For me Trump represents a long sort after ambition: to know what is really going on with the climate once the biased corrupt upjustments have been removed.
However, I thought today I’d try to work out what is most occupying the oMSM (once mainstream media) now that Trump is coming in to “Clean the swamp”.
Think Progress (link)
You’ve got to hand to them – they really didn’t want Trump and they did all they could to stop him. First thing I notice is the “denier” tag and other insults are being used. This is their oMSM method of keeping politicians in order. It doesn’t work any longer! The next one is the “flip” accusation. Again this simply means “thinking about doing something that is not consented by the oMSM”. A politician who breaks ranks “flips”.
Trump is appointing countless climate science deniers to key positions, which tells you vastly more about what he believes and what he’ll do than his latest semi-coherent ramblings.
Their concerns are who is appointed, what they believe and what they say. Not one word about the science.
But Obama filled his Cabinet with experts like Energy Secretary Steven Chu and EPA Chief Lisa Jackson.
Another classic ploy – built up some people as “experts” (usually without relevant qualifications – but toeing their line) and denigrate everyone else (particularly when more qualified).
New York times (link)
From the start, their first interest is in battles and not science with an opener:
Is the battle to contain global warming now lost? … to many of the shellshocked diplomats gathered in Morocco earlier this month at the first climate summit following the breakthrough agreement in Paris
Again, the focus is on politics, agreements, diplomats. Again we find the same attempts to denigrate Trump with terms like “polluter”. Their interests can be listed:
- Paris agreement
- “Clean” power plan
- Emission reduction strategy
- A new dawn for fossil fuel industry
So basically, their aim is to attack industry through various agreements. And they are outraged that Trump might take the side of industry and tear up those agreements.
There’s nothing I can see about science. They clearly have no real interest at all in the actual science and just publish it as “science-wash” for their political advocacy.
UK independent (a small paper)
Again, they are straight in with the insults “denial”. Again they are talking of “flipping” = dropping their cherished policies. They’re incensed he will Cancel Paris, Clean coal (this is looking ever so much like they’ve all used the same copy-n-paste press release.) Ok, it’s pretty boring reading the same rubbish three times, but I can’t obviously see anything on the science.
Changed search to include “Science”
Guardian (no link as they are vile)
There’s no plan B’: climate change scientists fear consequence of Trump victory
As with all the other oMSM articles – they launch with an insult:
As news of Donald Trump’s victory reached Marrakech on Wednesday, the many thousands … were left in shock and disbelief that the US could elect a climate-change denier as president. Some of the younger activists were in tears.. “My heart is absolutely broken at the election of Trump,” said B.
So, now we’re getting emotional drivel. I eventually found the “science” and it was here:
Trump has consistently denied 40 years of climate science
So even searching for “science” fails to find anything. Again, no real concern for science, just a few figures thrown around as “science-wash” for their politics.
Forbes (link)
This time it doesn’t start with the boring insults, but we again see that it is a conflict between their political views and “industry” – in that we have an Adam and Eve exit from paradise as the start of industry is seen as the cause of the downfall of man:
I accept the consensus among climate scientists that climate change is real, it’s happening now and human activity since the industrial revolution
The article is laid out as a challenge to those who challenge “the existence or extent of climate change”. He then shows a graph of natural sea level rise which has been going on for thousands of years. He’s very keen on “coming up with solutions” … from which I gather that he works in a University ideas department dreaming up “solutions” to a problem he has no idea whether or not it exists. But there’s little actual talk about the science, even in this article supposedly challenging sceptics on the science.
Vox (link)
Finally I found an article in Vox (never heard of them) on NASA – which is having all the cuts:
A Trump adviser wants to scale back NASA’s ability to study climate change
At this point I’m still not certain they are alarmists. But they set the scene for the end of NASA’s involvement with climate well with:
In the piece, it becomes clear that what Walker really dislikes is NASA’s research on global warming, which he called “heavily politicized” without any real justification.
Now bearing in mind, I’m waiting for even one of these journalists to refer to the implications for the science, the next quote … almost gets there … then diverts:
A move like this, if it actually happened, could be a big deal. Not only would it mean serious changes to US climate research, but it could affect a host of other key NASA programs that provide info on everything from weather to wildfires to drought and much more.
“Science” is just a word to fling about for these guys. It just appears to be a briefing from NASA – trying to protect their funding. Climate seems to be just a pawn – and so long as the funding keeps coming into NASA then they’re content to let it go.
Eventually we get something that seems to reveal their mindset on the actual science:
As part of its Earth studies, NASA also conducts extensive research into global climate change. That includes collecting data on carbon-dioxide emissions, temperatures, ice melt, and more. Perhaps most famously, the agency maintains this historical index of Earth’s average temperature.
To them, all that matters is this “temperature” – they don’t care how they get the required “science-wash” so long as it’s there. But even when they get a quote from the infamous Schmidt, it’s not talking about the science specifically, but instead it refers in nebulous ideas which amount to “how much science”:
Gavin Schmidt, who directs NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argues here: “Chopping off science just to prevent people from talking about climate change won’t work.
Thus Science here, isn’t being used to mean the information about the universe that we call science. Instead, it is being used for a group of people or even the organisation. And as Schmidt admits, there are two other programs doing the same as NASA – so we still get the real “science”, instead what we don’t have is the people who manufacture the data who the oMSM use to science-wash political views and broadcast them as “science”.
But wait … further down we get to the insults:
Here’s Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), an devoted climate denier, speaking at a Senate hearing in March 2015: “Almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space. That’s what inspires little boys and little girls across this country … and you know that I am concerned that NASA in the current environment has lost its full focus on that core mission.”
And it gets to be a total joke when even in this piece presumably done at the request of Schmidt or someone like him, it says:
Other agencies may not be able to replace what NASA does
I’M LAUGHING OUT VERY LOUD!!!
“May not be able” – which really means, that they know full well that NASA is just doing the same work as other organisations, but they have to try to say they’re needed.
I’ve done looking.
Conclusion
I’m quite astonished. Firstly that the main stories on “Climate change” have nothing at all to do with science, and secondly that even when I eventually find an alarmist wittering on about NASA – it’s not the real science they are interested in, but instead “science” is being used to refer to a group of people. A group of people who by their own admission are doing work that can be easily replaced.
What did I expect?
I suppose in my naivety, I expected something akin to: “this high quality research will disappear leaving a massive hole”. At the very least I expected a “this means we won’t know … ” kind of argument.
I can only conclude that the oMSM have no real interest in the science at all. And NASA and all the idiot academics who play the oMSM game – are really just “science-wash” for their political attacks against engineering, industry and even (real) science itself.
SkepticalScience views global warming – one way only)I don’t usually deign to ever use the GISS “temperature” graph because it’s fraudulent. However, when I saw a graph of temperature trend on WUWT
Discussion
Now the question I’m asking myself is “why does the image move from a region of rapid climate change over periods of less than 5year, to one with very low rates of climate change over periods longer than 5years
Therefore if I had responded I would have taken a simple average gradient (LR) and picked those with the highest absolute gradient and depending if +ve or -ve have said they were +1 or -1C respectively. But unfortunately, I was missing one vital piece of information: how many had been adjusted.
Therefore, a bit of stats is required. We know the gradients fall into three buckets: those with no addition, those with +1/century and those with -1/century. Within each bucket the gradients should be a normal distribution (if the time series were random), and we know where each should be centred. So it should be possible to estimate the number that were in each bucket. That is just a question of putting each gradient into the most likely bucket. There’s probably some statistical trick for that, and I could have found it, but as Doug would have known this was the likely approach and have checked to ensure a 90% accuracy was impossible using this approach, so I knew it was pointless.
Instead, in order to win the $100,000 prize, it would have been necessary to “move away” from the optimum which would have been checked to ensure the prize could not be claimed, toward a sub-optimum solution which was sufficiently different that there was a small chance that it might have by accident picked the right ones (but most likely would be wrong).
But what if I did win?
It would then put me in a moral dilemma – since I could very well do with the money, I’m very happy Doug ran the competition – but he clearly never intended it to be won – and certainly not by a sceptic.
However, I would still be interesting to see a graph based on the scale of gradient chosen as the cut-off (above which it is assumed +1 or -1C/century added) and what percentage would be right using this very simple approach for each cut-off. I assume the graph would rise steadily as the threshold was increased because at first each increase would identify more right ones than wrong. But eventually the scale would be too large and it would start identifying more wrong than right.
The Top Graph
It’s just natural variation – it’s just as meaningless as the “global temperature” graph.