US Scientiest leak Blunt climate change report to NYT

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-china-hoax-average-temperature-a7882856.html

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ts-finish-climate-study-will-it-be-published/

The report is a reminder US climate politics are still insane and that Trump ignored facts and lies!

There’s been some buzz about a story in the New York Times on a climate report — a draft assessment of climate science, scheduled to be released by the US government this fall, that scientists shared with the newspaper Monday out of fears that Donald Trump’s administration would change or suppress it.
A few things to clarify: First, the report was actually first posted to the Internet Archive in January (though, as the Times says, it wasn’t “widely publicized”). So this wasn’t technically a leak. And so far, no Trump administration official has attempted to censor it ... what is not wondering when they were only since a short time in office and the cancellation of Paris agreement was at this time not more as an election announcement of Trump.

It’s certainly possible that Trump will mess with this report! He and several of his top environmental officials doubt its central conclusion: that human influence is driving recent warming and will drive much more by the end of the century, with extremely harmful effects. And it wouldn’t be a first time a Republican president manipulated and suppressed climate reports from government scientists.

There are many uncertainties in climate science, as such scholars as New York Times columnist Bret Stephens are eager to remind us. In particular, it is difficult to predict geographically and temporally local effects with much precision — frustrating, since it is the local effects we are most eager to understand.

But the central conclusion — that human influence is driving recent warming and will drive much more by the end of the century, with extremely deleterious effects — is not uncertain. It is about as certain as anything gets in the physical sciences.

And it is precisely this conclusion that the Republican Party — not just the president, not just the heads of EPA and the Department of Energy, but the majority of the party’s national elected officials — denies, or at least claims to doubt.

The far right, including Trump, thinks it’s all a hoax. More “moderate” Republicans take a fuzzier position, saying that the atmosphere may be warming, but we’re not sure how much humans contribute.

But we are sure, 95 to 100 percent sure. That is why it’s fair to call the GOP a denialist party. Unlike any other major political party in any other developed democracy, it denies (or “doubts”) the central conclusion of climate science.

 

It really is a sad day when government scientists in government agencies charged with environmental protection must bypass the government they work for in order to do the job that government hired them to do.

 

Nice post.
For me, I don't think it is just about as certain as physical sciences get.

I'm pretty certain if the thermometer on my kettle reads 100, that it is hot.
I'm certain because when I touch it, I feel a lot of pain.

I'm pretty certain that Gravity exists. I can throw an apple in the sky to test.
I'm even pretty certain that up until the speed of light, that E=Mc2

And I don't really know what that means. But I believe nuclear power exists.

So I do not in any way concur that man made and extremely deleterous affects are about as proven as physical science can actually get and I'm very glad you are not teaching science to my children.

And any scientist who speaks this way, is also barred from teaching my children. And if I catch you doing this in my school, I'm going to take you round the back of the bike sheds after and give you a lesson in physics and biology.

Sorry Mandelus. But this is not as certain as physical science gets. This is so uncertain as to be almost metaphysical.
As unprovable as God.

 

More leaks by Obama people I'm sure. Got to keep that climate change cash flowing their way. Everything I've heard about the software models being used is they have not been accurate and they can be manipulated to come to whatever conclusion you want. 30 years ago the alarmists said if we don't act in 5 years it will be too late, yet here we are. I can tell you one thing that is a fact, the one and only solution being hawked by the climate change lobbyists is a carbon tax, and if they get what they want it will only make about 1% difference in the temperature all at tremendous cost.

 

In principle, I respect your opinion, but I agree with you absolutely not! The climate change caused by humans is as much as 1 + 1 = 2 proved!

 

We can thank that they leak it!

Anyway ... why is the ice of North Pole melting as are glaciers everywhere melting? natural cause? Sun is suddenly nearer to pur planet or what reason is for this fact given?

 

Correct. Computer models are statistics, Not science, but maths.
Statistics can be modelled to give all sorts of answers. And any answer within their margin of error is equally as true as another.

So over time as our dataset improves, and more results are added, we hope to refine that margin of error.
With each embarrassing missed prediction, our understanding gets better. Our predictions get closer.

Being wrong once, never discludes the possibility of being right in the future.

That is not to say that our predictions currently are accurate to the degree of being useful information. They aren't.
The margin of error in the dataset is greater than then the scale we are interested in. They are useless to us right now. A work in progress if you like.

Over time we will get a better understanding. How much time? Who knows. Major break throughs usually occur during periods of technical advancement. The lens, Galileo built telescopes.
Mecury thermometers.
And recently satellites. We are learning more. But filtering out the politics spin from the actual science is hard work.
Too much hard work if I am quite honest with you. I CBA any more.
I've just set my default switch to "it's bollocks" and gone deaf.

 

For me that humans cause climate change is not a proven fact but it is a common sense.
Why wouldn't we?

The question is only how much and what kind?

Now you have taken it too far for me because you feel a future "extreme deleterous affect" is proven.
Is as proven as gravity, the human reproductive system or the quantifiable power of a spring. Well it bloody well isn't. And with basic school taught science, you should already know better than this.

That's not proven at all mate. That's just an apocalyptical vision you have had.
I find that to be as scientifically correct as God making the world in 7 days. Same level of science. Same standard of proof offered.

"Trust me, it's true. Science says so". But science isn't how I label what we are discussing here. It's politics.

 

The Earth seems to be in a warming period, how much is due to man is in debate. And my resistance is the solutions being made. I believe the predictions of catastrophe are exaggerated and any benefits are down played in order to push through regulations that will destroy what's left of the middle class in order to enrich international corporations and the political elite. Energy costs in Germany are what? 4x what they are in the US?

 

No, the climate has always changed naturally and always will

The hoax is liberals who demand that the public turn over their way of life to crazy tree huggers in order to save polar bears that are not endangered at all

 

Because it is mid summer.

Why is the North pole melting but the South pole icing up?
Your explanation doesn't neatly fit with the science.

Heatwave out your way, I hear.
Lucky!
Been raining for months here. Bah.

 

It is about 15 USD in Germany and about 9 USD in the USA...

So a cheap energy cost at cost of environment and destruction of nature is OK for you, because what do I care about future of the people and relatives following me? Nice behavior!

In Germany it is fact that we leave nuclear power totally and yes, this will for the first cost a higher electric power price, but this is given, because the new and better power lines from North to South need to be build. But right now we produce much more electric power as needed all the time, but the impudent thing is that this has no effect to the prices for the people due to the corporations!

 

I'm hungry right now.
I'm worried that if I don't eat, I will die.

And if I get enough for food and rent.. and then some... I'm going to turn my heating on.
And if I don't do that this winter I will die.

So raise your rich arse energy bills as much as your conscience demands.
But this great future you want to save the planet for.... you just spreadsheeted billions of us out of it.
I'm not in it. My children are not it in it.

Because we weren't rich enough.

I've got a better idea. If there is cheap energy I will use that to stay alive a little bit longer.
If you want to spunk your money on **** that's your affair.

 

This has nothing to do with rich or poor ... but with clever politics and measures which use the still existing possibilities for clean energy ... instead holding on the old dirty ones at all costs?
There is so much BS told about that clean green energy is so much more expensive, amazing! True is that there is simply no political will to implement it totally with force, because at least it is much cheaper as coal, oil, gas and nuclear stuff!

 

No one is against "clean" energy if it is of equal or lower cost

Right now it isn't

And if greenies are not pushing it down the public's throat based on their fears of global warming

 

For you this has nothing to do with being rich and poor because you feel that you can afford this.
Me, I feel I can't afford this. To me, this debate is governed by it's price.

There is every will to implement this with force. Laws have been passed already. More are being called for. Those of us who don't wish to do it are already being compelled to.

The Paris Accord if signed would presumably be accompanied by the passing of more laws in signatory countries. Would be accompanied by the use of more force.

Coal is the cheapest electricity source out there. After that I think probably gas.
It really depends on your geography I guess.
Con artists try and pretend coal is more expensive, which of course it is if you punatively tax/regulate the **** out of it until it becomes so.

In an effort to save on my energy bills I had cold showers every day for six months last year. Winter, I packed that lark in.
You want to double them? Give me a break.

 

I think appeal to emotion sounds about right for this fallacy, but there could be others.

 

At least there we can agree.

 

Hardly cheaper. The only way it is viable is with massive subsidies.

 

How much cost to build a new coal power plant?
How much cost to build depending number of wind turbines for same power production?
How much cost to maintain the plant with coal to produce electric power?
How much cost for wind to get wind turbines running?
How much cost for operational and maintenance for a power plant?
How much cost for operational and maintenance for depending number of wind turbines?

 

Short answer: coal is the cheapest.

£/watt coal is the cheapest.

Gas power plants are the cheapest to build. The lowest initial investment/watt but the cost of fuel/watt is higher.

Wind power may be free on the fuel costs, but it's generation is not on demand and it takes a lot of windmills to make a relatively small amount of watts.
Maintenance costs for wind power is the highest of the lot.

Think the number of moving parts per watt generated and also the location of those parts that need maintenance. Out to sea etc. Long cable runs to remote places for relatively small amounts of intermittent electricity.

The really expensive ones, are Nuclear and Hydro. They are the worst of the lot.

 

Man, you attack the energy corporations together with the politics for being a swamp which cost you a big energy bill. Sure and Iw ill not deny this... but:

I say that it has nothing to do with poor or rich at least, because if the politics would have the balls to implement green energy more by force if necessary and not being the puppet of the corporations with all these BS excuses and lies to hinder this all, your energy bill could be only the half of what it is now!
Also I can get a laugh attack about this job lie! Sure, coal miners are a victim, but that there could be minimum the same number of jobs created in other branches of green energy is ignored and hidden, sometimes denied with BS reasons!
Look, we had a large coal mining in the Ruhr Area together with a bunch of steal factories etc. (which were for example main target for Allied bombers in WW-2 with cities like Dortmund, Essen, Bochum, Duisburg etc.). In some month we will close in Germany the last black coal mine and of course this was a hard change in beginning, but in meantime were minimum same number of jobs created in region due to sometimes smart politics which made by laws this change and new settlement of other industries and companies possible! Why is this so impossible in the USA or told to be impossible and fought as bad?

 

Sorry, not true! It does not take a lot of wind turbines / mills to get same power in Watt as a block of a coal power plant ... here the technical advance is very high during last years!
And about the operational costs, they are unbeatable cheap

 

My energy bills are currently 10% higher due to green energy subsidies.

All energy companies here are taxed immensely.
It's a cash cow. They collect the money from the people and the taxman takes it from them instead of me because that is the easiest way to get it.

 

Let us take your two responses in order...

and

Essentially you've stated your opinion and said there's no evidence that can make you change it.

That's just ignorance.