more reasonable chance that the conversation can be somewhat informed and intelligent.
One should never say that they don’t believe in GW or CC. Well, unless they are indeed a flat Earther.
Trump should not say
There is absolutely no doubt that man has affected the calculated global average surface temperature in a multitude of ways. ;-)
That does NOT mean the planet is actually warming.
The calculated global average surface temperature is NOT a good measure of real temperature changes.
There has obviously been some real warming of the planet since the Little Ice Age. Real and BENEFICIAL.
I doubt very much that much of that real warming is actually produced by man.
“The calculated global average surface temperature is NOT a good measure of real temperature changes.”
ESPECIALLY the way Gavin, Phil et al do the calculations ;-)
One of the adjustments they include is a factor based on their personal bank account balance and whether they want it to be larger.
I certainly agree with your points . . but, I sense that you may have missed mine.
If I was on the stage, such as Trump is, and someone asked me if I believed in GW or CC, my answer would not be Yes, or No; rather, it would be . . well, what I wrote in my comment.
BTW – those last few words weren’t meant to be . .’Trump should not say’ . . forgot to delete.
Hey gary! I thought you made a good and well put point. Politicians are not scientists; politicians and scientists are both constrained in what they may say, but in differing ways.
Sadly, most warmists have never even considered the differences between CAGW, AGW, and simple GW. I am sorry to have to say it, but MOST warmists simply do not think rationally or understand much science. Interestingly, our society is structured in such a way that their lack of rationality does not usually or immediately impact their lives very much. That may be a cultural design flaw of western civilization…
“One should never say that they don’t believe in GW or CC.”
Except the climate isn’t really changing much.
Indicators seem to point to it being a tad more benign of late, but Mother Nature can still be a ‘b***h”
And the only parts of the world that have experienced much warming in the last 40-50 years have been urban heated areas, and those affected by ocean oscillations and El Ninos
Of the 50 USA state maximum temperature records, 36 were set prior to 1940.
It looks to me like only 10 of those record highs were set in the last 50 years. And in contrast it looks like 19 record lows set in the last 50 years or so. So a lot more record lows lately as compared to record highs. Just the opposite of what you would expect if there really were global warming.
In other words most all were set prior to the consensus view that anthropogenic greenhouse gases had reached a level such that a human footprint on Earth’s temperature (AGW) would have become observable.
Yes … basically falsifying the claim that human activity is making things warmer. The only human activity actually making things warmer is the ‘adjustments’ to the temperature record.
A very fine compilation,Tony.
Superb attention to detail as ever.
I believe an important talking point for Trump is that if alarmists get their way, air conditioning would be restricted. The very hot places in the US were not very populated until the advent of air conditioning in the 1950’s and 1960’s. In places like Phoenix and Houston, especially for seniors, air conditioning is not a luxury, it is a necessity. If you want to kill thousands of seniors, turn off the AC the next time in is 120 degrees in Phoenix.
Do your want Hillary to regulate your AC and determine how many miles you can drive? That is what is going to happen if the environmental extremists get their way.
Good list. I would add the NY Times article from the late 60s showing 100% consensus for global cooling.
I like my summary better.
Trump: “Hillary says she believes in Science. What she didn’t tell you is that the science she believes in is the science of manipulated climate data.
My team and I, on the other hand… we believe in Real Climate Science! We believe in the science of truth. We believe in the science of unmanipulated real data. The data that shows that there has been no warming for 18+ years! We believe, no, we know(it’s not a belief btw), the science that shows that Hurricanes and Tornadoes have actually been decreasing in frequency in the last decade, the science that has proof that our recent heatwaves have not exceeded the high temperatures of the 1930’s. A vote for Trump-Pence is a vote for truth in government agencies like the EPA, NASA, and NOAA, and a vote against wasteful spending on unsubstantiated alarmist fearmongering!”
Good speech points!
After that intro he can then elaborate with TH’s 15 points.
I like Trump’s method. “In his own tweets, Trump has called the concept of global warming everything from a “hoax” to “bulls—” — The Anti-Trump Washington Post.
Donald Trump Energy Policy Speech
Full Speech: Donald Trump at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference (5-26-16)
(Hope it is still up.)
I forgot to add that although I think Trump needs to be briefed on Tony’s talking points, they are better saved for blasting Hitlery if she trys to use Gorbull Warbling selling points.
It is another ‘Don’t Go There’trap topic like abortion that the DemonRats love to drag conservative candidates into to get them off the real topics all sane people agree on like Rule of Law, stopping terrorists, unregulated illegal entry to the country, drugs flowing across the border and the Depression the economy is in.
Trump’s game plan is to unite us. The DemonRat’s plan is to as usual Divide and CONQUER. So no matter how much we have emotionally invested in a specific topic, if it is a divider topic stay away from it this election and move to the topics we can all agree on.
With the DNC speakers hitting CAGW again and again, they are trying to use CAGW to goad Trump into a discussion on THEIR TOPICS and to derail his game plan. I doubt it will work.
August 13, 2015 More Voters Put Economy Ahead of Global Warming Worries
On Earth Day in 2016, Rasmussen Reports “asked how much more are you personally willing to pay in taxes and utility costs to generate a cleaner environment? Forty-five percent (45%) say they are not willing to pay any more, while another 26% are willing to spend only $100 more per year.” and in another poll “Voters Still Support Keystone XL Pipeline” and on July 07, 2015Voters Even More Confident About Potential for U.S. Energy Independence
So that is the positive position that Trump is playing hard in his speeches. Energy to fuel our industry. Energy independence to starve ISIS of US $$$. No mention of the trigger ‘Global Warming’
If you listen to the press conference Trump did the other day, a reporter tried to spring the abortion trap on Trump. He shut him down in once sentence, “Go see my issue statement” and moved on. He knows it is a divider topic. He knows it is a trap to derail the discussion and he is not going to fight that tar baby where the Press can grab juicy sound bites to deflect the voters off the uniting issues.
Besides, as I said the other day Trump had set up his own trap for the press.
I do wish Trump had a voice similar to his sons’
I listened to a Bill O’Reilly interview of Trump a couple of nights ago, and O’Reilly asked Trump if he thought Climate Change was a hoax.
Trump’s basic answer was “yes, it was a hoax”, but I found it very interesting that as part of explaining his position, he seemed to reference the Climategate scandal, and said “climate scientists were talking to each other, and laughing with each other”, and then he went off on a tangent, and did not address that anymore. But I sure did get the impression that Climategate was what he was talking about.
If Trump doesn’t know about Climategate, he should be told. It’s the heart of this whole fraudulent CAGW scheme. Without a hockey stick chart to point to, the Alamists would have nothing to show there is unprecedented warming going on. That’s their only “evidence”.
This is an excellent post– truly helpful items. Very useful. Thanks for putting it together. (I’m bookmarking it for future use.)
Someone made an excellent point, above. They noted that, yes, the climate has warmed. But the issue should be about cause. I agree. It’s a distraction to dispute overall warming since, say, 1850. What needs to be considered is the tremendous increase in solar output over that time. The average alarmist cousin’t tell you the first thing about solar variability (and simply will regurgitate the party line on “carbon pollution.”) Or, if they talk about minimal changes in solar irradiance, they completely overlook the significant, associated impacts of changing solar magnetic field, solar wind, ionization/cloud formation, etc.
Ain’t it ironic that skeptics are called anti-science?
Now let’s hope Charles can come through.
The Heller administration of NOAA will be a time of great change!
From your lips to God’s ears, Kent