sycasey;842851811 said:

---

I agree with that, but I still think it's useful to point out where he lied about specific things that can affect people's lives directly . . . like on health care.

---

Again I quibble but a lie involves intent. Trump was certainly indifferent to the truth about these policies but the lie wasn't about what substantively would happen. The lie was that he cared about the outcome or would fight for any policy.

He would be perfectly happy if those things he said came true but he won't be in the room when and where those decisions are made.

We bought two acres of land along Little Castle Creek (South of Dunsmuir) in 1972; 45 years later we still have it.
During that period we had a ten thousand year flood, then a thousand year flood, and then a ten thousand year flood again.
Instead of occurring over a 21,000 year period they occurred over a 35 year period; the likelihood is far less than 1%.
Instead a fairly typical rainfall pattern associated with those year's El Nio, a naturally occurring climate cycle,
had been supercharged by human-made climate change. In other words normal storms became monsters due to climate change.

And those are not the only 'noticeable' climate change events I have witnessed. In 2011 we bought a house in Denham Springs, LA
where my wife had lived before we married. We only looked at houses above the FEMA flood zone. My wife in 1983 had
lived with her parents in 1983 when they had a record flood, expected to occur once every 75 years. The memory of the
flood lapping at her parents house was traumatic and we looked only at homes 'outside the flood zone'. Two months after
title closed, FEMA revised their flood zone and our new house was in the flood zone, by an inch elevation. Last August the area had
a thousand year flood, nearly 90% of the parish houses were flooded some 110,000 homes in the surrounding area. Flood waters
came up to the top step of the entry into our home, but did not rise higher into the house. We were very fortunate however my
in-laws house and rental apartment were destroyed. Flood waters from the local river were 5 feet higher than in 1983 however they extended
over three times farther inland, several miles. This no-name storm dumped three times more water on Louisiana than Hurricane Katrina;
a naturally occurring climate cycle, had been supercharged by human-made climate change.

80Bear;842851757 said:

---

Why are there so many people that want to believe the exagerators? Have you seen any evidence in your lifetime that there is any noticeable Climate Change (topic of this thread, not environmental warming)? Even if there were, what makes you think it is human caused? The environment on the planet has never been stable and the earth if a big place. Changes are what drive natural selection. You adapt, migrate, or die. Why should we impose an undue negative impact on our economy in response to dubious "scientific evidence"?

---

sycasey;842851814 said:

---

Lots of assertions, no evidence. If you want to say you know more than NASA, you'd better bring more.

---

Fair enough.

Nasa scientists speak out
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

The truth about the IPCC
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/abouttheipcc/

NASA data tampering
https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/gavin-says-his-data-is-fake/

Is it really just about "science"?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-men-bahaving-badly-a-short-summary-for-laymen/

Roger Pielke is a true climate change believer and distinguished scientist at the top of his field in the area of extreme weather. But the thought police didn't like some of his research. Read what he wrote in the WSJ.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/04/roger-pielke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/

Greenpeace founder
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

I've clipped dozens of articles over the years and could provide much more. But I chose these because they indicate a pattern of behavior on the part of climate alarmists that is not consistent with science. If only it were just about the science, genuine dialogue might stand a chance of happening. But the issue has been so politicized that both sides merely shout past each other to their supporters. Such is the sad state of discourse today. Anything opposing our views is "fake."

I'll go through as much of this as I can and pinpoint the places where real science gets twisted and/or misunderstood.

Cal88;842851477 said:

---

This is the fundamental issue here, the belief that man-made CO2 is the global climate control knob. Both basic theory and the observed evidence show that this is not the case.

[U]-the theory:[/U] the CO2 energy absoption spectrum is relatively narrow (much narrower than that of water vapor, which dwarfs CO2 as the main atmospheric greenhouse gas -see first chart below-)



Not only does water vapor have a much wider absorption spectrum than CO2, but it also dwarfs CO2 in atmospheric concentration levels. Furthermore, CO2 heat absorption gets rapidly saturated at low concentrations (chart blow). The increase in CO2 concentration results in a geometrically diminishing increase in temperature from sunlight:

As you can see from this chart, the effect of a marginal increase in CO2 concentration at the current levels has a very small effect on temperature. Even if CO2 levels went through the roof over this century, the incremental cumulative increase in temperature, represented by the tiny rectangles on right of the graph, amounts to a fraction of a degree.

More details about the logarithmic (non-linear) nature of CO2-driven heating effect here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

---

First off, you're right about water vapor being the most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. WV accounts for up to 70% of the absorption of outgoing IR radiation in the atmosphere. CO2 has only two major absorption bands in the mid IR in comparison.

The fact is that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is constant if averaged globally and over the short to medium term. The concentrations of every other greenhouse gas, currently accounting for the remaining 30 to 40% of radiative forcing, are increasing and that is largely due to anthropogenic effects. Most of this remainder is due to CO2, which is present in the highest concentrations.

You're also correct that the radiative forcing due to CO2, the difference between absorbed solar radiation and radiation re-emitted back into space, comes with diminishing returns as CO2 concentration increases. This is why there's a natural log term in the radiative forcing equation for CO2, derived mathematically from the above spectra. Using this equation gives an additional 3.3 W/sq m of radiation reaching the surface of the Earth assuming a concentration of CO2 that is doubled compared to the value from 1950 (which we may reach by 2050). You speak without point of reference when you say that the impact of CO2 is "small". Compared to water, yes, but if it wasn't for water or CO2 this planet would be a giant snowball.

Again, 3.3 W/sq m is the key number. In contrast to many other parameters in climate science, it has a strong physical foundation to stand on and is based on few assumptions. Analysis of the potential impact of a doubling of CO2 concentration needs to take that into account. None of the data you provided attempts to address this.

The second figure in your post, meant to attach actual temperature values to an increase in CO2 concentration, is suspicious for a couple of related reasons.

1) [URL="https://tineye.com/search/4cc85869a256a6a11c67c598eb3d39c0bb98ee85/"][U]Reverse image searching with tineye[/U][/URL] gives the [URL="https://www.prisonplanet.com/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide.html"][U]this website[/U][/URL] as hosting the oldest iteration of the image, from 2010.

Yep, Alex Jones' Prison Planet, in an guest article by notable climate skeptic David Archibald. Archibald does not appear to have published anything in the scientific literature explaining the origin of the data contained in the figure. Aside from that, no citations or declaration of sources of the data were given either.

2) The same image search reveals that subsequent instances of the figure appear only on climate skeptic websites. I would appreciate it if you could lead me out of the echo chamber to somewhere credible.

Based on these observations, and the radiative forcing data I presented above, I call the accuracy of the figure into question. It's not hard to manipulate an image that appears similar to those found on Wikipedia, which frequently posts vector graphics images (such as your first figure, which can be found [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Increase_of_greenhouse_gases"][U]here[/U][/URL]) that are essentially free for other users to edit.

Cal88;842851477 said:

---

AGW is based on the theory that the planet has been heating up from excess CO2 in the atmosphere, yet the most objective and reliable measurements of atmospheric temperature (and least vulnerable to tampering by scientists with an agenda -LINK-), satellite measurements, show very little to no increase in global temperature in the last two decades. In this period, one third of all CO2 generated by humanity has been added to the atmosphere, yet there are no notable effect on atmospheric temperatures, this is what's known as the Climate Pause or Hiatus. Many (most?) establishment scientists no longer deny the existence of the Pause, but seek to explain it away:



Scientists like Curry who were formerly warmists have been swayed by the observations from the last two decades and are becoming skeptical about the notion that CO2 is the main climate control knob, given that we've added 50% more CO2 in the atmosphere since 1997 than what was produced in previous centuries combined, with very little temperature increase!

---

The terms in bold are either vague, mere opinions, or give no reference to scale. Little compared to what? As far as your data goes, I can take your figure and do this to it:



That's a best-fit line, and it's far more scientific than the positioning of those red dots, which might be random but are more likely cherry picked. Speaking of bad data, it's hard to say how much of an increase is represented by my green line since the graph has does not have a labeled y-axis!

I'll step aside without going after your economic and political positions, which aren't really relevant if the scientific basis they stand upon is flawed, if not bogus.

hbbear;842851832 said:

---

Fair enough.

Nasa scientists speak out
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

The truth about the IPCC
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/abouttheipcc/

NASA data tampering
https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/gavin-says-his-data-is-fake/

Is it really just about "science"?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-men-bahaving-badly-a-short-summary-for-laymen/

Roger Pielke is a true climate change believer and distinguished scientist at the top of his field in the area of extreme weather. But the thought police didn't like some of his research. Read what he wrote in the WSJ.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/04/roger-pielke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/

Greenpeace founder
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

I've clipped dozens of articles over the years and could provide much more. But I chose these because they indicate a pattern of behavior on the part of climate alarmists that is not consistent with science. If only it were just about the science, genuine dialogue might stand a chance of happening. But the issue has been so politicized that both sides merely shout past each other to their supporters. Such is the sad state of discourse today. Anything opposing our views is "fake."

---

Except the business insider link, those articles are all from climate skeptic websites.

"realclimatescience" really should raise red flags.

Unit2Sucks;842851805 said:

---

Guys - you are way too into the weeds on Trump's promises.

The primary scam in his campaign is that he said he wanted to be president to help this country. If anyone believed that at the time, they got scammed. If you still genuinely believe Trump is motivated first and foremost by the spirit of public service to this country, then I wish you the best of luck, you are going to need it in this world.

---

Wrong. The primary scam in this country is that given right up to November 6 people uncovered who Hillary really was. And it didn't taste good. Conservatives, moderates, and independents joined to reject her. Twas not as much about a Trump win as a Hillary loss. She was not a good candidate. Get over yourselves. Who is up next? Bernie, Kaine, Schumer?

sycasey;842851812 said:

---

None of that tells me how the US would be HARMED, economically or otherwise. So we reduce our coal output more than China and pay more into a global fund. How does that harm us?

The benefit seems obvious, if you believe climate change is real: every country agreed to reduce their carbon emissions. That should help with combating climate change.

---

Re read or I have no help for you. Bad deal. Your term is harm. I refuse to play your game. Show benefits of Paris Accord under said conditions.

About as beneficial as Kerry's Iran deal. US kisses worlds' rear end.

BTW, are you enjoying while the liberal media is chinking away at Trump's tweets, and whether FLof Poland refused to shake his hand, he is unwinding Obama's legacy thread by thread. No fan of Trump and his personal actions, but love the way he is playing his adversaries and still getting the day to day work done. Looking more like Obamacare goes down on its own frailties whether the Senate passes anything or not. And the work for able bodied welfare is going to rid of us people who were using help and had no intention of ever working. And the laws of supply and demand have shown that min wage in Seattle gives $125.00/month less in wages than before and that is at $13.00/hour. Wait till it goes to $15. Maine service workers are asking for a lowering of the min wage as they make less. Dem brilliance over and over. Forget Europenization of America. It won't work.

OneKeg;842851781 said:

---

Timeline:
- Cal88 posts repeatedly presents evidence (some of which is cherry-picked or fake) to try to discredit the position that the majority of climate scientists hold.
- He is asked if he is a climate scientist. I think it's legitimate to ask someone taking such a strong contrary position for his credentials. A legitimate answer might be no I'm not but here are my areas of expertise/knowledge.

- It is strongly implied by Cal88 or another poster that measures such as carbon tax would have harmful effects on the economy. (Not you Odonto, I know you take the unfair deal angle).
- Someone replies asking what's wrong with a carbon tax.
- Cal88 asks if they are a tax expert.

Do you see the difference? The poster asking what's wrong with a carbon tax made no sweeping claims contrary to what the majority scientific or economic point of view is across the world. So being a tax expert really is not relevant. More of a non sequitur.

---

It seems like I've gotten under your skin and that of many others, a lot of feathers ruffled for daring to put together a cogent skeptical case. If that case is pure cherry-picking and fakery, then it should be relatively easy to refute, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, basic blackballing and group bullying.

Quote:

---

- He is asked if he is a climate scientist. I think it's legitimate to ask someone taking such a strong contrary position for his credentials.

---

Very disingenuous, that was obviously a putdown in the form of a rhetorical question. There is also that implied reverence to scientism and the notion that the broad and fragmented field of climate science isn't accessible to the layman or even to those who have had decent STEM backgrounds.

Meanwhile Japan and the EU ink a trade deal which appears as though it may cost American businesses and they included a requirement that the participating countries adhere to their Paris commitments.

Are we winning yet?

BerlinerBaer;842851835 said:

---

I'll go through as much of this as I can and pinpoint the places where real science gets twisted and/or misunderstood.



First off, you're right about water vapor being the most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. WV accounts for up to 70% of the absorption of outgoing IR radiation in the atmosphere. CO2 has only two major absorption bands in the mid IR in comparison.

The fact is that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is constant if averaged globally and over the short to medium term. The concentrations of every other greenhouse gas, currently accounting for the remaining 30 to 40% of radiative forcing, are increasing and that is largely due to anthropogenic effects. Most of this remainder is due to CO2, which is present in the highest concentrations.

You're also correct that the radiative forcing due to CO2, the difference between absorbed solar radiation and radiation re-emitted back into space, comes with diminishing returns as CO2 concentration increases. This is why there's a natural log term in the radiative forcing equation for CO2, derived mathematically from the above spectra. Using this equation gives an additional 3.3 W/sq m of radiation reaching the surface of the Earth assuming a concentration of CO2 that is doubled compared to the value from 1950 (which we may reach by 2050). You speak without point of reference when you say that the impact of CO2 is "small". Compared to water, yes, but if it wasn't for water or CO2 this planet would be a giant snowball.

Again, 3.3 W/sq m is the key number. In contrast to many other parameters in climate science, it has a strong physical foundation to stand on and is based on few assumptions. Analysis of the potential impact of a doubling of CO2 concentration needs to take that into account. None of the data you provided attempts to address this.

The second figure in your post, meant to attach actual temperature values to an increase in CO2 concentration, is suspicious for a couple of related reasons.

1) [URL="https://tineye.com/search/4cc85869a256a6a11c67c598eb3d39c0bb98ee85/"][U]Reverse image searching with tineye[/U][/URL] gives the [URL="https://www.prisonplanet.com/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide.html"][U]this website[/U][/URL] as hosting the oldest iteration of the image, from 2010.

Yep, Alex Jones' Prison Planet, in an guest article by notable climate skeptic David Archibald. Archibald does not appear to have published anything in the scientific literature explaining the origin of the data contained in the figure. Aside from that, no citations or declaration of sources of the data were given either.

2) The same image search reveals that subsequent instances of the figure appear only on climate skeptic websites. I would appreciate it if you could lead me out of the echo chamber to somewhere credible.

Based on these observations, and the radiative forcing data I presented above, I call the accuracy of the figure into question. It's not hard to manipulate an image that appears similar to those found on Wikipedia, which frequently posts vector graphics images (such as your first figure, which can be found [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Increase_of_greenhouse_gases"][U]here[/U][/URL]) that are essentially free for other users to edit.



The terms in bold are either vague, mere opinions, or give no reference to scale. Little compared to what? As far as your data goes, I can take your figure and do this to it:



That's a best-fit line, and it's far more scientific than the positioning of those red dots, which might be random but are more likely cherry picked. Speaking of bad data, it's hard to say how much of an increase is represented by my green line since the graph has does not have a labeled y-axis!

I'll step aside without going after your economic and political positions, which aren't really relevant if the scientific basis they stand upon is flawed, if not bogus.

---

The graph above is mostly meant to show that the satellite curve has been relatively flat over the past two decades. There is no y-axis, but this data set is widely known. Each vertical gradation represents 0.2C, so your green best fit line (not sure if it's an actual statistical best fit or eyeballed, but let's assume it is) has an actual slope of around 0.1C/decade, which represents a definite decrease in the warming rate from the previous two decades, despite a corresponding acceleration in human CO2 output, and a warming rate significantly smaller than that observed in the previous warming period around the 1930s, when CO2 emissions were far, far smaller...

This green line also represents an increase of 1C/century (assuming the trend is to continue), which is several degrees of magnitude smaller than all the alarmist predictions from the IPCC and scientific establishment.


2- I got the image through a Google image search, not through Alex Jones' site. I've first came across that image on wattsupwiththat (link), site which has fairly high scientific standards and is a gathering point for many scientists, as reflected by the overall tenor of the comments there. I think it is one of the best sites for issues related to climate.

3-

Quote:

---

You speak without point of reference when you say that the impact of CO2 is "small".

---

The premise of that curve is fairly clear, as CO2 increases, temperature goes up by the magnitude represented on the right end of the curve, a succession of very small increments getting increasingly smaller.

Thanks for the civil tone and the well-taken scientific arguments Berliner.

sycasey;842851703 said:

---

A quick Google search easily refutes the idea that "The Coming Ice Age" was ever anywhere near the same "scientific consensus" that we currently have about global warming and/or climate change. It was a brief media-driven hysteria that was NOT based on any kind of scientific consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

http://www.snopes.com/the-coming-ice-age/

I just also want to note for some of our other conservative or moderate posters that most of what Cal88 says is also easily refuted in such a manner. All you have to do is a quick Google search and you can find evidence for why his posts are either wrong or misleading. If you point out one falsehood to him, there is no mea culpa, he just moves on to another one. Then ask yourselves why you should continue to take this person seriously.

---

Snopes and Wiki? a bit lazy there, Sy, then again, "quick Google search" might summarize the level of your knowledge on the subject.

Before I go about dismantling your main point doubting the existence of a 1970s global cooling media and scientific consensus (will do that this WE, already spending too much Friday night time on here), I'll just take this opportunity to show how Snopes manipulates: they try to debunk the notion that global cooling was part of the 1970s zeitgeist by building up and tearing down that one faked 1970s Time ice age penguin cover, without mentioning that Time has had at least three other bona fide global cooling 1970s cover stories. Strawman, and lying by omission. You can forgive a poster for not finding right away the real covers, but when an allegedly professional fact-checking site makes this kind of glaring omission, it boils down to deliberate disinformation.

Cal88;842851841 said:

---

It seems like I've gotten under your skin and that of many others, a lot of feathers ruffled for daring to put together a cogent skeptical case. If that case is pure cherry-picking and fakery, then it should be relatively easy to refute, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, basic blackballing and group bullying.

---

Ah the old "I've gotten under your skin" when someone disagrees with you line. Nice work. Just like if it said "I seem to have hit a nerve there Cal88." As Oski003 said, this does not advance the discussion

You have no more put together a cogent skeptical case than the data-fudgers who Muller was criticizing in his video put together a cogent case for warming. Neither of you have - for ironically similar reasons.

The refutations have been there, right on this thread - you just don't acknowledge them as important. In the Muller case, which I only know because I've followed Muller's career, were you expecting the refutation to be that the video is fake? It's not fake - but the big picture of Muller's arc on climate science paints a completely different picture than you portrayed by merely showing the video where he first uncovered the data-fudgers. And you called him a "warmist," which he was not then but only became (within reason) much later once he'd done his research on the area. So that (and other things) have led the entire body of evidence you've presented to be suspect of being slanted and cherry-picked, just as Muller said he would no longer trust papers by the data-fudgers.

An Ad hominem attack would be if I was saying Cal88 is a terrible or stupid person. I'm not. I think maybe someone called you a propagandist. I haven't.

It would probably be fun to have a beer with you before a Cal football game. I've only criticized specifically what you've said and what you've left out, nothing more. That's not ad hominem and you know it.

Cal88;842851841 said:

---

Very disingenuous, that was obviously a putdown in the form of a rhetorical question. There is also that implied reverence to scientism and the notion that the broad and fragmented field of climate science isn't accessible to the layman or even those who have had decent STEM backgrounds.

---

Obviously a putdown? Is the science on that settled? Count me as a putdown skeptic. Seemed like a legitimate comment to me, and one with plenty of possible legitimate responses by you.

You could have just responded with "No but the broad and fragmented field of climate science is one that is in fact accessible to the layman or those who have had decent STEM backgrounds." You could have left out the part where you say "...even ones who paint an incorrect picture of Muller by cherry-picking data, or include fake magazine covers without saying that they were fake initially until called on it later, or choosing specifically the US in the 1930s as a comparison point for today in reference to an overall global trend, with that entire pattern of posting calling into question their entire thesis as Muller's data-fudgers called theirs into question."

80Bear;842851757 said:

---

Why are there so many people that want to believe the exagerators? Have you seen any evidence in your lifetime that there is any noticeable environmental warming? Even if there were, what makes you think it is human caused? The environment on the planet has never been stable and the earth if a big place. Changes are what drive natural selection. You adapt, migrate, or die. Why should we impose an undue negative impact on our economy in response to dubious "scientific evidence"?

---

First of all I question you argument that if we have not personally experienced the effects of GW they do not exist.

Second there are small changes that many of us have experienced that you will probably deny have any connection to GW.
A friend of mine owns a vineyard in Sonoma. He said he is changing the type of grapes he is growing. He needs grapes that are more heat tolerant.
He is not alone among grape growers. In addition more and more grapes are being grown in areas that had been too cold for successful vineyards.
In addition insects that flourish in warm climates are spreading further and further north in the US. Friends of mine who are farmers gripe about this all the time.

And these are examples that I have come up with in just a few minutes from what I have personally noticed without extensive research.

BerlinerBaer;842851836 said:

---

Except the business insider link, those articles are all from climate skeptic websites.

"realclimatescience" really should raise red flags.

---

Either the temperature data has been manipulated or not, irrespective of whether it is reported on a climate skeptic blog or not. So you are saying that anything on realclimatescience is untrue by virtue of it being there, therefore the data has not been manipulated? Really?
So the founder of Greenpeace did not give a speech attacking the CAGW conspiracy because it was reported on a climate skeptic website?
So Roger Pielke, renowned scientist, did not write an article in the WSJ about his experience being black-balled by the thought police because this article later appeared on a climate skeptic blog?

:headbang

I suppose you don't bring your umbrella when Fox News forecasts rain.

OdontoBear66;842851840 said:

---

Re read or I have no help for you. Bad deal. Your term is harm. I refuse to play your game. Show benefits of Paris Accord under said conditions.

About as beneficial as Kerry's Iran deal. US kisses worlds' rear end.

BTW, are you enjoying while the liberal media is chinking away at Trump's tweets, and whether FLof Poland refused to shake his hand, he is unwinding Obama's legacy thread by thread. No fan of Trump and his personal actions, but love the way he is playing his adversaries and still getting the day to day work done. Looking more like Obamacare goes down on its own frailties whether the Senate passes anything or not. And the work for able bodied welfare is going to rid of us people who were using help and had no intention of ever working. And the laws of supply and demand have shown that min wage in Seattle gives $125.00/month less in wages than before and that is at $13.00/hour. Wait till it goes to $15. Maine service workers are asking for a lowering of the min wage as they make less. Dem brilliance over and over. Forget Europenization of America. It won't work.

---

+1 well stated and summarized.

Cal88;842851841 said:

---

...Very disingenuous, that was obviously a putdown in the form of a rhetorical question. There is also that implied reverence to scientism and the notion that the broad and fragmented field of climate science isn't accessible to the layman or even to those who have had decent STEM backgrounds.

---

I'm the one who asked if you're a climate scientist. I'm not. I ask you because if you're not, then you're either an extreme skeptic or you enter the fray with a strong bias you're eager to keep.

You have to admit that it takes a certain amount of confidence to oppose such a widely supported position. And you have to believe that either the bulk of climate scientists are incompetent, or that there is an intentional conspiracy. Each of which is a pretty big ask.

My guess is that this is primarily political for you. I'm curious as to how and where your skepticism originated. Is climate science a particular area of interest that you followed previously, or did someone lead you to this? If so, what were their motives? Do you feel most branches of science are misinformed, or is it just this one?

See where I'm going w this? You're crossing too many bridges for me to believe that your primary interest is in getting the science right.

OdontoBear66;842851840 said:

---

Re read or I have no help for you. Bad deal. Your term is harm. I refuse to play your game. Show benefits of Paris Accord under said conditions.

---

My position is that a "bad deal" for the United States means that something bad would happen to the country.

I noted what the benefits would be (assuming you agree with current climate science): a worldwide reduction of carbon emissions.

OdontoBear66;842851840 said:

---

About as beneficial as Kerry's Iran deal. US kisses worlds' rear end.

---

Yes, the Iran deal was good too. And?

OdontoBear66;842851840 said:

---

BTW, are you enjoying while the liberal media is chinking away at Trump's tweets, and whether FLof Poland refused to shake his hand, he is unwinding Obama's legacy thread by thread. No fan of Trump and his personal actions, but love the way he is playing his adversaries and still getting the day to day work done. Looking more like Obamacare goes down on its own frailties whether the Senate passes anything or not. And the work for able bodied welfare is going to rid of us people who were using help and had no intention of ever working. And the laws of supply and demand have shown that min wage in Seattle gives $125.00/month less in wages than before and that is at $13.00/hour. Wait till it goes to $15. Maine service workers are asking for a lowering of the min wage as they make less. Dem brilliance over and over. Forget Europenization of America. It won't work.

---

This just went off in so many different directions I'm not sure what you are even talking about anymore.

OdontoBear66;842851729 said:

---

So maybe we are now down to deniers and other people who need convincing?? Probably right. But what still has not been addressed, if one believes in GW totally, should he/she make any deal, even if it is a bad deal? My strong perception is that the dictates of the Paris Accord were badly versed with respect to America in relation to China/India for instance.

---

So if we could redo the agreement, what would be the primary components of a good deal?

OneKeg;842851852 said:

---

Ah the old "I've gotten under your skin" when someone disagrees with you line. Nice work. Just like if it said "I seem to have hit a nerve there Cal88." As Oski003 said, this does not advance the discussion

You have no more put together a cogent skeptical case than the data-fudgers who Muller was criticizing in his video put together a cogent case for warming. Neither of you have - for ironically similar reasons.

---

You could perhaps try to show how my case didn't appear to you as cogent, as Berliner did above, instead of throwing passive aggressive character assassinations.

Quote:

---

The refutations have been there, right on this thread - you just don't acknowledge them as important. In the Muller case, which I only know because I've followed Muller's career, were you expecting the refutation to be that the video is fake? It's not fake - but the big picture of Muller's arc on climate science paints a completely different picture than you portrayed by merely showing the video where he first uncovered the data-fudgers. And you called him a "warmist," which he was not then but only became (within reason) much later once he'd done his research on the area. So that (and other things) have led the entire body of evidence you've presented to be suspect of being slanted and cherry-picked, just as Muller said he would no longer trust papers by the data-fudgers.

---

IIRC your main criticism on my post about Muller is that I've called him a warmist. First of all, that aspect is somewhat peripheral to the video I've posted, whose main point was that people at the very top of the climate establishment, like Phil Jones and Michael Mann, heads of the Climatic Research Unit and the Earth System Science Center respectively, were caught red-handed conspiring to alter climate data in order to further their alarmist case.

Muller had concluded in his presentation that their approach was an infringement on scientific ethics, and that he no longer trusted them or their work. That's the relevant part here, not Muller's "career arc". So who's cherry-picking here?!?

FWIW, Muller declared all the way back in 2003 that he totally believed in human CO2 AGW, so his skepticism seems to have been limited to his opinion about the integrity of some of his warmist colleagues. I guess he's all made up now and joined the ranks, running a great family business with his daughter at BEST, with lots of foundation grant money pouring in.

Quote:

---

You could have just responded with "No but the broad and fragmented field of climate science is one that is in fact accessible to the layman or those who have had decent STEM backgrounds." You could have left out the part where you say "...even ones who paint an incorrect picture of Muller by cherry-picking data, or include fake magazine covers without saying that they were fake initially until called on it later, or choosing specifically the US in the 1930s as a comparison point for today in reference to an overall global trend, with that entire pattern of posting calling into question their entire thesis as Muller's data-fudgers called theirs into question."

---

I've posted at least two global/northern hemisphere temperature graphs showing steep temp declines in 1948-78. As a matter of fact, nearly every major global and US temp chart from that period showed fairly steep cooling, at least those that weren't subsequently modified downward after the 90s to "hide the decline".

I've already addressed your three other accusations.

hbbear;842851855 said:

---

Either the temperature data has been manipulated or not, irrespective of whether it is reported on a climate skeptic blog or not. So you are saying that anything on realclimatescience is untrue by virtue of it being there, therefore the data has not been manipulated? Really?
So the founder of Greenpeace did not give a speech attacking the CAGW conspiracy because it was reported on a climate skeptic website?
So Roger Pielke, renowned scientist, did not write an article in the WSJ about his experience being black-balled by the thought police because this article later appeared on a climate skeptic blog?

:headbang

I suppose you don't bring your umbrella when Fox News forecasts rain.

---

I do not dismiss all information found on those sites, however I would attempt to cross-check whatever I read there against something else, to make sure I'm not only reading things with a heavy slant.

Here's another view of that NASA letter cited by Business Insider:
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/04/25/errors-shortcomings-void-nasa-climate-letter/

Most of those cited in the letter were not actual scientists, rather people like engineers and astronauts -- who I'm sure were good at their jobs, but not necessarily experts with scientific credentials. I'm sure there were some actual scientists in there, but they would still be in the small minority of those who doubt global warming and climate change.

On "data tampering" by NASA": http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

On IPCC "climategate": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

The articles you cited on sites like "Wattsupwiththat" and "Realclimatescience" are by people who are also not climate experts. Here's a rundown of them:

Tony Heller/Steven Goddard, BS in Geology and Master's in electrical engineering (not a climate expert): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard

Anthony Watts (former TV meteorologist, no science degrees): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

I'm sorry, but I don't consider these people credible experts on the subject. I will attest that some of the skeptics do have legitimate credentials, like Patrick Moore:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

However, it would also be accurate to note that his claims have also drawn accusations of cherry-picking:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/17/patrick-moore/climate-change-skeptic-patrick-moore-says-earth-ha/

The same can be said of some of the founders of the "NIPCC," another group you cited.

S. Fred Singer - Has funding ties to the tobacco industry
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/S._Fred_Singer

Craig Idso - Funding ties to ExxonMobil.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Craig_Idso

Robert M. Carter - Finding ties to ExxonMobil.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bob_Carter

And in any event, all of these men are (once again) in the small minority among those who could be considered credentialed "climate experts."

EDIT: And I forgot to bring up Roger Pielke Jr. He does seem to have the best credentials among the group. However, even he states (in the article you cited) that he does not doubt that there is global warming, that it is caused by humans, or that taking action against climate change is warranted, but he disagrees on some of the particulars of how severe the consequences will be. However much he may feel badly about how he's been treated, that's not much of an argument against the current scientific consensus.

Cal88;842851849 said:

---

Snopes and Wiki? a bit lazy there, Sy, then again, "quick Google search" might summarize the level of your knowledge on the subject.

Before I go about dismantling your main point doubting the existence of a 1970s global cooling media and scientific consensus (will do that this WE, already spending too much Friday night time on here), I'll just take this opportunity to show how Snopes manipulates: they try to debunk the notion that global cooling was part of the 1970s zeitgeist by building up and tearing down that one faked 1970s Time ice age penguin cover, without mentioning that Time has had at least three other bona fide global cooling 1970s cover stories. Strawman, and lying by omission. You can forgive a poster for not finding right away the real covers, but when an allegedly professional fact-checking site makes this kind of glaring omission, it boils down to deliberate disinformation.

---

The Wikipedia and Snopes articles are well-sourced with citations. I don't think it's lazy to link to them.

Also, the other "real covers" you presented were already debunked by dajo (they were not actually about climate change). But of course you chose not to acknowledge that point.

dajo9;842851713 said:

---

The first two Time covers are about the energy crisis and the third one is about a weather-related cold snap.

What's the phrase of the day? fake news

---

Here's a citation: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

Relevant passage here:

Quote:

---

I searched around on Time’s website and looked through all of the covers from the 1970s. I was shocked (shocked!) to find not a single cover with the promise of an in-depth, special report on the Coming Ice Age. What about this cover from December 1973 with Archie Bunker shivering in his chair entitled “The Big Freeze”? Nope, that’s about the Energy Crisis. Maybe this cover from January 1977, again entitled “The Big Freeze”? Nope, that’s about the weather. How about this one from December 1979, “The Cooling of America”? Again with the Energy Crisis.

---

So, it appears we have more falsehoods from Cal88. Again, why should anyone here take these arguments seriously?

sycasey;842851868 said:

---

The Wikipedia and Snopes articles are well-sourced with citations. I don't think it's lazy to link to them.

Also, the other "real covers" you presented were already debunked by dajo (they were not actually about climate change). But of course you chose not to acknowledge that point.

---

The Snopes article went into tunnel-vision detail about the one fake Time cover without even mentioning the other real cover stories (which are readily available on the internet), glaring case of lying by omission.



One of the Time covers had the headline "Cooling of America", so clearly about climate changing, dajo is clearly wrong. I would be very surprised if the subtext in the other two cover stories was not about the weather getting colder, and the big storm as a symptom of global cooling. That's the exact narrative of the Nimoy-narrated video I've posted earlier, here it is again:

[video=youtube;1kGB5MMIAVA][/video]

Starts with the big storm of 1977, concludes with scientists believe new ice age within decades.

Time Mag has run other stories covering global cooling in the 70s, like this one (left side):



And here is the text of a similar article from Newsweek from the same era, this was the mainstream scientific consensus in that era:

Cal88;842851865 said:

---

You could perhaps try to show how my case didn't appear to you as cogent, as Berliner did above, instead of throwing passive aggressive character assassinations.

---

I think you are confused about what an ad hominem attack or a character assassination is. Or you're not confused but are accusing me of it anyway. I said that you have not made your case for very similar reasons that the climate scientists Muller criticized in their video had not made their case. Not because every fact they posted was false, though some were, but because of the false impression they attempted to create by fudging, or in your case, cherry-picking the data. I did not say you were stupid or evil.

Your case is not cogent because your original post on Muller completely left out the far more significant point - that Muller now, after the video, after having studied the matter at length, wrote "I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." As the main statement [U]this article[/U], which I already posted, but you chose to ignore in your original post. As Oski003 pointed out - thee are caveats. Muller is a good scientist, so of course, what he means by that is that this is the best fit he sees, not that he claims to have proven causality or that the most alarmist theories are correct.

But the main thesis is right there - and to have left that out and just posted the older video where he finds the data-fudging by a few key climate scientists that caused him to no longer believe them is completely ironic, because it makes it so we have no reason to believe you.

Cal88;842851865 said:

---

IIRC your main criticism on my post about Muller is that I've called him a warmist.

---

Wrong. See above.

The main criticism is you cherry picked from a fairly early part of Muller's research arc into this and left out his conclusion that, again "I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

Cal88;842851865 said:

---

First of all, that aspect is somewhat peripheral to the video I've posted

---

Which is why it was also my peripheral point, not my main one.

Cal88;842851865 said:

---

, whose main point was that people at the very top of the climate establishment, like Phil Jones and Michael Mann, heads of the Climatic Research Unit and the Earth System Science Center respectively, were caught red-handed conspiring to alter climate data in order to further their alarmist case.

Muller had concluded in his presentation that their approach was an infringement on scientific ethics, and that he no longer trusted them or their work.

---

Just as you have cherry-picked in your original post to leave out the key point about Muller's lengthy research and subsequent conclusion after the video that "I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

Cal88;842851865 said:

---

That's the relevant part here, not Muller's "career arc". So who's cherry-picking here?!?

---

Pretty much you. See above.

Cal88;842851865 said:

---

FWIW, Muller declared all the way back in 2003 that he totally believed in human CO2 AGW, so his skepticism seems to have been limited to his opinion about the integrity of some of his warmist colleagues. I guess he's all made up now and joined the ranks, running a great family business with his daughter at BEST, with lots of foundation grant money pouring in.

---

He became a skeptic, rightly, when he discovered the fudged data. He then did a ton of research and pattern matching. Then he concluded concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." He didn't just "join the ranks." He did what a good scientist does and un-biasedly looked at the data. I trust him a hell of a lot more than I trust... well just about anyone.

Your last sarcastic sentence is pretty awesome, after saying others are assassinating your character, you then mention that Muller's got grant money coming in now. What's wrong with that? Hell his study itself during which he became convinced of climate change after first becoming a skeptic was [U]funded by the Koch brothers[/U]. At the time, after the video you cited, it sure seemed like Muller and his research would validate the skeptic viewpoint. He didn't.

Cal88;842851865 said:

---

I've posted at least two global/northern hemisphere temperature graphs showing steep temp declines in 1948-78. As a matter of fact, nearly every major global and US temp chart from that period showed fairly steep cooling, at least those that weren't subsequently modified downward after the 90s to "hide the decline".

I've already addressed your three other accusations.

---

I, like you, am not a climate scientist. But after your above misrepresentation of Muller, I basically suspect you of cherry-picking or fudging data. I don't think you've addressed the issues with that, even though you say you have. See above. And others have also found issues with different data you have posted, causing you to just move on to other points. I was a Physics major, and having had Muller as a professor, I noticed your misrepresentation of his final conclusions by choosing that video only. And that's what I posted about.

I don't have the time an expertise to check every thing that you post. You take the high volume machine gun approach, which can be good, but loses its credibility once some of the flaws are exposed. Even what you just say in the quote above - why the hell are we talking 1948-1978? Why not the last 100 years? 150 years? Combined with your past cherry-picking of Muller's full timeline and other deceptive data you've posted, I see no reason to spend time thinking about further limited sets of data that you present, just like the climate scientists Muller criticized in his initial video you posted weren't worth his time.

And it makes your criticism of those climate scientists who have misrepresented data seem like projection on your part. An effort to create a false impression, just as some of them were in Muller's video. Perhaps I'm wrong about the content of your posts here. But it's hard to think so when you haven't even acknowledged the problems with how you've proceeded so far.

You're right about one thing, though - time is limited for us non-climate scientists to look at this who have day jobs and kids I've stayed up way too late posting this response. Have a good weekend.

Thank you BerlinerBaer and OneKeg for the systematic dismantling of Cal88's posts (I like how he posted "before I go about dismantling" before doing nothing of the sort). I'm thinking he will keep spraying cherry-picked information in relevant BI threads, but a decent picture of reality is available to anybody perusing this thread. Yes, it's just a sports message board, but it's good to have vigilant people like yourselves address his posts when it would be easier to just chuckle and move along, at this point.

drizzlybears brother;842851864 said:

---

So if we could redo the agreement, what would be the primary components of a good deal?

---

For one, either a carbon tax for one or a carbon tax for all. For two, if coal is allowed here, coal is allowed there. Same proportions and datelines of drawdown of same.

sycasey;842851868 said:

---

The Wikipedia and Snopes articles are well-sourced with citations. I don't think it's lazy to link to them.

Also, the other "real covers" you presented were already debunked by dajo (they were not actually about climate change). But of course you chose not to acknowledge that point.



Here's a citation: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

Relevant passage here:


So, it appears we have more falsehoods from Cal88. Again, why should anyone here take these arguments seriously?

---

So then why do you continue to play his game. Are you suggesting you are not taking him seriously? Whine on.

OdontoBear66;842851885 said:

---

For one, either a carbon tax for one or a carbon tax for all. For two, if coal is allowed here, coal is allowed there. Same proportions and datelines of drawdown of same.

---

Developing countries want some recognition that developed countries had the benefit of using fossil fuels to develop. Having done so and having put CO2 into the atmosphere in the process - now those developed countries are telling developing countries the rest of the world cannot do what developed countries have done. Holding all countries to the same standard seems like pulling up the ladder after you have climbed up. Maybe rich countries should take some of the wealth they have gained with the exploitation of cheap fossil fuels and assist developing countries in the transition to green energy? Yeah, that could happen..

OdontoBear66;842851886 said:

---

So then why do you continue to play his game. Are you suggesting you are not taking him seriously? Whine on.

---

This is funny. Earlier in this thread you and other conservatives were claiming that liberals (like me) weren't adequately addressing Cal88's claims:

OdontoBear66;842851612 said:

---

I find it very interesting that when dealt R. Muller's video you disparage him (who is not a denier) and fellow Cal grads rather than looking at the data as part of multiple data points on both sides of the issue to form an informed opinion. When Al Gore was spouting off in the early part of this century, libs were glad to listen and enjoin his erroneous pontifications. To me, I find R. Muller, as a believer, and his data interesting in helping me form my thoughts. Does not mean I believe everything said, nor that it does not need contradiction (if available), but when I hear something that seems logical from an opposition viewpoint (surprise) then it is important to listen. I guess R. Muller is some cherry picked contrarian, or is he?

---

Now that I have decided to engage and provide refutations of Cal88's arguments, you ask me why I bother. Perhaps I should now start asking why anyone here should take you seriously.

Cal88;842851875 said:

---

One of the Time covers had the headline "Cooling of America", so clearly about climate changing, dajo is clearly wrong.

---

Am I wrong? The newspaper on the table in the cover says, "Cold Wave Hits - Fuel Prices Up"

OdontoBear66;842851885 said:

---

For one, either a carbon tax for one or a carbon tax for all. For two, if coal is allowed here, coal is allowed there. Same proportions and datelines of drawdown of same.

---

The agreement doesn't tell anyone what energy mix to use- that's up to each country. As a corollary to this Obama's Clean Power Act is prescriptive has been stayed by the Supreme Court and likely overturned anyway by Executive Order. So we are free to build new power plants-coal or otherwise and operate current ones. Of course they won't be built because they are inefficient and can't compete with natural gas. So in essence Trump gains nothing by leaving the agreement.

With regard to China I mostly agree with you. China is not a developing country and should be held to a higher standard than peak emission and while they are slowing down their own coal( a much dirtier version because of lax regulations) they are exporting coal tech, building some 700 plants at home and largely abroad

In the end though Trump who flatters himself as a prime negotiator gains little by leaving- we will do what we want and China will do what they want. The coal industry won't be saved and we won't be saddled in or out of the agreement. Better to stay and re-negotiate rather than let the rest of the world now decide

OdontoBear66;842851840 said:

---

Re read or I have no help for you. Bad deal. Your term is harm. I refuse to play your game. Show benefits of Paris Accord under said conditions.

About as beneficial as Kerry's Iran deal. US kisses worlds' rear end.

BTW, are you enjoying while the liberal media is chinking away at Trump's tweets, and whether FLof Poland refused to shake his hand, he is unwinding Obama's legacy thread by thread. No fan of Trump and his personal actions, but love the way he is playing his adversaries and still getting the day to day work done. Looking more like Obamacare goes down on its own frailties whether the Senate passes anything or not. And the work for able bodied welfare is going to rid of us people who were using help and had no intention of ever working. And the laws of supply and demand have shown that min wage in Seattle gives $125.00/month less in wages than before and that is at $13.00/hour. Wait till it goes to $15. Maine service workers are asking for a lowering of the min wage as they make less. Dem brilliance over and over. Forget Europenization of America. It won't work.

---

The idea that Trump is getting the day to day work done is so mind-numbingly far from reality in my view, I don't know how anyone can argue it.

But the reason for my reply is the Seattle minimum wage issue and how it reflects the failure of the debate we are having here on climate change and really every debate going on with right and left. People like me support increases in the minimum wage because we believe, in the current income inequality environment, raising the minimum wage will be good for economic growth because it will put more money into the hands of consumers, strengthening demand, and boosting GDP across the board. What is happening in the area? The state of Washington had the highest GDP growth in the country in 2016, as the minimum wage rose from $11 to $13. The city of Seattle unemployment rate dropped to 2.9% and employers are having a hard time filling jobs. Wages are going up due to the booming economy. This scenario is actually best case scenario for people like me who are proponents of the minimum wage.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/heated-local-economy-has-employers-working-hard-to-fill-jobs/

So what is Odonto talking about? A study that excluded 40% of minimum wage workers in Seattle that says jobs under $19 / hour went down. What they don't highlight is that jobs above $19 / hour went up. In other words, the booming economy taking place during minimum wage increases is driving wages up for people boosting them from lower incomes into higher incomes. But the headline that low paying jobs dropped is all some people want to see, despite the piles of evidence elsewhere. Pick and choose, ignore the overwhelming evidence on one side. I've pointed this out to Odonto before, but does he care? Apparently he will stick with his belief and the one headline that supports it regardless of what is really going on in Seattle. How can you have a debate in that situation?

GB54;842851895 said:

---

The agreement doesn't tell anyone what energy mix to use- that's up to each country. As a corollary to this Obama's Clean Power Act is prescriptive has been stayed by the Supreme Court and likely overturned anyway by Executive Order. So we are free to build new power plants-coal or otherwise and operate current ones. Of course they won't be built because they are inefficient and can't compete with natural gas. So in essence Trump gains nothing by leaving the agreement.

With regard to China I mostly agree with you. China is not a developing country and should be held to a higher standard than peak emission and while they are slowing down their own coal( a much dirtier version because of lax regulations) they are exporting coal tech, building some 700 plants at home and largely abroad

In the end though Trump who flatters himself as a prime negotiator gains little by leaving- we will do what we want and China will do what they want. The coal industry won't be saved and we won't be saddled in or out of the agreement. Better to stay and re-negotiate rather than let the rest of the world now decide

---

Do not misunderstand. I am not for coal at all, either for the US or China/India. And I do not feel that coal will ever go anywhere in the US in the future. We can save it for generations that hopefully will never need it or use it. I am not for Trump at all either, other than the fact that in many policy changes he is making me smile. Personally, a disaster and embarrassment. For years I have been tired of bad deals that America has made to be a part of the world scene---bad in that we wind up paying a much larger price than anyone else for the most part. This gave all appearances to me to be more of the same. Think money support (huge in cash) to Iran, money support hugely disproportionate in NATO. Not that the policies of coming together and talking are not good or GW isn't real, but negotiate a deal that is fair to us. At least that thinking is being challenged, if not reversed right now. That I like.

GB54;842851895 said:

---

Better to stay and re-negotiate rather than let the rest of the world now decide

---

I would encourage Odonto to read this earlier thread, from back when Trump originally exited the Paris agreement (it's in the middle of a larger Trump thread, but I'll link to where the most relevant discussion starts):

http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?107194-OT-Trump-Russians-Robert-Mueller/page17

The liberal and conservative-leaning folks on this board went back and forth for a while before drawing pretty much this exact conclusion.

You'll also find more sophistry and misleading data from Cal88, but that shouldn't be a surprise anymore.

OdontoBear66;842851899 said:

---

Do not misunderstand. I am not for coal at all, either for the US or China/India. And I do not feel that coal will ever go anywhere in the US in the future. We can save it for generations that hopefully will never need it or use it. I am not for Trump at all either, other than the fact that in many policy changes he is making me smile. Personally, a disaster and embarrassment. For years I have been tired of bad deals that America has made to be a part of the world scene---bad in that we wind up paying a much larger price than anyone else for the most part. This gave all appearances to me to be more of the same. Think money support (huge in cash) to Iran, money support hugely disproportionate in NATO. Not that the policies of coming together and talking are not good or GW isn't real, but negotiate a deal that is fair to us. At least that thinking is being challenged, if not reversed right now. That I like.

---

You're not for Trump

You're not for coal

You're not for global warming

You're against "bad deals."

A lot of people have posted information that demonstrates Paris won't ruin our economy or autonomy. Has it occurred to you that Trump leaving was a 100% politically motivated decision