Monsieur le Président Trump: Adieu à Paris!

Stream: Monsieur le Président Trump: Adieu à Paris! So long, fair well, auf weidersehen, goodbye.

A typical reaction, this from guy named Matt Stoller, a Fellow at the Open Markets Program at New America: “I’ve honestly been so terrified by climate change for years that I sort of can’t believe climate isn’t in all caps all the time everywhere.”

The worst part is that this Twitter-verified Stoller seems to believe what he’s saying. Sad.

“It’s been clear that climate change will kill billions,” he tweeted, “it’s been clear for years, Paris wouldn’t have stopped it, but this is still bad.”

Sure, global warming hasn’t killed anybody yet, but it will kill billions. Sheesh. Now I ask you: how do we deal with folks who have slipped so far down the propaganda hole?

My question is in earnest. Unlike Stoller, I am an actual climate scientist, but I cannot envision any rational argument or set of facts which would calm this overly nervous man down. If I told him the truth about global warming, about how little scientists actually know about what drives climate change, Stoller might screech “Denier!” at me. Or he might accuse me of being part of a conspiracy.

Led by Oil companies, of course. Ever notice how the Stollers among us are like the guy in the bar who is convinced energy companies are keeping the secret of water-driven engines from us so that the oil companies can maintain their rich monopoly?

Let’s Panic!

Whatever mental malady grips Stoller, it is widespread among the perpetually “outraged”. As I write, the entire Huffington Post site is emblazoned with the words “Trump to Planet: Drop Dead.” Billionaire Tom Steyer, who’d love it if the government bought some of the green he was selling, said Trump’s Paris covfefe was a “traitorous act of war“.

Act of war?

How do you reason with that? Answer: you cannot.

As frenetic and uninformed-by-science as these (common) views are, they at least make sense. If you believe the world is “literally” doomed unless we confiscate people’s earnings and hand them over to an unaccountable global organization, then an unhinged spittle-flecked tirade is the way to go.

Trump Refuses Pied Piper Role

But then how do we explain the attitudes of people like failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney?

He tweeted, “Affirmation of the #ParisAgreement is not only about the climate: It is also about America remaining the global leader.”

This was echoed by “conservative” (her word) Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin, who wrote of the move, “BAD: US again ceding internatl leadership, kowtow to know-nothings”

So we needed to accept a horrible deal just to show everybody who’s boss?


Allez allez! Plunge into the Stream!


  1. “I am an actual climate scientist”

    I’m curious: who gets to say this? Is there an official license of some sort? Why do you feel entitled to make this claim? I’m not challenging you, just asking.

    Also: why do you keep repeating this? Do you think it adds credibility to your claims about climate science?

  2. Ken

    “It’s been clear that climate change will kill billions”
    – Matt Stoller

    “Unlike Stoller, I am an actual climate scientist”
    – Briggs

    Obviously Stoller is correct. As Mr. Sun burns up its hydrogen it will expand and broil, fry and eventually completely destroy Earth. C’iest La Vie.

  3. JH

    I am an actual climate scientist, but I cannot envision any rational argument or set of facts which would calm this overly nervous man down.

    You are an actual climate scientist!!!

  4. Briggs


    Bona fides: one-time Associate Editor Monthly Weather Review (I think it was a four-year span), one-time member of the American Meteorological Society’s Probability & Statistics committee (another four years), actual peer-reviewed papers in the Journal of Climate and other big name organs on the subject, maker of speeches at many AMS etc. meetings, and so on and so forth. Plus, of course, formal training in the subject. Masters at Cornell in Atmospheric physics, and a PhD from same in mathematical statistics with a dissertation on forecast verification. Plus a peer-reviewed book on the subject of Uncertainty (actually, over-certainty) on these subjects. My CV is available for download on my Who Is WMB? page.

    I’m guessing this trumps you, no?

  5. Michael Dowd

    Thanks Briggs. Any day our pagan tree and climate worshipers get pushed back is a good day. Perhaps they should appease their god by sacrificing one of their own. I suggest George Soros.

    The fact that so many “prominent” people are upset by Trump’s action just shows how far down the well of insanity we have fallen. This is a time for prayer, not hand wringing.

  6. Ken

    So we needed to accept a horrible deal just to show everybody who’s boss?

    “There are times when even the best manager is like the little boy with the big dog, waiting to see where the dog wants to go so he can take him there.”
    – Lee Iacocca, former President of Ford, and, CEO of Chrysler

    Something the liberals don’t seem to comprehend is that most of the U.S.’ population is tired of acting like a little boy relative to the rest of the world when it is Big Grownup that can lead that dog where it really needs to go. Or, leave the dog alone in its own yard.

    That kind of self-responsibility, taking control of one’s own destiny instead of being taken care of, is a terrifying concept to those on the Far Left.

    Dr. Rossiter describes this well:

    “Modern liberalism rejects, to one degree or another, the competence and sovereignty of the common man and subordinates him to the will of governments run by liberal elites. The western world’s twentieth century capitulation to this philosophy is obvious–and the implications for liberty are ominous. But the history of the world also documents the heroic struggles of human beings to escape from tyrannies of all types, whether imposed by the brute force and declared entitlement of a dictator, or falsely justified by economic, religious or political sophistries. The science fiction of Marxian economic evolution, the grandiose fantasy of a New World Order, the utopian dreams of The Great Society, the myth of the divine emperor, have all had their turns on center stage in irrational man’s attempts to legitimize government control and deny individual liberty.”

    [Observe that subservience to the tremendous economic disadvantages for the U.S. the Paris agreement would impose — disadvantages that disproportionately benefit the Rest of World — are wholly consistent with the above Far Left view of a World Order]


    “Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.”

    “What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, WRONGED, CHEATED, OPPRESSED, DISENFRANCHISED, exploited and VICTIMIZED. THEY BEAR NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR PROBLEMS. NONE OF THEIR AGONIES ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO FAULTS OR FAILINGS OF THEIR OWN: NOT TO POOR CHOICES, BAD HABITS, FAULTY JUDGEMENT, WISHFUL THINKING, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.””

    [Dr. Rossiter wrote the above years ago, EMPHASIS added, and note how perfectly that fits relative to H. Clinton’s current “It’s Their Fault” Excuse Tour].

    “The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency,…”

    [The Paris climate accord is not so much about curbing dangerous climate changes, though that’s what they’ll say & repeat — its more about getting the U.S. to cede its leadership & power position to subordinate it to the rest of the world, to a idealized but non-existent imagined New World Order.]

    The book, The Liberal Mind, is available via — It is a bit dry & academic, but does cover the subject in great detail.

    Here’s a short article, along the themes Briggs likes to harp on, but addressing the issues from a different angle — from basic psychology & economic pragmatism rather than morality — and in concise eloquence, reaching the same basic conclusion:

  7. Dr. Briggs:

    Thanks for responding. I was under the impression that climate science, as the term is understood nowadays, is distinct from meteorology and statistics, but if you want to claim the imprimatur of an “actual climate scientist” based on your masters degree and a paper in Climate Science from 10 years ago, more power to you.

    You didn’t answer my second question, so I’ll finish the thought: credentials and qualifications, whether exaggerated or real, may be nifty to have in a job interview, but they don’t take the place of being right. If you make a claim, you must support it with evidence and reason; braying about being an “actual” this or that only impresses the gullible. Which may be all you want.

    “I’m guessing this trumps you, no?”

    Not sure what this is supposed to mean. I never claimed to be a climate scientist. If I make a claim, I either show why it’s true or provide a reference for the reader to back it up. The day I defend a statement by saying “I’m an actual physicist and so-and-so is not” is the day I’ll start a blog and call myself the physicist to the stars.

  8. Joy

    It is the height of irony when someone who claims that appeals to authority and peer review are the final word then finds reasons why it doesn’t count when an authority disagrees with their prejudice.

    The eye watering arrogance! the cheek!
    To JH and Lee,
    What people are supposed to care about is what is the actual truth in these matters.

    It ought to be of grave concern or at the least curiosity to anybody spectating that individuals with expertise in the area of climate related sciences do not agree on conclusions. That ought to tell anybody with a pea sized brain that something stinks!
    So the truth of the matter must be considered carefully and soberly without fear being a reason for believing in doomsaying.

    The thing which is the most Spaulding about this whole lie (as I concluded) is that it is being dressed up as virtue. Fear and guilt which is a natural emotion is being manipulated wholesale to force action.

    JH, in particular, you surprise me.

    Back to being thrilled and over the moon again about Trump’s action.
    Yesterday was a big day, the axis has started to shift.

  9. Joy

    appalling, not Spaulding, a town in Lincolnshire.

  10. Briggs


    What you “understand” is, indeed, the point of the matter. It is good of you to admit having no expertise in the subject, too. (And you missed more current papers of mine; one in particular. An oversight?) I am happy to school you in these topics. It’s because I am so generous.

    And be careful with subject shift. Your original question was to whether I was an actual climate scientist. I am, as shown. You are not, as admitted.

  11. Gary

    “I am an actual climate scientist”

    I’m curious: who gets to say this? Is there an official license of some sort?

    Lee, good question. I’m co-author on a couple of paleo-climatology papers and an oft-cited publication on modern radiolarian distributions (microfossils in deepsea sediments used as proxies in paleoclimate studies). They’re from thirty years ago, but I’ve keep up with the subject even as my career moved elsewhere. Does that qualify me?

  12. Dr. Briggs:

    “you missed more current papers of mine; one in particular. An oversight?”

    No. I was trying to be kind to you by not bringing those up.

    “Your original question was to whether I was an actual climate scientist.”

    I see the point has eluded you. That was emphatically not my original question.

  13. Gary:

    “Does that qualify me?”

    Sure, why not? I’m thinking I could make a modest side income by printing up fancy “actual climate scientist” certificates and selling them over the web for $12 a pop.

  14. Briggs


    Don’t worry. Many people opine of the subject of climate with absolutely no training or real knowledge in the subject. You won’t be lonely.

  15. “Many people opine of the subject of climate with absolutely no training or real knowledge in the subject.”

    On that we can agree.

  16. Kyle

    I’m surprised to see you feed the trolls, Briggs.

  17. Jim Fedako

    Lee —

    Why no defense of this claim?

    “If I make a claim, I either show why it’s true or provide a reference for the reader to back it up.”

    Hmmm. Seems your system collapsed in hypocrisy.

  18. Jim Fedako

    Lee —

    Yet you have no qualms attacking Briggs for (supposedly) not backing up his claims. Seems you have a credibility issue … don’t you think?

  19. Jim Fedako

    Lee —

    Nice. Can I tell your recess monitor that you are being mean?

    Just like an SJW, you can attack, but then curl in a corner when on the defense.

  20. Joy

    One of if not the first climatology degrees, according to professor Tim Ball was awarded in London. He was one of the first. The first time all of the disciplines were associated under one umbrella. It’s an interesting question to think why that might have ever been necessary.
    Meteorology, Geology, physics and so on are useful.
    If experts, professors, scientists, special or not want to play at predicting the globe’s temperature they can do it with their own money. Otherwise they must explain why they have sucked in so much. Only a catastrophic reason could possibly be offered as an excuse for all the requests for funding for such a seemingly minor point of interest.

    It is for everybody’s good, ‘to save the planet’!
    Goodness! and expect the public to quake while their machiavellian associates tell people they should feel guilty if they don’t feel scared.

    Trump has spoken his opinion. It’s a good job that experts are again on tap and not on top, at least for a little while.

  21. acricketchirps

    …climate science, as the term is understood nowadays, is distinct from meteorology and statistics

    to wit, a climate scientist is a meteorologist/statistician who believes.

  22. Ye Olde Scribe

    “Trump to planet: drop dead!”?? Wrong! Correct assessment: “Trump to European socialists: drop dead!”

    I’m skeptical as to whether Pres. Trump can actually drain the swamp, but perhaps he can at least pave over parts of it….

  23. Anon

    Let me just add that Briggs is a way better climate scientist that either Bill Nye or Leonardo DeCaprio, or the flotilla of celebrities who are registering their dismay and distaste.

  24. Briggs

    Having no knowledge of climatology, Lee does not realize that the Journal of Climate is published by the American Meteorological Society, and that the AMS hosts climatology conferences (applied and theoretical), and that all named climatologists are members of the AMS, etc., etc. He, like many, goes by labels.

    And don’t forget, we have such meager intelligences as John Cook, a psychologist or something, who passes himself off as an expert on climatology. This Cook is merely an example of a wide class of bandwagon researchers who have no clue about fluid dynamics, but who accept the gloomiest models as premises, they not being equipped to bring any criticisms of these models to bear.

    It’s not strange you don’t usually (or even ever) hear from actual climate scientists speaking on matters like this. They know they would be treated like a professor who stood up on campus and said “Affirmative Action does more harm than good.”

    Update Readers will notice that nowhere does Lee provide justification for his opining on the subject. He’s covfefed himself.

  25. “Having no knowledge of climatology, Lee does not realize that the Journal of Climate is published by the American Meteorological Society, and that the AMS hosts climatology conferences (applied and theoretical), and that all named climatologists are members of the AMS”

    I did not happen to know the first thing, but was aware of the second. I’m having some trouble understanding what you think the point of this is, though. Clearly you’re frustrated that people don’t regard you as a climate scientist; you should talk to them, not me. I never weighed in on whether you were or not – I just asked you why you said you were. This certainly seems to have set you off. I don’t worry about these labels; you are the one who repeatedly resorts to them (I am an Actual Climate Scientist™ and so-and-so is not.)

    But back to your tortured logic: if the Journal of Climate were published by the American Chemical Institute, would that make Chemists Climatologists? Since I’m a member of the American Physical Society and the APS has organized various workshops, etc., on climate, does that mean I’m a climate scientist? Don’t you see how silly this is?

  26. Briggs


    Understanding the effort it takes to click through to my CV, here are a list of my published (not talks) climate work.

    • Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability \& Statistics (see esp. Chap. 10)
    • Jaap C. Hanekamp, William M. Briggs, and Marcel Crock, 2017. A volatile discourse – reviewing aspects of ammonia emissions, models, and atmospheric concentrations. Soil Use and Management. In press.
    • Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates, William Briggs, 2015. Keeping it simple: the value of an irreducibly simple climate model. Science Bulletin. August 2015, Volume 60, Issue 15, pp 1378–1390.
    • Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates, William Briggs, 2014. Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model. Science Bulletin. January 2015, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 122-135.
    • David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, 2013. Climate Consensus and `Misinformation’: A Rejoinderto Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teachingand Learning of Climate Change. Science and Education, DOI 10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9.
    • Legates, DR, Soon, W, and Briggs, 2013. Learning and Teaching Climate Science: The Perils of Consensus Knowledge Using Agnotology. Science and Education, DOI 10.1007/s11191-013-9588-3.
    • Briggs, WM, Soon, W, Legates, D, Carter, R, 2011. A Vaccine Against Arrogance. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: Volume 220, Issue 1 (2011), Page 5-6
    • Briggs, WM, 2007. Changes in number and intensity of world-wide tropical cyclones.
    • Briggs, WM, 2007. On the changes in number and intensity of North Atlantic tropical cyclones Journal of Climate. 21, 1387-1482.
    • Briggs, WM, and D Ruppert, 2006. Assessing the skill of yes/no forecasts for Markov observations. Monthly Weather Review. 134, 2601-2611.
    • Briggs, WM, 2007. Review of Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences (second edition, 2006) by Wilks, D.S. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102, 380.
    • Briggs, WM, M Pocernich, and D Ruppert, 2005. Incorporating misclassification error in skill assessment. Monthly Weather Review, 133(11), 3382-3392.
    • Briggs, WM, 2005. A general method of incorporating forecast cost and loss in value scores. Monthly Weather Review, 133(11), 3393-3397.
    • Briggs, WM, 2004. Discussion to T Gneiting, LI Stanberry, EP Grimit, L Held, NA Johnson, 2008. Assessing probabilistic forecasts of multivariate quantities, with an application to ensemble predictions of surface winds. Test. 17, 240-242.
    • Briggs, WM, 2004. Discussion to Gel, Y, AE Raftery, T Gneiting, and V.J. Berrocal, 2004. Calibrated Probabilistic Mesoscale Weather Field Forecasting: The Geostatistical Output Perturbation (GOP) Method. J. American Statistical Association. 99 (467): 586-587.
    • Mozer, JB, and Briggs, WM, 2003. Skill in real-time solar wind shock forecasts. J. Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 108 (A6), SSH 9 p. 1-9, (DOI 10.1029/2003JA009827).
    • Briggs, WM, 1999. Review of Forecasting: Methods and Applications (third edition, 1998) by Makridakis, Wheelwright, and Hyndman; and Elements of Forecasting (first edition, 1998) by Diebold. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94, 345-346.
    • Briggs, W.M., and R.A. Levine, 1997. Wavelets and Field Forecast Verification. Monthly Weather Review, 25 (6), 1329-1341.
    • Briggs, WM, and DS Wilks, 1996. Estimating monthly and seasonal distributions of temperature and precipitation using the new CPC long-range forecasts. Journal of Climate, 9, 818-826.
    • Briggs, WM, and DS Wilks, 1996. Extension of the CPC long-lead temperature and precipitation outlooks to general weather statistics. Journal of Climate, 9, 3496-3504.

    Psst, Lee. Your strategy now is (1) Remain mute on your own non-qualifications and (2) pick the weakest paper out of the list above, disparage it, and then claim the rest are of no worth and don’t count. Step 2 is a fallacy, of course, but it will make you and similarly non-qualified people feel better about themeselvs.

  27. Strategy for what? What are you going on about?

    If it were my aim to ridicule you and demonstrate your incompetence, I would merely have to sit back and let you continue to do it yourself. But if I wanted to help you along, I would merely remind people of your struggle to understand a simple graph, my eventual success at getting you to see your mistake, and your subsequent, botched effort to pretend it never happened by silently patching up your article here and in the Stream.

    And if I wanted to provide a general idea of what other people think of your attempt to play in the climate science sandbox, I would just lead them here or here or…..

  28. Briggs


    Well, you used (1) but left out (2). Don’t worry: nobody will notice that your barking about my not being a climate scientist (your original point) was a mistake.

    Though I see went with a modified (2) by bringing up Greg Laden and your continuing errors and nonsense claims on the “simple graph” (readers should click the link on the simple graph Lee provided).

    Here’s about Greg bin Laden, that appalling coward: (warning, that search might now include this post).

    Don’t worry. Nobody will notice you don’t have any relevant qualifications. Changing the subject is a well tested debate tactic. You were right to use it; it nearly always works.

    And since you have tacitly admitted you do not have any relevant qualifications to speak on this subject, and I have demonstrated that I do, I shall close this discussion. (But with a bet you blather on about supposed errors I might have made sometime ago.)

  29. JH

    This world would be fine without getting US involved in ALL things. (I do believe it might be better with US’s participation overall.) China, who is working diligently to be the leader of counties in Asia and Africa, can be the leader of this planet (minus US), especially in environmental technology and issues. Why not? The majority of them live with smog daily. If you ask Chinese citizens, they’d probably reply, be it in a positive or negative tone, “Our communist party, the only party, can do anything they want and succeed. See how far we have come?!“ Trump is handing China a great opportunity to be a global leader. Xi, a wise man, is taking it with plans, for example, “One Belt, One Road” forum in this May, which Putin and leaders of Asia countries attended.

  30. Lee Phillips

    I never said that you were not a climate scientist. I was even careful to say that I wasn’t challenging your qualifications. The rest is your fevered hallucination, born of some kind of deep-seated insecurities.

  31. JH


    I know what’s in your published books and papers. Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability \& Statistics (see esp. Chap. 10) is climate work?

    Is Monckton who coauthored several papers, good or bad, an actual climatologist? He publishes papers in climatology journals so he is a climatologist? He is a climatologist but a fake one? Can he explain all the paper listed him as a coauthor (Same question to you)?

    Q: What does Monckton or Braggs do?
    A: He is an actual climatologist.

    So silly. I love joining in being silly.

    Are you an climatologist?

    Well, I have friends and students with master’s degree in statistics who have published their thesis and many papers in medical journals. They undoubtedly are statisticians since they analyze the data with existing statistics tools at work. To their coauthors, mainly MDs, they are experts in statistics. However, they don’t claim to be an
    expert in medicine or epidemiology and won’t apply for a position requiring them to teach graduate-level statistics courses in a department of statistics.

    You are a climatologist in the same way. I have come to this conclusion based on my readings of your publications and credentials. Not sure why it is necessary to add the word “actual”.

    It’s not strange you don’t usually (or even ever) hear from actual climate scientists speaking on matters like this. They know they would be treated like a professor who stood up on campus and said “Affirmative Action does more harm than good.”

    Actual climate scientist know they would be treated so? Ah, so climatologists who have evidence indicating different conclusions than yours are not “actual” climatologist?

    Gosh, you are not doing too well mentally. Got it! Just like only people with the same opinions and religion belief as you know the actuality or truth or reality?

    How about those researchers who changed their positions from “no global warming” to “yes global warming but not anthropogenic global warming”, then from “not anthropogenic global warming” to “yes anthropogenic global warming but as serious as claimed by the other side’? ( Are they actual climatologist too?

    Gosh, you are not doing too well mentally. What has happened to you?

  32. JH


    Why ought it be a grave concern when Briggs or other individuals of so-called “actual” climatologist don’t agree with climatologists? You have a grave concern, I don’t. I don’t think that people with the grave concern have a sesame-sized brain. The degree of concern has nothing to do with the size of one’s brain.

  33. imnobody00

    It has been funny to see how this Lee Phillips guy makes a fool of himself.

    Lee, you should comment more here. Real science is a bit dry. We need some laughs and idiots are useful.

  34. Lee Phillips

    Pro tip: when listing your publications in a desperate bid for approval, do not try to pad by listing the same papers twice, once for the preprint and again for the published version. It doesn’t make you look more impressive, just desperate.

  35. Gary

    Lee, just send Briggs one of your fancy “actual climate scientist” certificates and end this silly spat. 😉

  36. Sylvain Allard

    Regardless of anyone’s beliefs in climate change or the effect of the Parris accord on the climate. Trumps crippled the long term US economy to favor a base of uneducated idiot who would prefer trying to save 50000 doomed jobs, just to make sure they aren’t in the race to be a leading force of renewable energy. Of course,coal jobs aren’t ruin by renewable energies but by cheaper shale oil product.

    The USA , lead by white supremacists, looks ever more like an old empire on its decline and becoming ever less relevant. Similar to what happened to Russia in the early 1990s.

    Diversity brings solution and innovation while homogeneity brings staleness. Germans refused to mingle with other races. Result they lost the war because they lack the numbers and always fought the same while the Russian (the real winner of WWII in Europe) had strength in numbers and diversity.

    Now the USA is isolating itself from the world. How long before the world réalise that it doesn’t need the USA?

  37. M E Emberson

    The trolls are worried! Daylight is coming and they will turn to stone.

  38. Sander van der Wal

    @Silvain Allard

    the new party line is that the Russions won because half their army was gay, transgender, intersex and whatnot?

    That is amazing, because:

    “In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy.”

  39. Sylvain

    Sander Van der Wal,

    Russia is comprise of over 100s ethnic group which all have different qualities, strengths and cultures. The all of this creates a less predictable enemy which can propose different solution/strategies.

    The German Tiger tank was the greatest tank around but it was impossible for any one tank to carry enough ammo and gas to destroy the Russian forces it was combating.

    The Russian had twice the amount of tank with a competitive fire power to the Tiger and yet a greater agility thanks to wider tracks best adapted for the Russian environment. By the numbers, it was impossible for the German to beat Russia.

    As for the LGB winning the war; Blah. Sexual orientation has no impact on how good a soldier is. An army of women could just as well defeat an army of men.

  40. Briggs

    Pro tip: when commenting on a list of publications in a desperate bid for attention, be sure not to read through hurriedly such that you make an ass out of yourself for not noticing the difference between “Changes in number and intensity of WORLD-WIDE tropical cyclones” AND “ON THE changes in number and intensity of NORTH ATLANTIC tropical cyclones”. It doesn’t make you look clever, just dumb.

  41. First you assume I’m talking about you, then you break your promise to stop participating in the discussion. Not a promising start to the morning. If I were talking about you, I would point out that including arxiv preprints in a list of ”publications” is slightly lame, although not quite ridiculously lame. In a list of references, OK. In a list designed to, for some unknown reason, badger people into bestowing upon you some kind of badge of expertise, it merely raises the question of why the paper was not accepted for publication.

  42. Briggs

    Lee, not admitting to error is a sure sign of a zealot or ideologue. Sayonara, protip.

  43. “not admitting to error is a sure sign of a zealot or ideologue.”

    That’s another thing we can agree on. And it’s the reason you were so easy to peg.

  44. Sander van der Wal


    Tanks are not people so their properties are irrelevant when comparing the peoples of the Sovjet Union and Nazi Germany in terms of diversity.

    Secondly, soldiers had no say in the Sovjet Army. They were cannon fodder. And the political officers made quite sure everybody was following the Party line. No matter what ethnical background they had, they were there to keep their mouth and die.

    Thirdly, if half, or even a substantial amountm of the Sovjet army were gay, one would expect the raping of German men next to the raping of German women. Only, that did not happen. The only people raped were the German women.

  45. Joy


    If you’re really busy, just check the last sentence of the quote.
    (It’s old which shows how the debate has moved on to world power concerns, Ahem, as opposed to any grave concerns that individuals may have.
    What do you make of it? Then we can talk about sesame seeds and peas.

    This man wasn’t even as skeptical as many and the evidence hasn’t got any better as provided by the claimants.

    “Climate change is a reality and science confirms that human activity is heavily implicated in this change. But over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country. The phenomenon of catastrophic climate change. It seems that mere climate change was not going to be bad enough and so it now must be catastrophic to be worthy of attention. The increasing use of this pejorative term and its bedfellow qualifiers, chaotic, irreversible, rapid has altered the public discourse around climate change. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seems that it is we the professional climate scientists who are now the catastrophe sceptics! How the wheel turns!

    “Why is it not just campaigners but politicians and scientists too who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging of science’s predictions?

    To state that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.”

    Mike Hulme. The director 2000-2007 of the tyndall centre for climate change research

    “Self evidently dangerous climate change will not come from a normal scientific process of truth seeking. Although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the social contingent dimensions of a post normal science, but to proffer such insights scientists and politicians must trade normal truth for influence.”Professor Mike hulme again.

    That’s what individuals, organisations, political parties, political leaders and finally, nations, including the Vatican State.

  46. Joy

    That’s what individuals, organisations, political parties, political leaders and finally, nations, including the Vatican State have done.
    It looks like they sucked you in as well.
    Don’t be anybody’s fool JH.

  47. JH


    They sucked me into what? Who or what are they? Well, the research papers did suck me into trying to understand climatology and to review physics and differential equations. Studying time is what I have plenty of.

    Don’t be anybody’s fool, Joy. Briggs has sucked you in many years ago. (I hope you see my point here.) Hasn’t Briggs given enough hints that people who cannot understand differential equations or physics or math or atatisitics should stay out of the debate?

  48. JH

    Well, Joy, this is my last comment or visit here, at least for this summer. I don’t need to read similar posts repeatedly or learn how to negatively criticizing people of different opinions by imaginations.To be honest, it occurred to me that I could stay awake and get over my jet lag and exhausted conditions by visiting this site and writing something here. And I don’t need to try to stay awake anymore. Jetlag problem gone. I shall go on living my insignificant days and do great things for myself and people around me.

  49. Sylvain Allard


    Tank are built and developed by people of respective nation. The Russian developed one adapted for the lack of road in Russia and its soft soil.

    They had larger track. They were lighter. And had a powerful canon. They were faster and greater autonomy. But yes their crew were less protected and more expandable The point is and remain that the Russian knew the terrain on which they were fighting and developed tank solution adapted to their reality. They also had 3 to 4 times the population of Germany.
    Any ethnicity could reach officer grade and each officer brought its cultural background and strategies.
    You are really wasting discussing LGB. There is no reason why there should have been a greater amount of Russian than any other nation.

  50. Sander van der Wal

    @Sylvain Allard

    Tanks are designed by a few people and assembled on an assembly line in such a way that it doesn’t matter who is assembling what part. Let alone their ethnicity.

    Given the diverse range of conditions a tank in Russia encounters (ice and snow in the north, semi-desert in the south) one cannot design it for a single kind of soil, hence that argument is moot.

    Having many kinds of people getting killed in inferior tanks is not diversity, as all humans can be killed in the same way, there’s no diversity in that. Having lots of people killed in the same way is not diversity either.

    Having different peoples towing the same Party Line is not Diversity, but Stalinism. Diversity regarding politics means having different political views. Which did not happen.

    Sure, Stalin was not Russian, but Georgian. That is diversity, but only in who’s the most ruthless murdere of them all.

    Biggest part of an army are not the fighting men, it is the people doing the logistics. Whether getting them new ammo, more gasoline, a clean bandage, food, drinking water. Given that the death toll was horrible, there is no suprise in the Sovjets needing lot of nurses, for instance.

    The Sovjet Union won because of geography, logistics and some Hitlerian stupidity. Not because of diversity.

  51. Joy

    “cloud parameterisation don’t you know?” It’s like something Gavin Schmidt would say.
    “differential equations, darling.”

    See? you can’t give a straight answer. That was a load of waffle, Jetlag? You ran away and didn’t remark upon your point about climatologists and what they concluded, a long time ago! What about those? You’re the academic!

    No point waiting for permission from anyone who says ‘non scientists’ may not give an opinion’. Of course scientists should inform policy advisors. I’m not one of those but that’s quite another matter. Best to be clear and distinct on that fallacy. Would that tings were still a matter of trust in pure scientific discovery and interest. The public would be happier! Loss of tust has seen an end to that.

    This affects EVERYBODY and we are not in normal times, haven’t been for years now. This is politics, not science. That’s the entire point.
    “Where’s the evidence?”
    “In the models.” (go check, but they’re tricky to understand)
    “Lets see them then, doing their thing…”
    “oh they’re not ready yet, they’re just projecting not predicting.”

    How well do models predict temperatures? They fail. That evidence is online for anybody to find. Easy graphs, from proponents of the story of climate change. Not from deniers or skeptics, the evidence belongs to the claimant.
    This was known when I first came into the debate in 2007 when some were keeping quiet and still hedging, politely.

    Had we thought well funded scientists could be trusted to get things right we wouldn’t have taken to the internet years ago to find out for ourselves what was going on. If it upsets intellectual snobs that outsiders have opinions after thirty years? Well, sorry and all that.

    It might be upsetting but someone who does not work in the given field of ‘climatology’ is quite at liberty to read, listen watch the debate and the summaries given by scientist who don’t jealously guard their work. To understand the arguments and the criticisms and to conclude for themselves.
    They will be judged.
    I give my opinion to many who visit who have been brainwashed or bullied to think that they must not be allowed to think for themselves and find out the source of the claims of Catastrophic Climate Change for themselves. Stuff differential equations! If they can’t get those right they shouldn’t even be at university! Even Gavin Schmidt is trusted with those!

    It’s hard to hear it, but it’s true.
    No use picking on credentials. It’s the arguments that count JH! You won’t have one. Anyone claiming otherwise in these times has other motives.

    This shambles contradicts what we, all three of us, were taught, TOLD, asked to suck up and regurgitate in sixth form when Green House Affects, in the old days didn’t run away anywhere, they were too polite.

    They had limiting factors, negative feedbacks, So Common in nature AND Biology as to be the norm. Positive feedbacks aren’t hard to find, when they occur, they make themselves known. Earth is billions of years old and yet now, wouldn’t you know it, those pesky gasses and volcanic outpourings have started to misbehave. A Tsunami, just when we started looking at them with a need to discover if we’d done something wrong to the planet. Phew! that was lucky.! We dodged a bullet there. How sexy, how exciting, let’s study it some more.

    One Gavin Schmidt was the best witness against the polemic and the hysteria. He’s given to running away, too.

    He made a dreadful case and never answered a straight question that wasn’t from a flatterer. When his statements were so hedged and couched that they were not remotely convincing. Yet he predicts sea water covering Battery? Park, No ambiguity there, he knows.

    When the models are wrong they are excused.
    JH when you get the maths wrong what do you do?

    How many years should it take before trusting public should be allowed to point out that the Emperor has no clothes?

    When billions are sucked in to a bad set of very expensive computer programmes running dozens of renditions of the same error and that quantity is given as more evidence why shouldn’t people be able to point this out?

    More importantly JH why don’t you?

    It is you who have been sucked in.
    Having made a life out of not being and despite being prone to trust and gullibility, I made a promise never to let the iron enter my soul and intend to keep it.

  52. Michael Dowd

    Evidence of what?

    Here in Venice, Florida a new board walk was installed with stairways down to the beach about 3 years ago. Two of the stairways have already washed out and had to replaced. Some houses are now in danger of washing away nearby. Maybe all of this is normal but just part of a long cycle. But, of course, everything is part of long cycle including mass extinction events. So what is all the commotion about? I don’t get it. Sounds political to me.

  53. Joy

    Michael Dowd, It’s not clear if that was aimed at me:
    If the theory is wrong, the board walks and the washouts are due to something else.
    If the physical theory is shown to be wrong and can’t be supported by models being accurate at predictions, as Prof Singer said,
    “All the rest is commentary.”
    Or as Christopher Monckton says about four dead polar bears when used as evidence of doom in a very old assessment report from the IPCC,
    “SHXT happens!”
    The evidence hasn’t altered in favour of any kind of a problem which humans can control, let alone catastrophe.

  54. Michael Dowd

    Joy. Not aimed at you. Parish the thought. My point is that the question of what is normal needs to be considered. What is happening now may very be part of a normal cycle which include the possibility of total devastation. Normality would indicate we are overdue for a couple of mass extinction events, one in the Pacific Northwest where 6 of my kids happen to live and another in Yellowstone Park. There are probably many others. What I’m suggesting is that it is probably pointless to try and control Mother Nature. As you say SHXT happens. My suggestion is to make the most of every day, prepare your soul for the hereafter and let mother nature by Mother Nature.

  55. Not very classy for one to use one’s moderator powers to edit a comment after I’ve replied to it. But, to be expected, I suppose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *