CNN Opinion Piece: “If Trump and GOP don’t understand climate change, they don’t deserve public office”… Wrong on every level.

CNN Opinion Piece: “If Trump and GOP don’t understand climate change, they don’t deserve public office”… Wrong on every level.

https://ift.tt/2PBXGOS

Guest rebuttal by David Middleton

From the Climatariat News Network’s Non Sequitur Department:

If Trump and GOP don’t understand climate change, they don’t deserve public office

By Jill Filipovic

Tue August 21, 2018

Jill Filipovic is a journalist based in New York and Nairobi, Kenya, and the author of the book “The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness.” Follow her on Twitter. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. View more opinion articles on CNN.

(CNN) The Trump administration’s latest efforts to undo more of Barack Obama’s efforts to slow climate change come as no surprise. Nothing gets this President more excited than trying to undo his predecessor’s legacy.

[…]

In any reasonable universe, those who deny basic scientific facts that connect this grim reality to humans’ role in global warming would be deemed unfit to hold office. Imagine a congressman who questioned whether gravity was real, or a senator who insisted the earth was flat. We would rightly say that they’re intellectually deficient, and that their bizarre theories mean they probably shouldn’t be making vital decisions that affect millions of Americans (not to mention billions more people around the world).

But somehow climate change falls in a different category…

[…]

CNN

Sorry… I just couldn’t resist…

If CNN’s opinion writers don’t understand either basic science or the Constitution, maybe they don’t deserve a public forum for their bloviation.  However the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the stupidity freedom of the press.

In any reasonable universe, those who deny basic scientific facts that connect this grim reality to humans’ role in global warming would be deemed unfit to hold office.

Ms. Filipovic, there’s a document that you may have heard of.  It’s called the United States Constitution.  It lists the qualifications to hold Federal public office.  There’s nothing in the Constitution requiring any level of scientific literacy.  If there was, Henry Waxman would have never been allowed to run for Congress.

“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”

WUWT, 2009

Back to Ms. Filipovic…

Imagine a congressman who questioned whether gravity was real, or a senator who insisted the earth was flat. We would rightly say that they’re intellectually deficient, and that their bizarre theories mean they probably shouldn’t be making vital decisions that affect millions of Americans (not to mention billions more people around the world).

You mean, like Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)?

Now, let’s have a look at scientific proofs of gravity and the roundness of the Earth.

Gravity: “Mr. Galileo was correct in his findings.”

Curvature of the Earth’s surface: “How Eratosthenes calculated the Earth’s circumference.”

Ms. Filipovic… Are you following along? Gravity and the curvature of the Earth’s surface are upheld by trivial scientific experiments (although a trivial experiment on the Lunar surface was anything but trivial).  Even though Democrat Representatives Waxman and Johnson probably wouldn’t have comprehended those experiments, they were still qualified for public office because they met the Constitutional requirements and a majority of the voters in their respective congressional districts were stupid enough to vote for them.

Also… you were correct not to mention billions more people around the world… They don’t count.  They aren’t counted in the census, nor can they vote in US elections, unless they are US citizens residing, visiting or stationed in other nations.

But somehow climate change falls in a different category…

Yes… Climate change does fall into a different category than gravity and the curvature of Earth’s surface… A very different category.

Thirty years ago, barely 17 years after Apollo 15 Commander David Scott upheld the theory of gravity in a trivial experiment, NASA climatariat “scientist” James Hansen disproved catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (AKA Gorebal Warming).

Scenario C features humans essentially undiscovering fire in 1999.  (Hansen et al., 1988).

Hansen’s spectacular disproving of Gorebal Warming is even more apparent in his 5-year average temperature plot:

Scenario C: CO2 stops rising after the year 2000.

Bear in mind.  I’m using Hansen’s own temperature data, despite his penchant for influencing “the nature of the measurements obtained, so that key information can be obtained”…

What’s that?  The models have improved since 1988?  “Improved” is a relative term.

Here  are the RSS satellite temperature data and a suite of climate models:

“Fig. 1.  Global (70S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The black line is the time series for the  RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen.  Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.(All time series have been smoothed to remove variabilty on time scales shorter than 6 months.)” Remote Sensing Systems

95% of the model runs predicted more warming than the RSS data since 1988… And this is the Mears-ized RSS data, the one in which the measurements were influenced to obtain key information (erase the pause and more closely match the surface data).

Describing this as “a small discrepancy” would be like Dave Scott calling it a small discrepancy if the The Apollo 15 Hammer-Feather Drop experiment failed 95% of the time.

The observed warming has been less than that expected in a strong mitigation scenario (RCP4.5).

Output of 38 RCP4.5 models vs observations.   The graph is originally from Carbon Brief.  I updated it with HadCRUT4 to demonstrate the post-El Niño divergence.

RCP4.5 is a strong mitigation scenario with the atmospheric CO2 concentration leveling off below 540 ppm in the second half of the 21st century.

RCP 4.5:
The RCP 4.5 is developed by the MiniCAM modeling team at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI). It is a stabilization scenario where total radiative forcing is stabilized before 2100 by employment of a range of technologies and strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The scenario drivers and technology options are detailed in Clarke et al. (2007). Additional detail on the simulation of land use and terrestrial carbon emissions is given by Wise et al (2009).

The MiniCAM-team responsible for developing the RCP 4.5 are:

Allison Thomson, Katherine Calvin, Steve Smith, Page Kyle, April Volke, Pralit Patel, Sabrina Delgado, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Marshall Wise, Leon Clarke and Jae Edmonds

RCP Database

Ms. Filipovic, if you are still following along… Hopefully, you can now understand that climate change falls into a different category than gravity and the curvature of the Earth’s surface.

The observed warming has consistently tracked strong mitigation scenarios, despite the fact that very little mitigation has occurred.  This is a pretty strong indication that the climate is relatively insensitive to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration… Whereas hammers and feathers are equally sensitive to the force of gravity.

 

Superforest,Climate Change

via Watts Up With That? https://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s