More denial by the administration

Apologize for paywalled article. Hope to find a link where you can read it without going to the Times website. If found, will post. If anyone else finds it, please add it to the thread.

Debunked claims, science consensus denial and gifts to fossil fuel industries. The Department of the Interior is now being run by those who appear to be in bed with the deniers of science.

The opening paragraph: “An official at the Interior Department embarked on a campaign that has inserted misleading language about climate change — including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial — into the agency’s scientific reports, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times.”

Interviews were also conducted with several NAMED sources formerly or currently serving in Interior. This is madness – IMHO.

40 thoughts on “More denial by the administration

  1. Yeah read the article a few hours ago.

    The amount of outright corruption taking place in plain sight is staggering. The not-so-bright of the world have always been used and abused, but I’ve never seen them be such willing partners in the process.

    Cults are powerful and irrational. Blaming and chastising those in one is useless and counterproductive.

    This cult leader/emperor has been naked for some time, so I don’t know what can remove the veil at this point…

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Debunked?

    It is unarguable that higher CO2 has benefits. You can dispute whether the benefits outweigh harm, but the ‘greening effect’ is well established.

    Competing opinions do not establish facts.

    On what basis do you assert a world, on average, 1 degree Kelvin warmer than today, or 1 degree Kelvin cooler, is superior or inferior to today?


    1. …”unarguable that higher CO2 has benefits” There is proof in the article that some greening effect by higher CO2 levels does exist. But not at the levels we are pumping it out.

      Competing scientist establish facts. And when the higher number of scientists say one thing while the minority of them say another, I find it prudent that the majority opinion, BASED IN SCIENTIFIC FACT, is the one best followed. Not the one that feeds into a denial scenario that you appear to believe in.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The majority has been proven almost always to be wrong. Otherwise there would be no need for science.

        One investigator, if he is right, trumps thousands who are wrong.


        1. Well, it’s 2020. Your observations end, what, 2011/12?

          Here’s some more.

          I’d be tempted to say that the observations are rising, and at an increasing rate. So many of the models predict a faster rise, big deal; not all do. Some of those trajectories are pretty close. So what does this say? We don’t all die in 2055? It’s 2140 instead. Whew! That’s a relief.

          Feynman is, without doubt, one of the greatest. But what you have missed is the rest of the lecture, which as one of my very German physics instructors used to say, “Vell, back to zee olt board drawink.” (When he first said it, I think he was working in a place called Peenemünde)

          Even Feynman’s string theory hasn’t always coincided with projected observations, and when they didn’t, his theory, aka M-theory, wasn’t just discarded out of hand. No, they increased the dimensionality. You take your observations and see how (or if) the theory can be changed to more closely explain the observations, i.e., “closing the loop”.

          That snippet of film also misses the most important point. The process BEGINS with observations. Theories, even String Theory, aren’t cooked up in a vacuum and then tested. They begin with study, if not your own then the studies of others, and then we start looping. Feedback.

          Example: Darwin didn’t wake up and say, “Survival of the Fittest”, and then look for support Even with orbits of the planets, the ancients made observations first, poor ones, and believing the circle to be divine, assumed circular orbits. Better observations, better models. Kepler added in the eccentricity and we’re off to the races.

          There are dangers in observations too, the first is “aliasing”. It’s a direct result of the process of sampling in both time and space. Then add in sensor quality. I worked on the radiometers for the Earth Radiation Observation Experiment (ERBE) satellites. I can tell you of some serious problems with them, if you’d like to hear. I still have my papers. I did not make a lot of atmospheric scientists happy with the results. The CERES sensors were better, or maybe they are only better because my company didn’t get hired to validate them.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Feynman also played bongos in barrooms and reduced seduction to a science.

            You have to be careful about changing the theory to fit the data. That’s why the CMIP5 models are all wrong.

            The basic models (those based just on the physics) didn’t fit the last 40 years(at the time they were developed.) so some constants were ‘parameterized’ to fit. These fudge factors were based on the assumption that ALL of the warming after 1940 was due to CO2 and the values for transient climate response and equilibrium climate sensitivity were set accordingly.

            But if ANY fraction of the change was due to something else, there is an error going forward and it compounds like credit card interest.


        2. Before we leave this, are you sure that those observations are even relatable to the model results? For example, those models are mean global increase and those observations are mean increase over 20S to 20N.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. The Tropical Mid Troposphere “hot spot” was claimed to be the signature of global warming, and that was where it was supposed to show up first.

            But the point is that the models disagree with experience, thus as Feynman explained, they are wrong no matter who likes them


    2. Enjoy the fishing. I gave it up years ago when I seemed to prove the adage that a fishing pole is a stick with a jerk at one end hoping for a jerk at the other. I spent a lot of money in my youth trying to catch what the supermarket has on ice, or as my fishing buddy once said, “I made a lot of money, most of which I spent on booze, broads, and boats. The rest I just pissed away.”

      The problems with Christy’s results that would give me pause from citing them are covered in the paper linked above. They discuss things like uncertainty ignored in the observations, and Christy’s failure to correct for contributions to the used observed temperature at 25,000 from the gasses above 25,000 (which biases him to the cold side).

      However, there is one glaring problem that would prevent me from ever citing his claims. While unpublished in a refereed journal, there does seem to be ONLY ONE journal in which he could publish his results: The Journal of Irreproducible Results.

      Others, using the same data sets, have been unable to reproduce his charts, and he has yet to offer explanation. Just saying.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The critiques you provided are for a silified graph provided by John Christy, the graph I provided is from Roy Spencer. Spencer’s version does include the uncertainty margin.

        While it is true that we don’t live at Mt Everest’s altitude, that is irrelevant to the point Spencer was making.

        One thing of the models agree on is that that the Tropical Mid Troposphere would be the harbinger for global warming. It would warm first and remain the primary accumulator of excess heat, which would then be transported toward the poles by convection.

        So, when the hotspot did not show up there, the models were falsified.

        There is plenty of other contrary data, but I think the best place for you to get a picture of the limitations of the models is to read Judith Curry”s explanation for laymen.

        Click to access Curry-2017.pdf


        1. “silified”?? Apparently, they cannot replicate Specer’s results either.

          Wait, the models agree that the “Tropical Mid Troposphere would be the harbinger for global warming.” Do they? The models agree on that? Or, the modelers?

          The problem with the “observations” is that they are not. They (Christy and Spencer) have revised their algorithms for converting the actual measurements taken into degrees at least 6 times and mostly upward on the trends. Are they done? And those observations are without error? That’s the issue, what’s the +/- on the voltages in the sensor itself. How often is it calibrated?

          Moreover they are not the ONLY people analyzing the data sets. At least 4 other organizations are and UofA-Huntsville is the lowest decadal change. So, who to believe? Them? Why? Over NOAA?

          THE PROBLEM: The observations are also the result of models. It’s not a thermometer.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Oh, what’d ya catch? Anything worth commenting on? Salt or fresh?

          And, please, a picture. Don’t try saying,

          This is the length of the boat ______________________________
          and this was the fish _____________________________________________

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Yeah, that’s a problem. Either you spend all your time holding the boat against the wind, or you roast to death in a dead calm. No in between in this place. Still a dozen makes for a couple of good breakfasts.


  3. RE: “Apologize for paywalled article.”

    The article itself is pure propaganda, based on the lie that some sort of “consensus” exists among scientists concerning climate change.

    A commentary at American Thinker today provides a partial corrective to the type of groupthink the NYT is pushing:

    How to Measure the Temperature of the Earth


    1. So your source says differently form mine. Mine is, regardless of your opinion about it, one of the most respected news sources on the planet. Yours is a conservative think tank cite paid for by fossil fuel companies to back their theories and to protect their bottom lines.

      Facts, scientifically proven by a MAJORITY (95-5 is the usually referred to number) of scientists does not initiate “group think”. The story is reported, sourced, and factual.

      If 95-5 isn’t a consensus, please tell me what is?

      My source is a news story. Yours is an opinion piece.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “My source is a news story. Yours is an opinion piece.”

        So what? Your source was written by a journalist. Mine was written by an engineer.

        RE: “If 95-5 isn’t a consensus, please tell me what is?”

        That particular statistic was debunked a long time ago, but the details don’t matter. What matters is being able to think for yourself, beginning in this case with the fact that science doesn’t operate by consensus.


        1. “Your source was written by a journalist.” A FACT reporting journalist.

          ” Mine was written by an engineer.” And who pays HIS salary.

          OK smart guy, what is the ratio these days of scientists who show man made effects are accelerating climate change and those who claim they are not? Also, who backs the deniers? Who pays for their research and findings? You get what you pay for. And if you pay for proof that you are right, you’re going to get the answers you want.

          Four different sources to indicate that I am wrong. They mostly show 97% acceptance by SCIENTISTS. They also indicate that the majority of deniers are ENGINEERS. Kind of causes one to scratch one’s head over why engineers insist on ignoring science.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “OK smart guy, what is the ratio these days of scientists who show man made effects are accelerating climate change and those who claim they are not”

            Don’t know and don’t care. As I said, science doesn’t operate by consensus.


          2. Well, I provided 4 different sources to indicate how close I was to accuracy. All you do is deny because your narrative isn’t fed.

            And science IS operated on some level of consensus.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. The consensus of cardiologists and nutritionists for 40 years was that butter was bad fir you and poly unsaturated margarine was good. The red meat was bad and tofu was good for your cholesterol..

            They were wrong.


        1. He told me to smoke more pot, so he apparently thinks anyone that disagrees with him does illicit drugs…I’m thinking it’s pretty single-threaded between those ears.

          Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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