'The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims to be a scientific organization. But it’s really a political one...If the IPCC is a panel of experts, the critical issue is: What is each of these people an expert in? More than 30 years after its founding, the IPCC still thinks it doesn’t need to talk about this.'
'The nature of an author’s scientific expertise clearly isn’t a burning issue. But lots of attention is being paid to checking diversity boxes.'
Climate Depot, meanwhile, has fact-checked the president’s climate remarks and found them to be “scientifically, politically and economically accurate.” It's a skeptic’s website, run by Marc Morano, author of the bestselling The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change
President Trump to 60 Minutes: “I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again. I don’t think it’s a hoax. I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs … I’m not denying climate change.”
Reality Check: President Trump is frankly giving his assessment of man-made climate change and his understanding is in agreement with some very high profile scientists. Trump has been remarkably consistent with his climate views, demandingthat the “The Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore” in the wake of the Climategate revelations in 2010.
Trump on 60 Minutes: Lesley Stahl tells Trump: “I wish you could go to Greenland, watch these huge chunks of ice just falling into the ocean, raising the sea levels.” – President Trump responds: “And you don’t know whether or not that would have happened with or without man. You don’t know.”
Reality Check: Once again, President Trump has peer-reviewed science on his side.
President Trump to 60 Minutes: “But it (climate change) could very well go back. You know, we’re talking about over a … millions of years.”
Reality Check: Once again, President Trump is accurately citing Earth’s history. The climate has varied over billions of years, millions of years, hundreds of thousands of years, thousands of years, hundreds of years and decades.
Analysis by Paul Homewood: "While Michael was certainly a disastrous hurricane, three specific claims have been made about it, which don’t stand up to scrutiny:
1) Claim: It was the biggest storm on record for the Florida Panhandle: Response: This first claim is plainly meaningless, given that the Panhandle is only a tiny part of the whole US coastline.
2) Claim: It was the third most powerful to hit the US, based on barometric pressure: Response: We know that Hurricane Hunter aircraft kept well away from the center of the strongest storms in the early days, so we have no way of knowing whether other storms prior to Camille were as intense unless surface observations were available...Michael may have had the lowest pressure of any storm since Camille, but such claims cannot be made for earlier periods.
3) Claim: It was the fourth strongest in terms of wind speeds: Response: The claim of 155 mph was based solely on SFMR measurements, which the NHC already admit are questionable...Maximum surge seems to have been around 7 feet. I have heard this described on a news bulletin as “epic”, which is utter nonsense – this is not unusual for any hurricane.
A surge of just 7 feet would suggest that Michael’s wind speeds were much less than claimed...By contrast, the storm surge during Camille was 24.6 feet.
Ben Pile: The UN IPCC 'is driven by a political agenda, not a scientific one...The IPCC was asked to consider the 1.5°C target, not because a new scientific understanding demanded it, but because of the need for a new dose of urgency.'
'In 2014, the summary for policymakers warned that climate change can increase the risks of conflict and migration. But this was totally unsupported by the technical parts of the document.'
"Every IPCC report has been the ‘final call’. Every UNFCCC meeting has been the ‘last chance’. Countless climate deadlines have passed but arctic ice still exists. The polar bears still exist. And most frustratingly of all for these environmentalists, the world’s human population is doing better than ever before. It is not the IPCC’s science that appeals to these vapid hacks – it is the cover it provides for their profoundly undemocratic impulses."
Mainstream media labels Marc Morano as someone who "rejects climate science."
Those who doubt mainstream climate science have for a long time downplayed the role of human-related emissions by saying that Earth's climate system has always fluctuated naturally. Trump flipped that around. He looked to the future instead of the past by suggesting that today's higher temperatures could decrease on their own — or "change back."
As scientists grappled with this new presentation of skepticism, others began repeating it. Trump made his remarks Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes." Marc Morano, who runs the website Climate Depot, which rejects climate science, wrote that it was "scientifically, politically and economically accurate." "Once again, President Trump is accurately citing Earth's history," Morano wrote in an email to his followers. "The climate has varied over billions of years, millions of years, hundreds of thousands of years, thousands of years, hundreds of years and decades."
"I don't know that it's manmade. I will say this: I don't want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't want to lose millions and millions of jobs." ... "I'm not denying climate change," he said in the interview. "But it could very well go back. You know, we're talking about over a ... millions of years."
"They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael," said Trump, who identified "they" as "people" after being pressed by "60 Minutes" correspondent Leslie Stahl. She asked, "What about the scientists who say it's worse than ever?" the president replied, "You'd have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda."
Schumer claims: Human Beings Could Reduce Frequency of Hurricanes
New York Senator Chuck Schumer: "If we would do more on climate change, we'd have fewer of these hurricanes and other types of storms. Everyone knows that, except a few." - Schumer said the Trump administration has done nothing but "move the issue backward."
John Abraham, thermal sciences professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering: “It is climate denial like his that has contributed to the suffering of residents in the state,” said Mr. Abraham in his column for the Guardian...“Climate deniers are making these storms worse by stopping action on climate change,” he continued. “What the hell do we expect to happen when the deniers are writing the laws?” ...
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano pointed to the recent 11-year gap in major hurricanes making U.S. landfall, which ended in August 2017 with Hurricane Harvey, the longest such “hurricane drought” in recorded history.
“If they want to blame Republican policies for recent hurricanes, will they also credit the GOP for the more than a decade lull in hurricanes?” he asked. “We have reached the level of inane belief that government regulations and taxes can influence storms.”
“You could see this coming, you could see the whole pattern coming,” Bastardi said. “We talked to Sean on the 16th of September, I said I’ll be seeing you again in October probably because of a big Gulf storm.” Bastardi added, “It’s not because of your SUV, this is what nature is capable of doing, and you could see this pattern setting up pretty far in advance.”
“The politics of this were impossible a few years ago. But not so much now,” said Rafe Pomerance, chairman of the environmental alliance Arctic 21 and a four-decade advocate of increased action on global warming. “If we think the problem of climate change is catastrophic, how can we say that we can’t at least consider this as an option?” ...
Researchers have envisioned duplicating the phenomenon by launching jets equipped to fly to 70,000 feet, the lower reaches of the stratosphere, where they would release a sulfur compound. The effort would bleach blue skies a lighter color and make sunsets more vivid, while shielding Earth from some of the sun's rays. The flights would have to be numerous and long-running to create anything like the reflective power of the volcanic eruptions.
A writer for the eco-friendly Grist tweeted, “The world’s top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet.”
Bjorn Lomborg: "For the most important environmental issues, economic growth has solved problems, not created them. The cleanest places are not the poorest countries, but the richer economies that have cleaned up their act. As societies become richer, individuals can afford to stop worrying about food and sanitation, and to start worrying about the environment. Indoor air pollution is the world’s biggest environmental killer, claiming lives because poor people burn dung and wood for cooking and heating. As societies get richer, people can afford cleaner technology. In 1990, indoor air pollution caused more than 8% of deaths; in 2016 it was 4.7%. Each year 1.2 million fewer people die from indoor air pollution, despite an increase in population."
"The world’s forests tell a similar story. For most of human history, trees were decimated wherever humans settled. Higher agricultural yields and changing attitudes have meant rich countries are increasingly preserving forests and reforesting."
WSJ: "In other words, humanity is doomed under the IPCC’s models no matter what we do. Nonetheless, the IPCC is urging immediate, drastic and large-scale economic changes that would affect everything from the kinds of cars people drive to foods they eat. Millions of acres of farmland would have to be converted into forests or plastered over with solar panels."
18-year old climate activist Xiuhtezcatl Martinez on the reason for federal climate lawsuit: "Our constitutional rights to life, liberty and property are being violated because of our government's inability to act" on climate change.
Claim: "When the climate science is brought into the courtroom it will result in the judge finding that the government is committing constitutional violations,” a lawyer said.
“Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers,” reads the headline an article by Abraham, published in The Guardian Thursday. “Elections have consequences. Denying science has consequences. And we are reaping what we sow,” the subhead reads.
Midler: “Morning TV dedicates time to the new UN ClimateChangeReport, and it’s dire, dire dire. But President Marcos, I mean Trump, doesn’t give a sh*t. I guess science was not his strong suit, nor is it the strength of the bums he surrounds himself with. You’ll burn, drown or starve.”