What Trump can—and can’t—do all by himself on climate by Paul Voosen at Science Mag:
There are multiple paths Trump can take to undermining the U.S. ratification of the deal, which saw the country pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. Under its requirements—already agreed to by the United States—Trump could not immediately withdraw from the deal, but he could do so by 2020.
We didn’t “ratify” anything. The “country” didn’t pledge anything. Obama as executive, took a unilateral action which is not the same as the US ratifying anything because under our constitution, the president does not have the power to formally bind us to this sort of stuff. All Trump needs to do is to say this. Then if anyone disagrees, they can try to lodge a suit in courts, slog through to SCOTUS and see if they can get SCOTUS to agree that a president (i.e. Obama) can formally bind the country to an “agreement” without ratification by the Senate using the ‘magic’ of not using the word “treaty” to describe “a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries”.
The fact is: The US has not ratified the “formal agreement between countries” called the Paris Climate Agreement. Sorry, but no.
More simply, “they could just fail to deliver on U.S. commitment and reverse strong leadership at the international level that the Obama administration provided,” says Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.
Yes. And this would be perfectly legitimate because the Obama administration may have wanted to provide “strong leadership at the international level” but he failed to get US agreement. And whether he wanted to use his pen to sign the document or not, the US did not ratify. No matter what someone prefers vis-a-vi climate change, ratification of treaties by the Senate is an important constitutional principle.
China has been vocal about the need for the United States to live up to its international obligations.
Sorry China: But we don’t have any. And I’m guessing you are not actually babes in the woods and knew perfectly well Obama’s signature did not mean anything.
As it happens, the constitutional issue is sufficiently important that Trump should simply announce that the “agreement” would represent a treaty. That treaty has not been ratified. And so we are not bound by it. Period. I would say this for any treaty a president tries to bind the US to in such an unconstitutional manner.
It will be interesting to see if the AGW scientists/IPCC will now attempt to prove what they claim, instead of just saying “it is based on science” or “the models show.”
I don’t think they will be able to.
Interestingly, before Trump was elected, Mother Jones warned of all the many ways in which he could prevent climate regulations from going into effect
See Mother Jones. But now it’s evidently “they may find it more difficult than it might seem to change the power plan and other climate regulations that have already gone through lengthy review and release processes. There’s much more to it than simply issuing an executive order, says Jody Freeman, director of the Environmental Law Program at Harvard Law School.”
Given that the time table is
I don’t think the fact that review process for new executive orders would take up 12-15 months is really a ‘yuge’ problem for those wanting to overturn implementation of the Clean Air Act.
Meanwhile: Both houses of Congress are in GOP hands. They could probably modify the EPA rules to not cover carbon.
I get that many people would be against this– and I get that those people may be entirely right.
But Voosen at Science now suggesting that this would somehow be extremely hard? Bunk. OK… so Voosen was just talking about what he could do unilatirally. It’s true Trump might not be able to do much unilaterally. But why would anyone bother to write a post answering that question, today? It’s a ridiculous question: Trump doesn’t need to act unilaterally to thwart Obama’s preferences on the Clean Air Act. He’s got the Congress, the Senate and an upcoming SCOTUS nomination.
I’d actually like some action on climate change. With some luck it will be nuclear energy. People who want action should recognize that’s the only viable open path to action.
Lucia,
.
I think you get to the heart of the matter here:
His whole post seems to come from some parallel universe where nothing quite lines up with our reality in this one. Beats me what he thinks he’s accomplishing.
Without the US signature, the total emissions of signatories would be just under 55% required for the treaty to go into effect. If the US pulls out, the agreement should be considered untriggered. And China and India would probably also withdraw, leaving you at just 30%.
MikeN,
If the other signatories want to stick with it, I’m not going to tell them the shouldn’t. I have no idea in what way China or India are bound nor how that relates to whether we are in or out.
All I know: We did not ratify. Voosen using the term “ratify” is either intentionally misleading or totally ignorant. The US is not bound to it. I actually think Trump should make that clear sooner rather than later. Little good can come from the fiction that our president can bind us to treaties without Senate ratification.
Lucia,
“Both houses of Congress are in GOP hands. They could probably modify the EPA rules to not cover carbon.”
.
Absolutely, and that is something Trump and Congress could do very quickly as part of a ‘budget reconciliation’ bill for the EPA (can’t be filibustered under Senate rules), just as Obama and the Senate did when they did not have the votes to overcome Republican filibusters of changes in Obamacare. It would save a ‘yuge’ amount of money at EPA, so it really is a budgetary issue.
.
Just as with many contentious public policy issues, fossil fuel policy has been implemented by the Obama administration in ways to avoid the need for actual support of Congress…. it always forced a policy on the public without political support. Once that kind of decision is back in the hands of the voters, then should most voters believed extreme curtailment of CO2 emissions is important, I don’t doubt Congress would tell the EPA to regulate it.
An even better way to kill off Obama’s climate folly that he signed in Paris:
Submit it to the Senate to ratify or reject.
It will be rejected.
Then formally withdraw from the now rejected bit of flotsam that Obama tried to foist upon the world and America.
Lucia,
You are absolutely correct with regard to the Paris agreement. I expect Trump to formally disavow it.
I think Trump can also kill the Clean Power Plan by simply deciding not to defend it in court. I hope he does that.
Some of the existing regulations are probably harder, but, as you say, not insurmountable.
Lucia,
I think the nutty talk about the USA ‘being bound’ by Obama’s signature reflects a mix of honest lack of knowledge of the US Constitution (and interpretation by the Supreme Court), and a willful contempt by many global warming advocates (who do actually understand the requirement for ratification by the Senate) for both the Constitution and the rule of law. These folks appear to think global warming is ‘too important’ to have the Constitution or the rule of law interfere with their desired environmental policies.
.
I do think it would be useful for the new administration to formally announce that since the Paris Accords have not been ratified by the Senate, they are not enforceable and will not be enforced unless so ratified. Trump should then send the Paris Accords to the Senate, where they would almost certainly be voted down by a ‘yuge’ majority, since there are at least 15 Senate Democrats from red states facing re-election in 2018. This would be useful to re-enforce the notion that the USA in fact operates under the rule of law, even after 8 years of Obama’s lawless executive orders.
SteveF,
Submitting the Paris mess for ratification in the Senate is even better than Mr. Trump simply shredding it. then the next President who wants to indulge in climate fanaticism would face the threshold of over coming a formally rejected treaty. And it would allow Mr. Trump to build working relationships with Senator’s on both sides of aisle. And it would absolutely drive the climate kooks even crazier as they watch their obsession be formally rejected in the US Senate, by constitutional means. It would also make things abundantly clear to the international community that the days of imposing climate imperialism by fiat is ending.
I would also suggest the Trump Administration fully disclose the terms of the Iranian agreement and submit it to the Senate as well.
As I reflect on it, using the immense power of the Constitution *constitutionally* to unwind the rule by serial abuse of the Executive Order under Obama is a heck of a way to begin draining the swamp.
Mr. Trump has a unique window of opportunity in his first 100 days or so to do just that.
100 judges in 100 days, the new USSC justice, have the Senate repudiate Obama’s unilateral ungratified faux treaties, rescission of EPA authority on CO2, disarming of most Federal agencies, special prosecutor to review high government officials and conflict of interest, and more.
A Congress cannot bind the next Congress. Any law passed can be repealed by a following congress. That applies to treaties too, regardless of any wording in the treaty that is meant to prevent that. IIRC, there’s a passage in the ACA that claims it can’t be repealed once it was passed. It won’t stand up.
The same goes for the President wrt executive decisions. A President can’t unsign laws, though. But the Paris Accords, not having been ratified by the Senate, does not have the status of a law.
Lucia,
“I’d actually like some action on climate change. With some luck it will be nuclear energy. People who want action should recognize that’s the only viable open path to action.”
.
Yes. Exactly correct. I’d go further. What makes nuclear economically unattractive are all the regulations which double or triple it’s cost. Cut those out (once again, these costs are based mostly on bureaucratic regulations), and the cost for nuclear, with current technology, becomes competitive with natural gas, and far cheaper than ‘alternative energy’. In addition, scrapping subsidies for ‘alternatives’ would eliminate both a huge public cost and focus minds in the enviro-community about the need for nuclear power. Two other important steps:
.
1) Immediately approve and activiate the Yucca Mountain waste storage facility that Harry Reid and Obama have blocked for 8 years, and
.
2) fund next generation, fail-safe, reactor development
hunter,
As I wrote above:
.
So we have no disagreement at all.
I also agree about submitting ALL of Obama’s international agreements to the Senate for approval, where they will almost certainly be voted down. End of discussion. Return of the rule of law.
DeWitt,
If the public is clamoring loudly enough in some future date to unscrap the Paris accord, so be it.
Obama would have never had the political capital or stamina to unilaterally impose it if he had done the right thing and submitted it and lost the ratification.
Kerry himself- he is going away soon, yay!- admitted that it was “too much trouble to submit treaties just to have them voted down.” (paraphrase)
The Constitution, if actually used, makes for very strong laws and policies.
It is the Obama/Clinton style of sneaking things through with lots of side deals and self dealing that makes for bad policy and law.
Hear, hear!
It might be harder to get rid of corn ethanol since Iowa went for Trump, but Yucca Mountain has no such limitation.
hunter,
I suspect the whole executive order thing was based on the delusion that a Republican President would never be elected soon enough to make a difference.
SteveF,
In no way am I disagreeing with you. I even posted just before your excellent post:
hunter (Comment #155507) “An even better way to kill off Obama’s climate folly that he signed in Paris:
Submit it to the Senate to ratify or reject.
It will be rejected.
Then formally withdraw from the now rejected bit of flotsam that Obama tried to foist upon the world and America.”
The idea that we may have a President who will choose to use the constitution to do things, rather than as an obstacle to sneak around is rather invigorating. I sincerely hope he chooses the Constitutional route.
DeWitt,
“It might be harder to get rid of corn ethanol since Iowa went for Trump”
.
I think it goes way beyond that. A lot of farmers, and not just in Iowa, as well as companies in the chain between the farm and the gas pump, have made a lot of money on this particular public teat. Getting rid of it will be very difficult politically for Trump or anyone else.
.
” I suspect the whole executive order thing was based on the delusion that a Republican President would never be elected soon enough to make a difference.”
.
Absolutely. Until very late in the campaign, Obama believed Hillary’s victory this year was inevitable. So Mr. Obama’s ‘legacy’ will be reduced to nothing but a clear demonstration of the foolishness of implementing extra-legal policy. Let’s hope Trump acts more prudently.
DeWitt
It’s true that this applies to treaties too. But Congress should be very reluctant to overturn treaties that were actually ratified. If Congress changes those, we are backing out of a formal legal agreement. But that is not the case if it is not ratified.
It is best for Trump — who follows Obama the President who tried to play word games on this issue– to make it abundantly clear that we are not bound to it because the president doesn’t have the legal authority to bind us to treaties.
hunter
The requirement that treaties be ratified much broader than “climate” and that needs to be clear. I don’t care what the issue is: treaties must be ratified by the Senate. Otherwise, there is no formal agreement. War, trade, climate, whatever. That’s the law.
There is really nothing for Congress or the US to be bound on in the agreement. The only thing Trump can do in violation is to refuse to send a progress report.
Lucia, the agreement went into effect when EU member countries ratified in the last two months putting total emissions over 55%. If the US membership is illegitimate, then the activation of the treaty should be cancelled.
MikeN,
“If the US membership is illegitimate, then the activation of the treaty should be cancelled.”
.
Huh? There is no treaty with the USA unless it is ratified by the Senate. The Europeans can do what they want… cancel or not. They very clearly understood that Mr Obama could never get agreement from the Senate, and so settled for the hope/expectation that Hillary would become president and continue Mr. Obama’s (legally dubious) policies. They were mistaken.
If I am parsing this out correctly, the international Paris Accord went into effect when it reached a certain threshold of acceptances by independent nations.
Thanks to Mr. Obama’s arrogant disregard of American law, he never actually made the US a full blown ratified member of the Paris Accord.
So now, when the US formally walks out of an Accord the US was never actually part of, will the Accord be taken out of effect internationally? One can only hope.
The climate extremists convinced themselves of the idea that their CO2 obsession trumps (lol) law and constitutional rules, amongst many other non-rational things they believe. Now the inevitable meeting with reality will hopefully occur sooner than later.
Again: Have the US Senate formally reject the Paris Accord and kill it as much as possible: Death by Constitutionally applied power.
lucia,
I completely agree: Everything Mr. Obama attempted in circumvention of the Constitution should be unwound asap.
Climate is just the main topic today.
But we need to reinvigorate the Constitution while we are at it. President Trump simply tearing up by Executive action what Mr. Obama did in attempt to get around the Constitution will be misinterpreted by too many as just another unilateral action. Where possible, I hope that the abuses of Mr. Obama will be dealt with by application of disclosure and Constitutional remedies like rejection of treaties.
MikeN
Sure. But he can still formally say we are not bound and state that we are not going to prepare one.
I don’t care. If nations who are not us enter an international accord with each other, that’s their business.
I don’t agree. Having other countries implementing an agreement could still hurt us at the state level or local level. There is a Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that is causing people to pay much more for energy. Perhaps your town in Illinois will play along. Would the cost of carbon that was implemented have happened if Kyoto Treaty were not in effect?
Hopefully the accord won’t last 5 minutes. As a european I don’t really want this continent to be nobly hamstrung while the US – and it looks like China – just walk by whistling. If the outcome follows logic, the accord should be finished. I hope we don’t double down. The UK was already in it too deep (the EU published a table of which country had to cut how much CO2, which is now quite hilarious bearing in mind we’re outta there).
At the last uk election all the major parties agreed a common position on climate. So I couldn’t vote for any of them. They’re doing the same thing in Germany it seems. And they wonder why things like Brexit/Trump happen.
The treaty or whatever is voluntary, so could’n he just forget all about it and do what he believe is best.
Sorry we need to raise the CO2 emmission, so the new target is so and so, and we work hard to limit further increases.
But in 50 years it will be much lower.
MikeN,
“Would the cost of carbon that was implemented have happened if Kyoto Treaty were not in effect?”
.
Who knows? Who cares? Certainly not me. The Kyoto treaty was formally rejected by the US Senate (I think 98-0, IIRC). If the elected governments of states in the NE want to raise the price of electricity for their residents… more power to ’em (pun intended). The voters in those states may react rather badly if the price gets too high…. say like Germany… $0.35 or $0.40 per KWH (versus $0.12 average in the States).
Some reactions Richard Dawkins and Other Prominent Scientists React to Trump’s Win
Here’s Richard’s
Dear New Zealand,
The two largest nations in the English-speaking world have just suffered catastrophes at the hands of voters—in both cases the uneducated, anti-intellectual portion of voters. Science in both countries will be hit extremely hard: In the one case, by the xenophobically inspired severing of painstakingly built-up relationships with European partners; in the other case by the election of an unqualified, narcissistic, misogynistic sick joke as president. In neither case is the disaster going to be short-lived: in America because of the nonretirement rule of the Supreme Court; in Britain because Brexit is irreversible.
There are top scientists in America and Britain—talented, creative people, desperate to escape the redneck bigotry of their home countries. Dear New Zealand, you are a deeply civilized small nation, with a low population in a pair of beautiful, spacious islands. You care about climate change, the future of the planet and other scientifically important issues. Why not write to all the Nobel Prize winners in Britain and America, write to the Fields medalists, Kyoto and Crafoord Prize and International Cosmos Prize winners, the Fellows of the Royal Society, the elite scientists in the National Academy of Sciences, the Fellows of the British Academy and similar bodies in America. Offer them citizenship. The contribution that creative intellectuals can make to the prosperity and cultural life of a nation is out of all proportion to their numbers. You could make New Zealand the Athens of the modern world.
Yes, dear New Zealand, I know it’s an unrealistic, surreal pipe dream. But on the day after U.S. election day, in the year of Brexit, the distinction between the surreal and the awfulness of the real seems to merge in a bad trip from which a pipe dream is the only refuge.
Yours,
Richard Dawkins, founder and board chairman, Richard Dawkins Foundation
IIRT Kyoto:
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/europes-kyoto-scam
Bill Clinton supported but knew it would never be ratified. He was advised it would be rejected by something like 90-1. He delayed even signing the treaty.
During the period between the election of 2000 and his leaving office in January 2001, Mr. Clinton signed the treaty, leaving it as an issue for in coming President GW Bush to deal with.
Bush announced there was no reason to submit it to the Senate since it was a pointless ineffectual treaty that was unsupported by the Senate. This unleashed a firestorm, led in no small part by Gore, of climate obsessed demands and attacks on those who pointed out that Kyoto, even if implemented and even if the underlying claims about CO2 sensitivity were correct, would make no difference at all. The climate kook community has been riding the wave of hype ever since until hopefully the election of Mr. Trump who will point out the bogus nature of the climate obsessed community.
Lucia, I think this might be an appropriate thread to remind all who reside in our area what a grand October and November this has been. My shade loving annuals and perrenials are still in great shape. I have been gardening for many years in this area and have never had a first frost (maybe Friday) this late in the year. Reaping the benefits of global warming and loving it.
hunter,
Thanks for those details.
SteveF,
The Senate vote was on the Byrd-Hagel non-binding resolution that no treaty that did not include China and India and a few others would be acceptable. That passed 95-0 on July 25, 1997. Needless to say, our chief negotiator, Al Gore, ignored this warning.
While PT could reject the agreement it would be better for him to have the congress and senate do it for him.
Share the backlash.
and as others said cement the principles in law.
My main concern with him is more on the supreme court appointments rolling back other feminine agendae which I would not like to see happen.
Steve the cost of carbon is now part of the regulatory apparatus. So regardless of what state you are in, it could affect you.
I think I like Hunter’s idea. Give it to the Senate for a formal vote, because believe me, that vote can be used against them in Senate races later. In fact make sure and add a price tag to the implementation of the strategy, one that Bill McKibben would agree with (yuuugeeee), and let the voters back home know what their Senators want to spend their local taxpayer money. Oh, and definitely pony up the “required” $50B a year for the third world climate fund as part of the deal.
Brilliant, simply brilliant.
I have no problem with Trump eliminating every Obama executive action on day 1. Not that I disagree with them all, but it is a useful exercise to show how fragile legislating by executive action is for future reference. Faux leadership instead of doing the hard work to get things passed.
Curious that the left has all of a sudden discovered all the constitutional limits of executive authority in the past two days as it relates to the incoming president but seems confused about those limits as it relates to Obama, ha ha.
Make no mistake though, the greens have some very good lawyers, and they will try to tie it up in the courts and run out the clock. So do it sooner rather than later.
MikeN,
What are you talking about? Please tell me how carbon price (anywhere) impacts my electric bill in Florida. I really do not understand what you are saying.
I like SteveF’s ideas of submitting the Paris accord to the Senate for ratification. That would put the representatives of the people on record on the issue.
Tom Scharf,
I doubt that a president revoking an earlier in-force executive order could be subject to court review. This sort of thing can take place in a couple of minutes, and no court review is possible… fait accompli.
SteveF, I don’t know that it does affect your energy bill. They were moving slowly. The key was they first put the price of carbon into the regulatory state. Then future actions by the government would have to take into consideration this carbon price when calculating costs and benefits. If I remember correctly the original carbon price was put in while dealing with regulation of microwave ovens. How this affects people now I can’t say. In the future it would have done so, even without any act of Congress to tax carbon.
David Young,
I think lots of people have the same idea. There is no possibility that any of Obama’s ‘international agreements’ which have not been submitted to the Senate could ever get 2/3 of the Senate, and that is why they were never sent to the Senate.
.
Which I think points to Obama’s greatest failure as President: he could not ever compromise on the substance of any important policy, and simply rejected the notion that divided government required substantive compromise to do the people’s business. Obama seems to me the quintessential ‘progressive’ for whom any compromise on the substance is ethically unacceptable. He could have accepted a glass half full had he been willing to compromise, but instead insisted on a full glass, by any means. Donald Trump will soon shatter that glass on the floor. IMO, history will not treat Obama well.
MikeN,
Please point to specifically where and how the ‘price of carbon’ enters into the price of microwave ovens (or anything else). Aside from the NE state governments raising the price of electricity, I am unaware of other costs. Please be very specific, and give links were possible.
What would be the advantage of tearing up the Iran agreement today? They already got their planeload of money we aren’t going to get back.
Tom Scharf,
To whom was that question addressed?
Anyone may answer, ha ha.
The planeload of money was for hostages.
Ken–
October was pretty rainy. November is lovely so far. Definitely warm though. So, from a Climate view….warm.
As Lucia alluded to above, the “agreement” was only concluded after Obama/Kerry insisted the wording be changed from “shall” to “should”. Even they realized the limits of their powers.
So maybe all trump need do is say “Maybe Obama shoulda woulda coulda, but I won’t.”
Side note, when I googled the phrase, came upon this:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-04-27/news/1994117188_1_clintons-special-prosecutor-hillary
Apparently, she’s fond of the term, since she used it with regard to Benghazi and e-mails as well. 🙂
Tom,
I suggest Mr. Trump publish the entire Iranian agreement and submit it to the US Senate for advice and consent as a treaty.
Then I would like him to appoint a special prosecutor to see if Mr. Obama and pals engaged in illegal money laundering, amongst other things, in the way team Obama dealt with the Iranians.
SteveF points out something worth repeating:
“Which I think points to Obama’s greatest failure as President: he could not ever compromise on the substance of any important policy, and simply rejected the notion that divided government required substantive compromise to do the people’s business. Obama seems to me the quintessential ‘progressive’ for whom any compromise on the substance is ethically unacceptable. ”
And,
“IMO, history will not treat Obama well.”
+10
Obama will likely be seen as a “meh” President. Nobody is contemplating whether he is FDR, Lincoln or better than both on his way out. No peace prizes for work actually done. To some degree he won’t be great because he wasn’t given an opportunity to do something great by outside events. He was never handed a monumental challenge to deal with like 9/11 or WWII. He realistically played small ball the entire way. Instead of making things happen, he became petulant that others didn’t agree with him or the world didn’t simply comply with liberal orthodoxy. He was the first black president and he will be remembered for that (and I mean that in a positive way). I am praying that the phrase “right side of history” will never be uttered again after he leaves, that was tiresome.
Tom Scharf: “he won’t be great because he wasn’t given an opportunity to do something great”
Obama was handed a terrific opportunity to unite the country and get people to work together in a difficult time. He chose instead to be partisan.
Barely covered by any media, but Loretta Lynch pleaded the 5th when asked about Iran cash payments.
Ton Scharf,
“I am praying that the phrase “right side of history†will never be uttered again after he leaves, that was tiresome.”
.
Hear, hear! That arrogant little phrase accurately explains why Obama has been just an awful president; my bet is that he will be (as Krauthammer suggested) little more than a pair of parentheses in history, and IMO, he is perfectly deserving of that.
Tom Scharf,
He was handed the aftermath of the Great Recession. He made things worse with Dodd-Frank. He passed the rest off to the Fed.
Btw, Obama’s performance is yet more direct evidence that Democrats don’t do a better job than Republicans managing the economy.
Steve, Tom, Also, no more talk about the ‘folks’.
I should have added: ” He passed the rest off to the Fed which played a large role in creating the problem in the first place.
I was thinking Trump might not do what he said he would, that calling climate change a hoax was just hyperbole to get the votes he needed, but now I see Myron Ebell as part of the transition team.
MikeN,
The EPA deserves everything they get, good and hard, and I will not shed one tear along the way. I think the EPA serves a very valuable role but revenge is a dish…
The right will lose exactly zero votes even if they totally dismantled the entire EPA and shot all their employees in the streets. It’s not really their fault they became a political agency, but I would be checking my resume if I worked for them. The climate campaigners will be in the streets and apoplectic regardless of what Trump does, this isn’t a group he will ever make happy. A lot of the end is nigh reaction to the election is ridiculous, but justified for the US environmental movement. Many of them are quite somber and rational because they know what is coming and can’t do a thing about it, and they kind of know they deserve it on an emotional level.
MikeN,
I thought he’d do what he said on climate. Even without control of the House and the Senate, he had many perfectly legal options for not carrying out Obama’s promises in the Paris agreement.
I suspect he won’t build a wall because he’ll be unable to do so.
I don’t have any idea what he’s going to do on other things. I will admit to being rather worried– I don’t think the man is predictable. But he’s elected now, so I guess we’ll see.
“I suspect he won’t build a wall because he’ll be unable to do so.” Never could follow this stuff. What’s hard about building a wall?
MikeR,
Funding it in the first place.
Then, presumably if you are going to build it, you want it to be effective. So manning and monitoring it it to prevent it from being tunneled under or vaulted.
Congress has to pay for building a wall, they won’t. Quite frankly I see most of Trump’s rhetoric as an opening offer from a used car salesman. He will be willing to settle for less on many things I think, there really aren’t a lot of purity tests he is beholden to. In my view he is much more likely to strike deals that slay sacred cows, but then again I might be delusional. The standard deviation of policy predictions in the US is approximately infinity right now.
MikeR,
The harder you make it to get in, the more profitable it becomes for organized crime. There are so many ways to get into this country other than walking across the Mexican border that even a Berlin style wall with machine gun towers and dogs wouldn’t help much.
The alternatives are border control or Social Security. You pick.
To put it another way: We can’t stop things that matter like heroin and cocaine from crossing our borders. Why do you think we can stop illegal immigrants (not rhetorical)? Marijuana smuggling went pretty much away because we grow better quality here.
(Re Obama): “No peace prizes for work actually done…”
Speaking of which, I wonder what the odds are of Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Nominations must be in before February 1.
Tom Scharf,
“The right will lose exactly zero votes even if they totally dismantled the entire EPA and shot all their employees in the streets.”
.
They would lose my vote. Enough talk of shooting people already.
.
There are lots of things the EPA does which are proper and needed (like control of what was actually considered ‘pollution’ when the Clean Air Act was passed!). It is the over-reach of the wacko greens in the EPA that needs to be gotten rid of. Same thing with the Clean Water Act. “Navigable Waterways of The United States” has been contorted to mean any place with a ditch, pond or stream on any watershed anywhere… in other words, the EPA now claims the water act gives it absolute control over all land use (not water pollution!) everywhere in the United States. Fixing these things can be partially done with executive orders, but that will lead to endless court fights by the green wackjobs. The permanent solution is Congress changing EPA’s enabling statutes to drastically limit and explicitly specify what the EPA can, and more importantly, can’t do.
DeWitt,
Absolutely correct. What makes the USA a popular place for undocumented aliens is that they can get work without documentation. Apartment? No problem. Driver’s licence? No problem. Earn cash and avoid income taxes… yup.
.
If we just enforce strict laws for employers (you go to jail for minimum 2 years if you hire an undocumented worker), issue national photo- ID cards, and give a modest bounty when someone turns in an employer who uses undocumented workers, then the problem disappears. IMO, nobody is really serious about eliminating undocumented workers. An expanded documented guest worker program would be needed in parallel, but that is a separate issue.
The EPA needs and America deserves a strong and thorough reform of the EPA.
End completely the privileged status of the so-called green NGO’s. End the wink-and-nod faux lawsuits that allow the NGO’s and the EPA to make pre-arranged court deals that become defacto law by way of court rulings and enrich the NGO’s for “cost+” reimbursements. End the revolving door between the big-green and the EPA. Expose the faux institutes and contrived enviro-disasters. Investigate the EPA for what other payola they have been doing besides the Moroccan phosphate. For starters
My attempts at hilarity are not always so obvious I guess.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/266809-trump-i-could-shoot-people-in-streets-and-not-lose-support
The EPA looks to be on a feast/famine cycle for the indefinite future. It alone can try to get a grip on this. Pretty hard with political appointees.
Trump could offer amnesty to illegals, they leave for Mexico but are allowed back after they help build the wall.
MikeN, I think Trump would your idea but I hope he does not do it. Many would try to compare it to the Bridge over the River Kwai. Trump’s stance as of the election was to only deport criminals and then after a few years of border security decide what to do about the rest of the undocumented. He also is for SteveF’s type proposals of just enforcing employment laws.
I am going to defend Hillary being accused by Trump (and even Sanders supporters) of being a liar. In retrospect I think this label severely hampered her ability to make the typical outrageous promises that candidates frequently make. She promised nothing. She told us straight up she was going to raise taxes, although on the rich, the educated know that a slight adjustment brings that promise to still half true on Politifact when she raised them everyone’s taxes.
.
She did not promise to be transparent, to close Guantanamo, to uphold the rule of law, to avoid using executive orders to go around congress, to respect religious liberty, to not vilify opponents for political gain at the expense of the country’s unity.
.
On balance she was a saint compared to our current president. I found this 2011 video making that very clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDDbTaWpwoc
MikeR (Comment #155692)
November 11th, 2016 at 2:51 pm
What’s hard about building a wall?
_____
Nothing.
What’s so hard about digging under a wall? Nothing.
What’s so hard about making a hole through a wall? Nothing.
What’s so hard about fixing a wall? Nothing.
But these activities don’t just happen by themselves. Labor and capital are required.
I see an opportunity for a new industry: the wall building, maintenance, and destruction industry. Thousands of new jobs could be created for citizens of both the U.S. and Mexico.
Ron Graf (Comment #155712)
November 11th, 2016 at 7:25 pm
I am going to defend Hillary being accused by Trump (and even Sanders supporters) of being a liar. In retrospect I think this label severely hampered her ability to make the typical outrageous promises that candidates frequently make.
_______
It’s easy for candidates to call each other liars because t’s true. They all lie. I don’t know why this name calling makes any difference to voter. I’m tired of hearing liar, crook, fraud, felon, etc. It would be refreshing to hear a candidate call his opponent a low-down skunk, a braying jackass, or a snake in the grass.
SteveF (Comment #155701)
November 11th, 2016 at 3:54 pm
IMO, nobody is really serious about eliminating undocumented workers.
_______
Probably because few Americans want the menial low-paying jobs the undocumented fill. If all were sent home tomorrow, our economy could be in trouble.
The Huff Po
.
One would think the “but” would be that Hillary was a crook and many stopped believing the leftist media who were covering for her. Or, they could maybe see the economy for the last 8 years saw many leaving the workforce (or taking a pay cut) and taxing the rich did not seem like a long-term solution. But the Huff Po, using Occam’s Razor cuts to the most plausible explanation first; the uneducated masses do not have any ideas about what good government is but only feel pain and must lash out to blame women and brown people. Ohhhh…. OK
SteveF: “If we just enforce strict laws for employers (you go to jail for minimum 2 years if you hire an undocumented worker), issue national photo- ID cards, and give a modest bounty when someone turns in an employer who uses undocumented workers, then the problem disappears. IMO, nobody is really serious about eliminating undocumented workers.”
….
Small employers are in a bind with respect to illegal entrants. A citizen who speaks Spanish should not be discriminated against. There are instances where the status of someone may not be clear, and to put a small employer in jail would be very unfair. I don’t like the idea of national identity cards, but I am getting less and less opposed to the idea.
What I would do is impose financial penalties on illegal entrants that would make it difficult for them to stay here. The benefit of this is that they would have a good deal of say as to when they would leave as opposed to police swooping down on them, and in some circumstances, causing heart rending situations. We have super stringent requirements on foreign banks who handle the accounts of Americans abroad, if we can do this, we can find ways to strongly encourage illegal entrants to leave. (And those who are very successful financially, would under my thoughts be welcome to stay)
….
Also, I would personally stop using the term undocumented workers because it implies that illegal entrants merely have a problem with missing documents instead of making clear that they have violated American law by coming here.
JD
Latino Trump Supporters, very interesting video:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/11/cnn_investigates_why_latinos_in_florida_voted_for_trump_silent_majority_has_won.html
JD
Max, JD,
I did note that legal control of undocumented workers would probably require an expanded (and documented) guest worker program where there are no Americans available for certain jobs.
.
WRT workers versus illegal aliens: JD, I must respectfully disagree. The simplest and most efficient approach is to make breaking the law much more costly for employers who are willfully hiring undocumented workers. Has nothing to do with if they speak english or not (or polish, or portuguese, or arabic); it has to do with enforcing the law, and protecting the integrity of the country, in the simplest and most efficient way. Issue national identity documents, and make their possession a requirement for permanent employment (as opposed to guest workers). Employers are the easy target nobody is willing to pursue. An illegal immigrant in most developed countries can’t work, so most developed countries do not have so a big problem with illegal immigration.
SteveF: ” IMO, nobody is really serious about eliminating undocumented workers.”
.
The people who take Trump seriously but not literally understand that he is serious about stopping illegal immigration, but perhaps the people who take him literally but not seriously don’t realize that.
.
You are correct that neither side has been serious about illegal immigration. The gang of eight was concerned mainly with meeting the demands of interest groups: business interests who want cheap labor, Latino nationalist groups who want a path to citizenship, wealthy ideologues who dream of open borders, party interests who don’t want to lose a convenient wedge issue. Border security and law enforcement were only included as sops. Trump will start with border security and law enforcement. It really isn’t that hard, if the government chooses to be serious about it.
JD: “Small employers are in a bind with respect to illegal entrants. A citizen who speaks Spanish should not be discriminated against. There are instances where the status of someone may not be clear, and to put a small employer in jail would be very unfair.”
.
There is a way to deal with that; it is called E-verify and it already exists. The gang of eight wanted to make it mandatory and Trump will do something like that.
.
I dislike excessively statist solutions like national identity cards or having to get a government permission slip before I can hire my brother. I would make the law require that employers must reasonably believe that new hires are here legally. E-verify would be one way, but not the only way, to meet that requirement. The first offense would be a warning, the second a fine, then escalating up to prison time for repeat offenders. If ten illegals are found to be in your employ, that would be ten offenses and you would be treated as a ten-time offender even with no previous offenses (my terminology here might not meet legal standards).
.
The above would mean that small employers could act without fear, provided that they behave reasonably. Large employers would use E-verify systematically. Employers could decide which route they want to follow. And systematic exploiters of illegals would be taking a serious risk.
SteveF: “I did note that legal control of undocumented workers would probably require an expanded (and documented) guest worker program where there are no Americans available for certain jobs.”
.
Trump wants to completely reform the legal immigration system, at least in part for this reason.
.
SteveF: “The simplest and most efficient approach is to make breaking the law much more costly for employers who are willfully hiring undocumented workers.”
.
I agree, but the trick is to distinguish willful law breakers from unintentional law breakers.
SteveF: Jailing Employers
….
To do so, you would have to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt. In California and New York, most juries would refuse to convict the employers. In fact, in Los Angeles, the Catholic Archbishop is supporting illegal entrants. See http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-garcetti-immigrants-20161111-story.html
….
In my view, the bottom line is that the wrongful aspect of hiring illegal entrants does not support jailing them for 2 years in the minds of most people. Also, most people would realize that by going after employers you are really going after illegal entrants and those supporting the entrants would also support the employers who had hired the entrants.
JD
I do business with contractors who employ Hispanic workers, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some are undocumented. I suppose by not insisting the contractors employ only citizens I am contributing to the illegal immigration problem.
Mike M:
Very well said.
.
Any time we contemplate criminal crack-down we must look carefully for the unforeseen affects of changing the game.
.
1) Are we driving people further toward criminal behavior?
2) Are we disrupting the economy?
3) Is enforcement practical?
.
I favor looking for ways to change the game by modest market incentives. Perhaps undocumented workers would be subject to a gradually increasing undocumented worker fee split between the employee and employer. Perhaps it could be collected through FICA. This would get people on the path to legal status. In 5-10 years the fee would be high enough to discourage new undocumented workers.
I agree SteveF that history should judge Obama harshly. Obamacare will be repealed and that’s his biggest accomplishment. However, its replacement may keep some of the more popular parts of the ACA. Most of the other “accomplishments” will be reversed quickly and thus Obama’s legacy will be close to zero.
However, professional historians are mostly academics and the symbolism of the “first” black President may still shine in their imaginations.
SteveF, I was surprised to learn that the carbon price already existed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/05/what-an-obscure-microwave-rule-says-about-obamas-climate-plans/
>It would be refreshing to hear a candidate call his opponent a low-down skunk, a braying jackass, or a snake in the grass.
You should have loved Trump then.
> I would personally stop using the term undocumented workers
Citizens are undocumented, unlike those with green cards or naturalization cards.
I don’t understand how we can keep the most popular parts of Obama care without also keeping the hard parts. For example, if providing care for those with pre-existing conditions as the ACA does is to continue, how will it be paid for?
Saddling the immortals (those under 40) with a tax (ah, er, mandate) if they choose not to insure themselves seemed pretty direct. Where else could the money come from?
Maybe a lot of people think these folks should fend for themselves.
Lucia
Noticed this at Bishop Hill
“France’s Nuclear Storm: Many Power Plants Down Due to Quality Concerns, Power, 11/01/2016 | Lee Buchsbaum The discovery of widespread carbon segregation problems in critical nuclear plant components has crippled the French power industry—20 of the country’s 58 reactors are currently offline and under heavy scrutiny. France’s nuclear safety chairman said more anomalies “will likely be found,†as the extent of the contagion is still being uncovered.With over half of France’s 58 reactors possibly affected by “carbon segregation,†the nation’s nuclear watchdog, the Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN) has ordered that preventative measures be taken immediately to ensure public safety. As this story goes into production in late October, ASN has confirmed that 20 reactors are currently offline”
No cause for concern for your nuclear power preference?
No idea on veracity of story.
Max_OK,
People with green cards an work here.
j ferguson: “if providing care for those with pre-existing conditions as the ACA does is to continue, how will it be paid for?”
.
That is an important question. One thing that would help is guaranteed reissue: if you have insurance then you can not be turned down because you become expensive. That would encourage people to maintain continuous coverage rather than waiting until they need insurance, as many seem to be doing with Obamacare. Fully refundable tax credits for having insurance would also help by encouraging people to get coverage. Unclaimed tax credits could go into a pool to help cover the uninsured. Cutting back the long list of coverage mandates would make insurance much less expensive and therefore more attractive. There would likely have to be an initial “shall issue” period with losses to the insurers covered by the government. Medicaid would continue to cover the poor. And, to some extent, it is reasonable to tell people who are irresponsible that they are on their own.
Mike M, I agree that telling people who are irresponsible that they are on their own sounds good, but I suspect it doesn’t work. They show up in the ER and get taken care of and the cost is absorbed somewhere or other.
Pre-existing means a current affliction for purposes of my concern. I agree with you about people without insurance maybe not covered if they show up with something new.
Apparently there are millions of people out there with expensive afflictions – and who can’t pay the costs themselves. Those are the ones I can’t see turning away after they already are on ACA. It looks like Trump realizes that too.
And of course this is a major expense.
JFerguson, some plans have been offered. The guaranteed re-issue, including across insurance companies, is one idea, something like HIPAA. Another is to have special high risk pools where the government is picking up the tab.
People with green cards can work here, but Max is suggesting there are illegals working.
MIkeN
I thought Max_OK was (ironizally) suggesting that those who don’t insist on employing citizens only are contributing to illegal immigration problems:
In that context I pointed out that people with green cards are allowed to work here.
Obviously, Max using contractors who employ those with green cards would not be contributing to illegal immigration.
On the climate deal, I think Trump should:
1) Reaffirm the US participation in the climate deal.
2) Cancel the Clean Power Plan
3) Remove any CO2 regulations, and eliminate the power to do it without Congress
3) Declare that the US is not meeting its targets as outlined in its INDC
4) Submit a new INDC with substantially higher emissions targets, and declare that the US isn’t planning on any reductions through regulation.
I think this is legal within the framework of the deal.
Lucia,
“(ironizally)”
.
New word? Or typo?
MikeN,
“Reaffirm the US participation in the climate deal.”
.
Why? Why not just submit the agreement to the Senate where it will be voted down by a large majority.
.
Reaffirming illegal acts by Mr. Obama only encourages future illegal acts by other presidents. I think it is far better to show the world, and future presidents, some of whom will be just as arrogant as Mr Obama, that all treaties negotiated with the USA require approval of the US Senate. This will help focus the minds of the climate unhinged, and probably help promote sane policies…. like rapid acceleration of nuclear energy use. A crisis of the climate unhinged is a terrible thing to waste.
ucia (Comment #155744)
November 12th, 2016 at 3:55 pm
Obviously, Max using contractors who employ those with green cards would not be contributing to illegal immigration.
_____
I’m sorry for not being clear. I should have said this: I suppose I am contributing to the illegal immigration problem if I don’t insist my contractors not employ illegals.
Outside the home I frequently observe people I suspect could be illegal immigrants, based on appearance and language. I imagine many Americans share my suspicion. This could make us think the problem is larger than it actually this.
MikeN:
Who is that? I think it’s us.
–
The issue I’m looking at is the healthcare coverage of people who already have expensive needs. ACA makes this coverage (support) available. Apparently there are millions of people out there who cannot afford the cost of their care – I’m not talking ab out insurance against the possibility of contracting an expensive problem.
So what will happen to these people if O’care is repealed? And are the people who want it repealed ok with cutting all of those presently getting support?
Max,
“This could make us think the problem is larger than it actually this.”
.
Hard to think it is smaller than it actually is. The problem is huge. We have illegal residents equal to at least ~4% of the total population of the country. They do not pay federal income taxes. They do not contribute to FICA nor Medicare. States, cities, and towns pay to educate their children, but they do not pay state or local income taxes. They do not have the normal legal protections that any legal employee should have.
.
And yes, you may well be contributing to the problem. I/my company would never consider hiring an illegal alien, even if it would save us a lot of money.
j ferguson,
You won’t get total repeal of the ACA with nothing to replace it. Trump is already talking about retaining the age extension of coverage of children and the ban on denying coverage for preexisting conditions. IIRC, the House already has plans for new healthcare laws in the works. You just didn’t hear much, if anything, about them from the MSM.
SteveF (Comment #155750)
November 12th, 2016 at 4:48 pm
Max,
And yes, you may well be contributing to the problem. I/ my company would never consider hiring an illegal alien, even if it would save us a lot of money.
_____
To be clear, I didn’t say I employ illegal immigrants. I do business with contractors I suspect employ illegals. I also eat at restaurants that I suspect employ illegals. If illegals save on labor, I presume some of the savings are be passed on to me.
j ferguson,
“The issue I’m looking at is the healthcare coverage of people who already have expensive needs.”
.
That has always been the problem. My sister and brother-in-law (dedicated liberals both) ask in the course of heated conversations: “OK, so should we instead just let people die in the streets?”
.
The answer to that question is not simple. Everyone is going to die, of course. So the question is more what responsibility does society have to treat (and prolong the lives of) people who are unable to pay for modern health care themselves, including (especially) those with ‘pre-existing’ conditions. As technology advances, the cost of medical treatment can potentially expand without limit. If Bill Gates is willing to expend $10 billion to extend his life by 2 years, that is perfectly OK with me… it’s his money after all. But if John Doe (or Mary Doe) needs a $500,000 procedure, at public expense (no insurance), to extend their life a year or two, what obligation does society have to pay that $500,000? IMO, this is the crux of the issue, and leads to all of the policy problems. Worse, no politician it seems has the courage to directly address the crux of the issue. (Cowardly worms as they are. 😉 )
.
I don’t claim to know the answers, but I do know that uncontrolled public expenditure for health care is unsustainable. That is what must be addressed.
j ferguson
.
The standardization of plans is one of the good parts because I think many plans are made to be complicated or different for no apparent reasons accept to confound comparison. But the extra benefit of standardization would be to allow the portability continuity at another provider to avoid penalizing the insurer who get’s someone with pre-existing conditions wanting to upgrade coverage. I say one should only be protected against denial of a plan that is equal or less robust than the one had before. Anyone wanting to upgrade from one class to another of coverage would be subject to insurer’s acceptance.
.
I think one should be allowed to take the risk of not having coverage but that risk would be financial draining of assets, not denial of care. Once somebody is spent down to a poverty level then the government safety net kicks in. Those wanting to protect their assets get insurance. The incentive to be healthy and buy more insurance is that one could climb the ladder of quality of plans they would qualify for. The incentive for the young to get insurance is to climb that ladder when it is cheap and easy for them and then maintain it.
SteveF,
The solution to all that is to eliminate income and payroll taxes and replace them with consumption taxes. Illegals certainly do pay sales taxes. The regressive nature of consumption taxes could be offset by some sort of rebate system that would only be available to citizens regardless of wealth or income.
Ron,
The problem right now is that it isn’t cheap for young people to buy health insurance. Insurers are strictly limited in the range of premiums. Like Social Security and Medicare, it’s meant to be a transfer from young to old. That doesn’t work unless it’s mandatory like it is in Switzerland.
DeWitt, the part of the ACA that I would scrap is the socialist redistribution part. That can occur naturally by incentives as it does today when buying whole life or universal life insurance. I still have a policy that I started when before I got married and had children, but the later events are the reason I kept it up and plan to continue it.
DeWitt,
Ya well, sure. But try getting that through Congress. ‘Offsetting’ the regressive nature of these taxes is a huge political conundrum.
.
Besides, if it was as expensive to purchase things in the States as in most other Countries, there would be a huge drop in tourism. I have more than once conversed with South Americans traveling to the States to specifically purchase lots of stuff that would be double the price in their home country. One Argentine couple said: “We travel to Miami for a few days twice a year to buy all our clothing and personal consumables; the difference in cost more than pays for the trip.”
SteveF,
typo. 🙂
Mike M.
But how reliable is it? Not very from what I hear. I’m betting that using E-Verify to justify not hiring someone who is actually legal wouldn’t help much in the resulting law suit.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/10/e-verify-immigration-reforms-threat-to-legal-workers/#3d1ed6844264
Lucia,
Too bad, I kind of liked it as a new word. 😉
DeWitt Payne (Comment #155756)
November 12th, 2016 at 5:33 pm
The solution to all that is to eliminate income and payroll taxes and replace them with consumption taxes. Illegals certainly do pay sales taxes. The regressive nature of consumption taxes could be offset by some sort of rebate system that would only be available to citizens regardless of wealth or income.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #155757)
November 12th, 2016 at 5:37 pm
The problem right now is that it isn’t cheap for young people to buy health insurance. Insurers are strictly limited in the range of premiums. Like Social Security and Medicare, it’s meant to be a transfer from young to old. That doesn’t work unless it’s mandatory like it is in Switzerland.
_____
Replace the income tax with sales tax and give rebates to the poor to compensate? That’s fine with me because I will be left with more money to invest. I now spend only a small proportion of my income, and invest the rest so I can postpone paying sales tax until I’m ready to splurge.
Wait a minute, when I’m older I may not enjoy splurging as much as I enjoy it now.
Regarding your “transfer from young to old.”
Young people can really enjoy spending, but old people, not so much. So young people might ask why they should transfer money to old people who will just sit on it. I can think of two good reasons: (1) Young people wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for old people, and (2) When old people pass on, they give their money to young people.
Max, I understood what you meant, and felt Lucia was being like Brandon(and perhaps engaged in Jesuit casuistry).
The children on health insurance plan is a very inexpensive item so doesn’t change much. However, it makes little sense to treat 26 year olds as children.
People seem to assume that walls don’t work. Israel built a wall, completely eliminated traffic thru it. Countries in the EU that built a wall don’t have a refugee problem. This isn’t rocket science: It’s possible to get past a wall but often isn’t worth it.
DeWitt: “But how reliable is it?”
There have certainly been problems with E-verify, I don’t know if it is improving. There has to be a way to correct errors, the last I heard it still falls short on that. The problems are one reason that mandatory E-verify would be a bad idea. The law should be that employers take reasonable steps, with E-verify as a tool that can be used. I think that is more or less the law now, but there are no teeth.
Max_OK,
I didn’t say that a transfer from young to old for health care was a bad idea. It’s also a transfer from the healthy to the sick. But that’s what insurance is supposed to do. What was bad was the implementation in the ACA. The penalty for not buying insurance is far, far less than the cost of the insurance unless you make a whole lot of money. In which case, you can afford the insurance or, more likely, already have it. Then there’s the ability to buy insurance at will and then drop it when you don’t need it any more. That’s called adverse selection.
We really shouldn’t call it insurance either. While there is an insurance component, it’s mostly prepaid health care. It’s like a maintenance contract you buy from an instrument supplier.
I got an alert of my name being mentioned here. Given the somewhat coincidental timing, I thought I should point out to readers here I’ve written a blog post highly critical of this one (and the level of discussion it has provoked). You can find it here:
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/11/intentionally-misleading-or-totally-ignorant/
Brandon,
If you have something to write about this post, please write it. You are acting like Robert (idiottracker), and that is not generally good.
SteveF,
About the illegals not paying income taxes. I had thought they mostly did, the reason being that not doing it means quicker and more certain repatriation.
to wit: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/maria-teresa-kumar/how-much-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes/
j ferguson,
The article says some illegal immigrants pay SS taxes, not all. My immediate reaction to the article is: WTF? If the Federal government receives SS withholding payments, those payments have to be associated with a SS number. If there is no valid SS number, to what account are the fund credited? Even more bizarre, if there is no valid SS number, then it means the worker almost certainly is undocumented, and you could send an INS agent to the employer’s place of business the next day. If a valid SS number is (fraudulently) associated with the payment, then when the legal resident who has that SS number files a federal tax return, the IRS will instantly see the mismatch in withholding, and ask the legitimate taxpayer about the extra income they did not declare… once again, the INS agent should very soon thereafter visit the employer.
.
If the article is accurate, and I have my doubts, then it means the IRS is actually complicit in keeping undocumented workers employed. As I said above, nobody has been serious about illegal immigrants.
SteveF,
I apologize for not having all my ducks here, but I remember reading a discussion of how this worked five or six years ago. The impression I had was that the IRS took the money and did not share the source with the immigration people. Maybe Tax ID number in lieu of SSN?
What I read indicated that although they paid into the system, they would not be able to harvest any of the benefits without citizenship.
Do green card holders get SSNs? I suspect the system is well equipped to take money under all sorts of circumstance?
David Young, Judith Curry is asking for assistance in preparing paper presenting the limitations of GCMs: https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/12/climate-models-for-lawyers/
j ferguson,
Green card holders can get SSN’s and are required to do so if they are paid for work they do. Even those with student visas can get SSN’s. I think they can always work for the school. I’m not sure how work for anyone else operates– I think there is a venue for that. If they work for pay, they are required to get a SSN.
Tax returns are confidential under penalty of law. That includes using them for immigration enforcement. Interestingly, the President can see anyone’s tax return, but the request must be written. If you aren’t a citizen, you need a valid work permit, not necessarily a green card, to get an SSN.
j ferguson,
” The impression I had was that the IRS took the money and did not share the source with the immigration people. Maybe Tax ID number in lieu of SSN?”
.
If the article is accurate, then I suspect that is the case, and it is an indication of just how corrupt the IRS has become. The wink the Obama administration has given to declared ‘sanctuary cities’ is more of the same. These things strike me as similar to the IRS collecting obviously illegal money from mafioso and not providing that information to the FBI, or the FBI looking the other way when a city declares itself a “sanctuary” for heroin dealers. It’s so entirely crazy that it beggars belief. We have a long-standing problem with illegal immigration at least in part because the federal government has refused to enforce existing laws. How to best deal with the enormous problem of 11 million or more illegal residents is not simple, but the first steps are 1) eliminate the influx as best possible under existing law, 2) be willing to actually enforce the law, and 3) adopt whatever new laws are needed to make employment for undocumented workers extremely difficult or impossible.
DeWitt,
“Tax returns are confidential under penalty of law. That includes using them for immigration enforcement.”
.
Fraudulent tax returns are not protected. But if a federal court has held that tax information can’t be used to identify illegal immigrants, then this is an obvious target for Mr. Trump and Congress to change. It is absolutely crazy.
SteveF,
The fundamental reason that tax returns are confidential is the Fifth Amendment. You can’t require someone, and that includes illegal immigrants, to incriminate themselves without a grant of immunity from prosecution, so a drug dealer could report his actual income and that information could not be used to prosecute him. As long as the income information is correct and taxes are paid, you can’t be prosecuted for income tax evasion a la Al Capone either.
The trick is to obtain a Social Security Number that’s not obviously fraudulent. But that’s not all that hard either.
j ferguson, The article you linked starts out: “Donald Trump may not have paid federal income taxes for 20 years, but the undocumented immigrants he rails against certainly have, according to the head of a Latino civic engagement organization.”
.
But then it goes to claim nothing about income tax, only payroll tax, of which Trump’s enterprises match all their employee payroll as I do and all employers. The article claims that a little more than a quarter of the estimated 11M undocumented aliens have payroll tax withheld.
.
SteveF makes the same point that I have wondered about many times as well. I think it is a perfect example of a broken federal government, parts of it being intrusive and out of control, while others completely passive into enforcing law.
SteveF,
http://fredfryinternational.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-illegal-aliens-get-social-security.html
Ron,
If they have payroll tax withheld, they have income tax withheld also. I suspect it’s only about 1/4 because the rest deal only in cash in the underground economy. The estimate of the size of the underground economy in the US, btw, is $2 Trillion.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100668336
Ron and SteveF,
If you give police access to income tax information without probable cause, you won’t like the result.
DeWitt, of course you are correct on the income tax withholding, but remember low income means low withholding and a significant refund if no investment income is reported. Also, they can actually pay negative taxes with earned income credit, which gives them back their payroll tax (with employer’s half) as a credit if they are supporting themselves and/or family on a low income.
.
It still leave the puzzle SteveF cited.
DeWitt, how about just refusing to process undocumented SSNs and keeping the database clean? I agree a police state is and abuse of power is always a danger. The IRS already has field enforcement agents.
Ron,
The EITC applies to anyone with the appropriate qualifications. As far as Obama’s Executive Order on some illegal immigrants being able to obtain SSN’s, it will either be cancelled by Trump or overturned by the courts. Even then, they could only go back three years, assuming that they could reconstruct their income information.
If the Trump administration is reasonable confident of a court decision, they should probably not make it moot by cancelling the order. The precedent would be good to have on the books.
Ron,
Who says they’re undocumented? Anyone can apply for an ITIN. Using it on a fake Social Security card is illegal, but using it on an income tax return is not.
I read a lot of things here that I disagree with. Since I have great respect for you guys, I usually decide I need to think about it some more; maybe i’ve missed something.
But I am completely against tax return data being used for anything other than the proper purposes of the IRS. Agencies of the government already know too much about us, or can find out without apparently much constraint.
In 1984 I needed a letter clearance. I had had similar clearances in the past but this time, I found myself at Walter Reed Annex (the one that used to be a girls’ school) being interviewed by two guys from DIA. It went on and on. Finally I asked them to come to the point and that I would give them whatever answer was the right one and they could clear me or not.
They told me that I had once told a colleague that i was worried about my drinking. I told them I still was but not so much because I drank too much, but more how much I liked to. Then there was a lot of discussion about how much, etc. They were worried I’d get lunched in a bar and tell people what I did, I guess.
I got the clearance but was much impressed that they had found the one guy I’d told about this concern sometime in the late ’70s.
Despite some liberal tendencies which I’ve never been able to fully suppress, I hate the idea of the government knowing anything about me. I do like paying taxes, mostly because we are one of the few countries where you figure out what you owe yourself and aren’t simply sent a bill. I figure it’s one of the blessings of being here.
And for some reason, I can’t get worked up over the 12 million illegals. I’m probably a real innocent on that issue.
j ferguson: “I am completely against tax return data being used for anything other than the proper purposes of the IRS.”
I strongly agree. In trying to solve one problem, such as illegal immigration, we should be very careful about not creating bigger problems, such as excessively increasing government power. If some illegal immigration is part of the price of liberty, I am willing to pay it.
.
On the other hand, excessive illegal immigration threatens our society in other ways. The trick is to find the right balance. I frankly don’t trust Trump in that regard. But out of about two dozen candidates in the this cycle, Rand Paul was the only one I did trust to worry about liberty.
Maybe tax identification numbers should not be given out like numbers at the deli. I received my children’s TINs automatically when they were born, which was an improvement from a generation earlier when my parents needed apply for SSNs for my siblings and I. This could be the norm for births, green cards, visas and business entity creations. I don’t see why not to have some countercheck behind passing out a form of identification.
For a SSN you need two forms of ID proving citizenship or immigration status according to here. But DeWitt is right, anyone can get an individual tax ID ITIN because the IRS wants to make it easy for undocumented workers to pay taxes.https://www.irs.gov/individuals/individual-taxpayer-identification-number-itin?_ga=1.136201585.1108150831.1478569176
DeWitt,
OK if the illegal alien can pay taxes with a TIN, but completely avoid revealing that they are illegally working, then we need to change how those numbers are given out and/or make it legal for immigration agents to check on the immigration status of people filing a return with a TIN. I see no fifth amendment implications for people who use a TIN to enable unlawful residency. People with legitimate SS numbers who file taxes are entitled to some fifth amendment protections, of course.
.
I am reasonably certain undocumented workers represent a significant fraction of that $2 trillion underground economy.
SteveF,
I’m betting the sex and drug trades are a lot larger components.
Brandon, your post seems to ignore the substance of what we’re discussing. Presidents can make executive agreements, which are basically and generally low-level agreements about how to work out details of things. But they are not binding on the next president. One president made it, the next president can decide to do something different. Only a treaty is binding, and that’s what we’re talking about here.
SteveF,
I’m betting the sex and drug trades are a lot larger components of the underground economy. Replace ‘illegal alien’ with sex worker or drug dealer in your first sentence. Do you really want them to not pay taxes too? I suspect most of them don’t, but at least now they have the option to not be guilty of income tax evasion too.
I agree with j ferguson that no net good would come from putting the IRS into the law enforcement business.
j ferguson,
I have a great deal of sympathy for people who were brought here as children by illegal immigrants, but much less for the parents who brought them. I have sympathy for businesses that may need temporary workers. I have zero sympathy for choosing to not enforce the law… there lies chaos and the ultimate end of the nation-state, controlled by its own citizens, as a legal entity. In my darker moments, I suspect ‘progressives’ simply want the existence of the nation state to end, and porous borders, along with willful failure to enforce immigration laws, are but one step in that direction. I think the nation state as an entity is crucial for humanity’s future, if that future is going to include personal liberty.
Sex trade and drugs no doubt have a substantial overlap with illegal residency, so I am not sure they can be so neatly separated. DeWitt, do you see no way to end uncontrolled illegal immigration?
SteveF,
This country was created by immigrants. Every past wave of immigrants have enriched the country, not damaged it. But that’s because immigrants then wanted to assimilate. The damage the progressives has done is called multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is opposed to assimilation.
I also see a lot of parallels between the current anti-immigrationists and the Know Nothing Party of the middle nineteenth century that was opposed to immigration in general and Catholic immigrants, mainly Irish who were fleeing the Potato Famine, in particular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
I cannot either. Failure with immigration is an example of government’s impotence in matters such as these. It also points to government arbitrariness in enforcing laws on the books. Those are the issues that should be dominating the discussion of immigration going forward. If the illegal immigrants made legal were predicted to vote in large majorities for the Republicans instead of Democrats the positions on immigration would switch between those two parties. In my mind this view of the situation makes most of the current discussion a matter of political posturing.
J Ferguson: “And for some reason, I can’t get worked up over the 12 million illegals.”
….
We really don’t know how many are here. That is probably a low estimate that has never been searchingly checked by the media or academia, because the more illegal entrants that come the happier the Left is, and if they are undercounted the Left can discount the magnitude of the issue.
….
IN any event, I am concerned somewhat about 12,000,000 illegals. However, my real concern is for the 30,000,000 or 50,000,000 that are on their way if we continue on with the open borders policy of the Left and Obama. Currently, from the vantage point of the Left, the US has no moral or legal justification for excluding anyone (but criminals) if they can first manage to sneak in. I consider this a very dangerous situation.
JD
….
I would add that I agree that tax information should be kept confidential.
SteveF,
I see no way to control illegal immigration with the current ridiculously low immigration quotas and effectively no guest worker program. As I’ve said multiple times, saying you can’t change immigration laws until we can control our borders is exactly like saying we couldn’t raise the national speed limit from 55MPH until everyone was obeying the speed limit or end Prohibition until the importation of and manufacture of illegal alcohol ended.
If the system is broken, which it is, you need to fix the system to treat the symptoms. There is a demand for needed labor at pay rates that Americans won’t take. We have recently had crops rotting in the field for lack of workers while the farmers were willing to pay $15/hour. There are lots of people south of the border who don’t want to immigrate but would do that work.
The other thing that will improve the situation is an expanding Mexican economy. Tearing up NAFTA will damage both economies. Sure some people are hurt, but some people are hurt by the creative destruction of economic progress in general. That’s why we need a safety net of some sort.
The other thing is the apparent complete lack of attention and sympathy by the elites of both parties. If they were paying attention, they would be actively defending the benefits of economic integration with Mexico and Canada using numbers, not condescending to the people in flyover country by quoting what amounts to platitudes. There would have been less opportunity for demagoguery then.
DeWitt: “Every past wave of immigrants have enriched the country, not damaged it. But that’s because immigrants then wanted to assimilate.”
.
Another factor is the opportunity for immigrants to economically assimilate. During the last big wave of immigration that ended around WWI (and that included my ancestors), the country had an enormous need for unskilled labor. So the new immigrants had little difficulty finding work, and that aided their assimilation. Now, we have much less need for unskilled labor. So we need to adopt immigration policies that select for immigrants that have suitable skills and keep total immigration to levels that our economy can assimilate.
DeWitt, it sometimes helps to remember that you can still be correct in a view even if you share it with complete idiots.
SteveF: “I have zero sympathy for choosing to not enforce the law”.
I agree with that. But one also has to recognize that enforcing the law has to be balanced against personal liberty. Perfect enforcement of the law would require that we all live in Panopticon. No thank you.
j ferguson,
Thanks. I’ll have to remember that line.
Mike M.,
We probably have the technology now to enforce speed limits with GPS units in cars that would not allow a car to exceed the local limit. It won’t happen. The main reason would be that if nobody were speeding, state highway patrols would lose a lot of funding. I doubt the public would stand for it either. For one thing, it would nearly eliminate passing on two lane roads.
JD, others have estimated 30 million illegal immigrants.
EVerify is perhaps not needed if it is problematic. The government already knows everything that EVerify would accomplish. Department of Labor gets SSN for all new hires, and no-match letters get sent to anyone whose paperwork is off.
However, it is not made mandatory that this get fixed.
I wonder, there are only one billion SSN possible. Shouldn’t they be running out soon?
Google News is saying that, Trump will deport 2-3,000,000 illegal entrants upon assuming office in January.
JD
Brandon
Let me “flesh it out”.
We did not ratify. I don’t need to “flesh this out” and further. It’s just a fact. Facts don’t need to be “fleshed out”.
Voosen did use the term “ratify”. I don’t need to “flesh this out”. It’s just a fact.
This is an opinion. You hold a different one. But I don’t need to “flesh it out”.
We aren’t bound to it. The reason is:
(a) If it is an executive agreement, then we aren’t bound to it; it was his administrations agreement and dies when his administration is out. The current president can just change his mind.
(b) If it’s a treaty, as implied by the term “ratify”, it was not ratified.
So: we are not bound to it either way.
Voosen is using terms that imply he is claiming it is a treaty (i.e. “ratify” and later “bound”.) My discussion therefor addresses that premise. Had he used language indicating “executive order” I would have posted a discussion based on the premise in his post. I preferred to stick to discussing on his premise. If you don’t like that…well ok.
If you wish to discuss ‘executive agreements’ we can go ahead and do so.
On his site, Brandon makes an interesting point, which I don’t accept but which makes his point much more reasonable: he believes that the President could abrogate a treaty just as well as an Executive Agreement. While that seems absurd to me (Brandon thinks it’s obvious!), it doesn’t seem to be settled law. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/29/opinion/treaties-don-t-belong-to-presidents-alone.html. It was tested in the Rehnquist court, but not settled. All there seems to be is a district court that was later overruled.
Brandon’s objection isn’t to scrapping the agreement, but to declare that the agreement is a treaty and submit for ratification.
I also object to that course of action, because I feel it is conceding too much.
Paris is NOT a treaty as defined by Jefferson for Senate ratification purposes. 1. It is nonbinding. 2. It contains an opt out. Nor is it a Pact (like TPP) because it does not require enabling Congressional legislation. It is an executive agreement under US constitutional law. EAs exist under 3 narrow specific consitutional executive powers: certain foreign policy actions (e.g. Recognizing countries or ambassadors), certain actions as commander in chief, and actions persuant to the express obligation to uphold federal laws in Article 2 section 3. The argument is this is persuant to CAA so an EA.
Trump can exit UNFCCC in one year by serving opt out notice, and that means also Paris as a subagreement. Or Paris only by 2020 bia the same means, with no obligation to do anything in the interim.
MikeN, MikeR,
The appropriate course to take with respect to the fact that we have not ratified it can be debated. But that is separate from what I wrote which is that (a) it is not ratified and (b) we are not bound.
Whatever theory Brandon might have about whether president is even bound by treaties…. I’m not going to debate that. But we are not bound by “executive agreements”. That is an agreement between an administration and someone else. The are also generally more limited in scope than the “Paris”.
Dewitt,
I accept completely that previous waves of immigrants (my father’s parents arriving from Ireland, for example) have added enormous value, both financial and cultural to the USA. But when immigrants choose to NOT become assimilated, the result is potentially very different…. divisive and destabilizing. The question is: Will a specific immigrant group choose cultural isolation, or cultural assimilation? So far, Muslims (Europe, USA, elsewhere) seem to have resisted cultural assimilation. This is a potential long term problem.
Lucia,
” I’m not going to debate that. ”
.
Nor am I. Brandon is utterly disconnected from reality in this case, which is, sadly, more common than not for him. Really? What a jerk.
Rud
Are you refering to this as an “opt out” which is the one actually in the “Paris” agreement?
Or do you mean something else? (Real Q).
If you do: Would you consider still consider it an “opt out” if we were stuck in it for 5 years? 10 years? A century?
These are real questions. And I would suggest that courts frown on people trying to claim something is “X” when it isn’t really “X”. One needs to generally be cautious trying to be too “clever” on these points.
A real “opt out” clause lets a party actually opt out in some remotely reasonable amount of time. An agreement that permits an outgoing president to bind the incoming adminstration for almost the entire duration of a presidential term is difficult to characterize as any real sort of “opt out”.
But perhaps you mean some other clause?
If your point is we can optout of a different agreement: I would suggest that’s irrelevant to whether this one is a treaty.
SteveF,
I wasn’t going to raise the Muslim issue, but since you have, I agree that assimilation for them may well be a problem. I don’t know the reliability of this site, but here are a few quotes:
lucia,
Here’s an interesting link on the history of treaty abrogation in the US. The drift has been towards the President being able to abrogate without the agreement of Congress.
http://www.ea.sinica.edu.tw/eu_file/12010798884.pdf
MikeN
I’m of two minds on this.
I definitely see the attraction of not submitting.
If it is a treaty, Trump does not need to submit a treaty the previous administration wanted but never bothered to submit.
If it is not: I think it might be best to simply state that, as such, it is not binding on his administration or future ones. If necessary, write that up in some formal way. And if he wishes as a formality, he can send in paperwork “leaving”, meanwhile stating that he considers our participation to end instantly– not withstanding any provision in Article 28.
Obviously, future administrations can re-enter the agreement– and that would last for the duration of their administration.
I do think it is somewhat important to state that we do not consider Article 28 to require us to remain a party after we have submitted paperwork. And we do not consider Obama’s signature on “Paris” to require us to leave exit “UNFCCC” inorder to exit Paris in a timely matter.
Climate Etc has a post that touches on this issue as well, among others. She links Paul Voosen as well.
It’s not clear to me that Trump needs to honor this executive agreement made by Obama. Not clear to me that this was the sort of routine agreement that characterizes an executive agreement as opposed to a treaty. I’m not yet as knowledgeable as I need to be about what the agreement actually says, but – is there anything in there that belongs ‘in the competency of Congress’ as opposed to the competency of the Presidency (I’m not quite clear on what this means, which is why I put it in quotes). If so, perhaps it is an invalid executive agreement. [Edit: Supposing that it is a valid executive agreement, it’s not clear to me that a subsequent administration is bound to honor it anyway. Is there some legal requirement that Trump do so. If so, what is it.] EVEN IF the agreement is indeed binding, my understanding is that the agreement is essentially toothless. So Trump categorically ignores it; are there in fact any consequences.
Lots to look into.
Lucia,
The explicit and clear public rejection of the ‘-Paris Accords’ by the US Senate has political value.
Paris Executive Agreement:
….
This is all a kerfuffle over a nothing public relations document. According to John Kerry ” ‘this [agreement] doesn’t need to be approved by the Congress because it doesn’t have mandatory targets for reduction, and it doesn’t have an enforcement-compliance mechanism’.” See https://works.bepress.com/david_wirth/125/ Since it has no enforceable targets, Trump can simply announce that he is ignoring it and nothing, of legal consequence, will happen.
….
John Kerry forced the negotiators to substitute the word “should” for “shall”, making even clearer that the Paris Executive Agreement is basically a public relations ploy. See http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/paris-climate-talks-tic-toc-216721 In the same article it states that “”shall” implies legal obligation and “should” does not.” [which I agree with]
….
Additionally, if Obama had tried to sneak through a potentially binding agreement, it would have almost certainly be invalidated by the Medellin case applying the Youngstown Sheet & Tube analysis pertaining to executive power. See http://www.bing.com/search?q=supreme+court+medellin+v+texas&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=supreme+court+medellin+v&sc=0-24&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=CB083B5183D74DF3841245F83323C351 Medellin specifically authorizes what I would call puff piece non-substantive agreements stating: “”While a treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes impleÂmenting it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be “self executing †and is ratiï¬ed on that basis. See, e. g., Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 314. The Avena judgment creates an international law obligation on the part of the United States, but it is not automatically binding” (Medellin is discussing treaties here, but treaties are more powerful instruments than executive agreements, so this analysis would also have force with respect to executive agreements. Medellin also discusses executive agreements, construing them narrowly, and in that case found that there wasn’t an executive agreement.)
…..
For people interested in this issue, I would suggest reading Medellin. It is not unduly technical, and I think it is understandable for lay people.
JD
The Paris Agreement was weak tea to begin with, it’s basically a voluntary membership with no teeth. So this seems more like an academic whizzing match than something with ramifications.
It’s clearly symbolic, as was the Keystone pipeline. It is unlikely the US will do much different with and without this agreement. Taking down the EPA and Clean Power Plan have more impact in the real world. Mostly people just want the right to use cheap power, warts and all.
SteveF,
Yes. That’s why I’m of two minds. 🙂
Thanks Tom, JD.
Tom
Which is why withdrawing is also symbolic. But symbolisms about how our government works is also useful.
JD,
I suspect that Obama’s plan may have been that environmental groups might sue the government on the grounds that they are not living up to the Paris agreement and the government “settling” the suit without really opposing it. Of course Trump’s win has derailed that, at least for the time being.
.
If I understand what you say about Medellin, the environmental groups could not win as long as the government genuinely opposed. But might that strategy work with a cooperative government?
MikeM: “But might that strategy work with a cooperative government?”
….
Almost certainly private companies affected by regulating CO2 (think energy companies) would have the right to sue to have Paris invalidated if the govt tried to rely on it to promulgate regulations.
JD
I have reservations about Trump declaring a reversal of Obama’s climate policy with pure executive unilateralism. Obama entered the agreement with the cover of “science.” The better move is opening congressional hearings to flesh out the science in public and/or a special expert panel to provide re-evaluation of the science. NASA, NSF and NOAA should all be placed under the microscope for bias.
Graf: “I have reservations about Trump declaring a reversal of Obama’s climate policy with pure executive unilateralism.”
….
Obama simply created a public relations ploy as I pointed out in my previous post. Trump has a right to disavow the public relations ploy. If you consider Obama’s action as a policy, then policies can be reversed at any time. Also, part of what makes an executive an executive is the right to act unilaterally in some instances. It is 100% legitimate for Trump to walk away from Obama’s policies. That is what elections are for.
JD
Ron Graf,
I think your thinking of regulations taken under the Clean Air Act that is under the cover of science. While it’s certainly true that science is discussed around any climate change issue, the Paris Agreement didn’t require “science” as any sort of foundation.
What Trump and Congress have options for what to do about Obama regulations under the Clean Air Act. Some would require discussing science– having new EPA studies and so on, others not so much.
Trump doesn’t need to discuss science to say he’s exiting the Paris agreement. He can just say he’s exiting it. Other than persuading him it’s a bad idea for some reason, I don’t think there is much of anything anyone can do to prevent him from just taking the actions equivalent to saying “stuff it” to that agreement.
Lucia: “… I don’t think there is much of anything anyone can do to prevent him from just taking the actions equivalent to saying “stuff it†to that agreement.”
.
My concern is not the endangerment finding or any one particular rule or agreement. As was pointed out, the Paris agreement has no teeth in any regard, so there should be no rush to say “stuff it.”
.
Trump’s greatest pride is when he can be unpredictable, but correct. To say “stuff it” is just what his opponents expect and will rally against with the protests we see already. A smarter move would be to turn over the rocks to expose the shaky areas of science that have wrongly been claimed as settled. At the same time he should show support for alternative energy technology without the cronyism of Solyndra boondoggles.
The best way to undermine the politicians that want to be hired to take over control of energy is to demonstrate the issue is: 1) not urgent to avoid certain catastrophe, 2) is being addressed adequately by free market innovation with modest support.
Ron,
I don’t think he should use the words ‘stuff it’. But I don’t see why his opponents expecting him to stuff the paris agreement would be a reason against doing it. Those who are going to engage in street protests are going to do it anyway. If you are worrying about street protests, congressional hearing to discuss science– whether shaky or not– wouldn’t reduce street protests. As an ongoing thing, it would just as likely trigger even more.
And beyond that: WRT to Paris, congressional hearings aren’t necessary. I’m not seeing any reason why he should delay saying we are no longer a party to the agreement. Unless he thinks he wants to remain in the agreement, there is simply no reason for any delay at all. If anything waiting gives the impression that he would be tacitly accepting the previous administrations agreement; I can’t see any benefit to waiting at all.
I don’t have anything against his continuuing support for some alternative energy technology; I’m for some continued support. But my impression is he is against it and so are many of those who support him. I’m not entirely sure what your reason is for saying he should support it. Is it because you do– and so want him to do so? Or do you think that’s some sort of strategy to win favor for those who oppose him? Or some other reason? (Priorities? ) (Real Qs.)
I could understand someone saying he should support them because they wanted him to do so. Or I could understand saying make deregulation the first priority– or bagging Obamacare or something.
But if your hope is that it would assuage those who oppose Trump: I think that’s naive. That’s not going to happen.
Anyway: Right now the GOP has the house and the Senate. Other than wanting to avoid filibuster, I don’t think Trump needs to worry too much about pleasing those who block him.
Anger the world policy that I’ve never priced: Declare that for every CO2 cut undertaken by other countries you will increase your emissions by double the cut.
Ron Graf:
He could say something like he’s always run his life on nullius in verba, explain what that means and where the expression is used and should have been more closely observed. He could then go on to say that his initial gut reaction to the hysteria was that it was hysteria but based on some truth, namely that warming is going on. The hoax is in the exaggeration. The science is not settled and there are credible studies which suggest much lower rates of increase than those recently foisted upon us. Further it seems likely that the warming which does occur can be dealt with in the normal course of development and does not require extraordinary measures.
He would further support the rationalization of the nuclear permitting process and the construction of more nukes as well as the securitization (best word?) of the grid.
Ron
Sure. But Congressional hearings and EPA reports don’t advance either of these goals. Both have political overtones so ‘yuge’ that almost nothing they say on the matter convinces members of the public to change their minds about science. In this regard, Congressional hearings are nearly the worst thing you can do.
lucia: “Congressional hearings and EPA reports … have political overtones so ‘yuge’ that almost nothing they say on the matter convinces members of the public to change their minds about science.”
If EPA reports are viewed as being politically driven — and I agree they are — is there a path to deliver analysis which is not viewed as partisan?
HaroldW:
“climate science” is clearly seen as political whenever it diverges from the beliefs of the observer, whether the actual study is politically driven or not. Another question might be “Are more elements of our society/culture/endeavors politically charged now than 30 years ago?”
I think yes. Could it be that this is because more is heard about and that more is not also more understood? And what is not understood is politicized? (what I just wrote sounds good but might be nonsense – can’t tell)
HaroldW
Do you mean a path that is sponsored and undertaken by politicians? Rarely.
Government reports can sometimes be viewed by many as non-partisan when the actually are non-partisan. But it is always the case that some group outside the government will protest nearly any government finding or report and be vocal. For example: Most people see government support for vaccines ad non-partisan which it is. But anti-vaxers remain vocal against vaccines and will go over any report about vaccines airing their criticisms when they can.
While I agree that it’s not realistic to hope that new hearings concluding a lower ECS range would persuade people who are staked in the CAGW prediction, I think it would be the right thing to do. It would demonstrate an interest in the science and informed decision making to those not staked in the subject. And, yes, I am for more debate and information on the topic. I would like bad science exposed in the name of preserving the credibility of its valuable brand and perhaps institute more rigorous protocols.
Ron Graf,
Congressional hearings don’t put forward any conclusions about things like ECS. In fact, I don’t think they put forward any conclusions about anything.
If you want “conclusions” you want something like an EPA report of some sort. Reports of various sorts will be written. Conclusions may be presented to congress. But that will take a long time. If Trump wants to withdraw from the Paris agreement, or reverse regulations or do any number of things, unnecessary delay is not his friend. And doing stuff sooner is not something that happens “instead of” hearings/reports. Those will happen anyway because they will be required for some of the changes he wants.
An election has been won. Saying “wait until hearings” or “wait for an EPA” report is what you do if you want to maintain Obama’s choices.
Reality on the ground is the only thing that will ‘settle the science”, and that will take another couple of decades. Funding observational research to constrain aerosol effects could shorten that period, but there seems little interest in actually determining the real sensitivity value to greater accuracy, because neither side cares much what the real value is. The plausible range for ECS remains were it was 30 years ago (1.5 – 4.5C) because it is not really a scientific problem, it is a political disagreement. No number of reports, hearings, or scholarly publications will resolve a political disagreement. I sure hope Congress recognizes this and treats it as it would any other political disagreement.
One of today’s WSJ editorials is in favor of opening the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste storage facility. There are still hoops to jump through, but if executive branch opposition reverses to approval, those obstacles look a lot smaller.
SteveF (Comment #155842)
I am in essential agreement with what you post here. The issue is one of politics and if the Republicans were sufficiently capable of explaining the problems that will derive from some of the proposed mitigation fixes that is the route that these discussions should go. It would also help if the Republicans were capable of showing the uncertainties involved in predicting future warming given a scenario for GHGs and further the uncertainties in predicting the correct scenario to use and still further in predicting the detrimental (beneficial) effects from a given amount of future warming. They might consider enlisting the help of Judith Curry in the matters of uncertainty. Unfortunately the Republicans will tend toward arguments that go a bridge or two too far in discussing the science of warming. The hoax argument is a sure loser.
There are those in the Republican ranks who also would not want to talk down the capabilities of government in these matters since they are after all part of the government and sent there by (too) many voters who think that government is more capable in these matters than history shows.
I find the same paradox with this group of Republicans as those progressives/liberals who now are decrying (and actually crying about) the abuse of power that Trump will spew on the nation – which if they truly believe they should have seriously thought about before acquiescing to providing that power to government to put in place their agendas.
Kenneth
Absolutely.
SteveF
Also absolutely. The arguments about “the science” haven’t done those wanting to implement climate action much good at getting real programs in place; replacing that with contrary arguments about “the uncertainty in the science”, isn’t going to do much good either. Science will go on. But arguing about it in Congress doesn’t do much good.
The fact is: it is better to focus on steps one can undertake– and when doing so, steps that have multiple benefits are best. On hopes we can get the ball rolling on nuclear again. One hopes climate activist will see its long term benefit for climate. It’s also got great long term benefit for energy independence. As much as fracking has done us good, nuclear is still useful in the system.
And beyond that: CO2 and Methane really do result in warming. So it is prudent to implement nuclear which is low carbon and low methane. Nuclear has been regulated to death– getting it out of the political/regulatory hole that was previously dug would be a huge benefit.
“One of today’s WSJ editorials is in favor of opening the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste storage facility.”
There is a lot a waste stored in various locations around the country. I think opening Yucca Mountain is a good choice, regardless of how one feels about nuclear power in the future.
SteveF hits nail on head: It is the political aspect of this that needs to be dealt with by Congress. The science, as science, is obviously not supporting the social obsession that fuels the politics. Ignore it and let the social obsession burn itself out. End the political legs. If we can get to nuke power out of this, and end the terrible waste of sun and solar tax payer subsidy, all the better.
HaroldW,
“There is a lot a waste stored in various locations around the country.”
.
Indeed. I think a winning argument for Yucca Mountain is that storing waste there is much safer than having it stored in many places, including spent fuel rods sitting in water pools at nuclear plants… I mean, that is a ripe terror target if there ever was one…. blow up a pool filled with used rods and scatter some radioactive material. Wouldn’t even matter how much radioactive material was scattered, since people have for decades been told by opponents of nuclear power to be terrified of radiation.
.
The opposition to Yucca Mountain is and always has been motivated 100% by general opposition to nuclear power; has nothing to do with safety.
Lucia, I was thinking of the uncertainty issue being a winner in the smugness about AGW contest and getting away from hoax position.
By the way I would not think a heavily regulated nuclear alternative that required heavy subsidies to compete with fossil fuels is an answer either. In IL I have heard utility companies with nuclear facilities calling for carbon taxes or credits.
SteveF,
Well, that and NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).
Kenneth,
Much of the cost of nuclear is the lengthy permitting process. Combine that with a lack of standard design so each permitting process ignores all previous ones and you get long delays that add substantial interest charges to the capital expense. OTOH, if we continue to have near zero interest rates, that will be less of a problem.
If you compare nuclear electric plants to plants powered by natural gas from fracking, nuclear looks bad. If you compare it to wind and solar, it looks a lot better. And, of course, the greens are opposed to fracking too.
Trump could ask Congress to reverse the ban on used nuclear fuel reprocessing. The proliferation horse left the barn a while back. That would also drastically reduce the volume of high level waste that would need to be stored, not to mention that it would be a way to use the plutonium from decommissioned nuclear weapons.
With the EPA, environmental science, and environmental journalists under what they believe to be assault, any hearings are going to be predictable mad houses. Anyone on this board could write the scripts of both sides and the responses in the media before they even occurred.
The climate movement decided a scorched earth one sided political attack was their best way forward, and now it is time to pay the piper. I think Trump must do something immediately just to throw a bone to his supporters. The left probably realizes that they are never going to win back Trump supporters with climate moralism. The climate movement is a captive audience of the left and they don’t have to do a thing for them to retain their vote.
The left isn’t stupid, although they may simulate it very accurately sometimes. They know what lost them this election, and they want power back, and climate is not on the list to achieve that. Environmental journalism will not change, and it will be amusing to watch as every Trump decision will signal catastrophe for the climate in their eyes, they will probably name every hurricane “Hurricane Trump”. I have little doubt they will continue to dig their credibility grave even deeper, they know no other way.
hunter,
“The science, as science, is obviously not supporting the social obsession that fuels the politics.”
.
I think the two are essentially unrelated. If you had God-like knowledge and could state with certainty that the ECS value is a 1.82357889+/- 0.0000001, or 2.87834012 +/-0.0000001, it would change very little. People who want to stop the use of fossil fuels ASAP would be unmoved by either figure; the demands to rapidly end fossil fuel use would remain, and the political battle would continue. For most people who are not wild-eyes greens, the correct ECS does matter, because it would help define the urgency (or lack of urgency) setting prudent public policy… say migrating to nuclear power and mostly electric powered transportation.
.
“The science” has failed miserably to make progress on that key question, IMO, because many climate scientists don’t want to narrow the plausible range, since eliminating ‘scary high’ sensitivity values would make their desired policy outcome less likely. The field fairly well drips with politics. At least with Trump’s election, politically motivated federal prosecution (RICO 20 style) of ‘den!ers’ is finally off the table.
.
My hope (probably far too optimistic) is that Trump and Congress will make major cuts in federal funding of climate research that has so far failed to provide an accurate ECS value (eg cut and consolidate modeling funding, cut all funding of the really silly stuff like butterfly migration patterns based on 100 year model projections, multi-thousand-year model projections, etc.) and increase funding to reduce known uncertainties, mostly aerosol effects, that keep us from observationally constraining the plausible sensitivity range.
DeWitt,
Not many people have a back yard near Yucca Mountain. The closest villages (unincorporated) are 20 -30 miles away and have only a few thousand residents.
The key to reversing global warming is creating technology that India and China will use because it is the most effective way to provide power for its citizens, not trying to convince them that doubling the cost of their power is the righteous way forward according to US millennials. It matters little what the US does when all the future emissions numbers are added up. What the US can do is use its technological prowess to find a way to make clean energy cheap.
Once people stop using coal and fossil fuels because they are too expensive, everyone wins (except coal miners of course). That is where the focus should be.
Huzzah! It looks like a company called Nuclear Development LLC is going to buy and complete the unfinished Bellefonte nuclear plant in Alabama. I’m glad the scammers at Pheonix Energy of Nevada didn’t get it.
“Brandon, your post seems to ignore the substance of what we’re discussing. ”
And this shocks you????
Who but Brandon would waste words on calling it the Paris Accord ( Accord de Paris or some such shit) or the Paris Agreement.?
Seriously.. who but Brandon?
One FUNCTION of naming and discourse is to allow people to communicate about the same thing… typically a thing that is not
“present” in front of them. If a locution gets people talking about the same thing… it has served its purpose. Its not like ANYONE here was confused by the term Accord as opposed to Agreement. Language was working just fine.. Lucia could have refered to it as the DPCT
Damned Paris Climate Treaty and we all would GET what she was refering to. Only people who dont understand how language functions ( socially) would stop to point out “well technically its called and agreement.. ( its a fundamentally narcissistic move to correct others when no correction is warranted)
Imagine youre at thanksgiving dinner and your granny says “pass the tators, darling” What kind of social nitwit would say ” Grandmother, the proper term is mashed potatoes” Nope, you’d know exactly what she meant, and you’d pass her the damn potatoes.
Now if for some reason you had mashed potatoes and tator tots at the table, you might say “Granny? you want the tator tots or mashed potatoes?’ And she would say ” bless your heart child, I meant the mashed potatoes, you must remember how much I love then.” “Of course Granny, and you want butter not gravy right?”
Then of course the social awkward basement dwelling 12 year old bright nephew would say “Actually, she asked for tators, and that indicates she wants the tator tots”. I know I used to be that guy.
I read the dictionary to try to figure out what people meant.
The EPA is taking this as one would expect:
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060045642
I wonder if they offered counseling when Obama was elected for anybody?
Ted Cruz used charts by Goddard at his hearing on climate change, though he made up for it by introducing Mark Steyn as a Top 5 Jazz Recording Artist and human rights activist.
DeWitt, there was a Miss America contestant from Nevada who was asked about Yucca, and she said, ‘Well we have to take one for the team.’
India has implemented a carbon tax, about $1 a ton.
SteveF.
A simple move would be to consolidate funding for GCMs ( basically fund the best one and consolidate efforts ) and launch Glory
Tom Scharf,
I know. Actually get this:
Using a vacation might make more sense to a taxpayer.
More sensible people are quoted near the end:
Some of them say they are going to quit. Realistically, they are unlikely to do so. Most want to continue getting a paycheck and finding an well paying job in the private sector would be difficult for most especially if a whole bunch of them quit.
The article mentioned the EPA has an older than average staff. So more than the average number may retire. We’ll see whether Trump hires in or not.
If we increased funding to GCMs by 10x, would they even get 10% better? It seems the most effective way to improve results is collecting more long term observations. The path forward on policy seems uncorrelated to GCM funding.
Also in the ‘dog bites man’ class is this: http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060045683
If states want to shoot themselves in the foot, I doubt that Trump would even think about trying to stop them. My bet is that California’s population growth rate will decline. It will take a massive hit if Trump somehow manages to deport illegal immigrants.
Tom Scharf,
One of the most satisfying news articles I have read in a long time. 😉
Seriously, the people I have met who worked for the EPA were uniformly hostile to all business activity, all development, and consistently inclined to dole out ‘punishment’. It is an agency that has been captured by green organizations and is, IMO, in need of rather drastic funding cuts, along with revised enabling legislation (Clean air act, clean water act, and more) to rein in overreach and avoid capture by greens in the future.
DeWitt –
I don’t think it is the federal government’s place to stop states from shooting themselves in the foot.
In related news, some Californians are considering secession. More power to them, I say.
SteveF,
When you’re talking about a nuclear waste repository, the definition of ‘back yard’ becomes more expansive, like a whole state.
I didn’t realize until just now that there are other applicable acronyms: NOPE (Not On Planet Earth) and BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone).
Back to the Presidential campaign for a moment…I ran across a Pepperdine law professor suggesting that state legislatures act to block Trump.
[Edit: to be clear, this was some months ago, not a recent article.]
SteveF,
That wasn’t true at the beginning. A friend of mine was in the analytical section that was responsible for emission analysis of the company where I worked when the Clean Water Act came into effect. He was impressed with the EPA people he had to interact with. They were interested in getting things done, not obstruction. But that was a long time ago. As you say, the greens have captured the agency.
Lucia,
“…a job in the private sector would be difficult for most especially if a whole bunch of them quit.”
.
More than that, it is the existence of the EPA, and its ever growing regulatory apparatus, which might motivate private employers to hire them… compliance is not optional, and often requires considerable expertise/knowledge of the regs. If regulations become less onerous and less numerous, then the demand for people with knowledge of the regs is going to fall. Perhaps they could all go to work for Greenpeace, or maybe harvest farm produce for $15 per hour…. a truly green job that would also help reduce demand for undocumented workers.
HaroldW,
Apparently this guy wasn’t aware that the majority of state legislatures are controlled by Republicans. I haven’t run the numbers, but I suspect that number includes a sufficient number of electoral college votes.
HaroldW,
Humm… California leave the Union? I vaguely remember that question was resolved sometime around 1865, at considerable cost. Are these people so disconnected from reality as to imagine they can just walk away from the Union? I fear they are. Just more melting snowflakes.
DeWitt –
I think he understood that, but he was pushing the idea that the Republican Establishment wasn’t enamored of Trump. Hence, there might well be red states where the legislators could take back the selection of electors from the populace. Just for this election, mind you. I can’t tell if he really didn’t expect an uproar from citizens which would unseat many/most of those who so voted, or whether he just hoped that they would “do the right thing” even if it cost them their political career.
Dewitt
Any changes need to be finalized by the 13th.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/key-dates.html
Article 1, Section 10
Powers Prohibited of States
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
.
(my bold) A change in law at the State level may not be ex post facto, as a change in how electors are selected following an election would certainly be. Does a professor of law really know so little about the Constitution? Sure seems so.
If history is a guide, then a good very thorough audit of the EPA will uncover enough corruption and self-dealing to justify a tremendous clean up and reform of this rogue agency.
HaroldW,
“Just for this election, mind you. I can’t tell if he really didn’t expect an uproar from citizens which would unseat many/most of those who so voted, or whether he just hoped that they would “do the right thing†even if it cost them their political career.”
.
It is the kind of thing that could provoke organized violence; it is the craziest thing I have heard in a while. That guy is utterly nuts.
SteveF
He wrote it in March. At that time a state could have changed its laws for picking electors. Even then it was a rather fanciful notion which is why it didn’t happen.
SteveF,
Pepperdine is located in Malibu, CA. That might explain something. It’s also affiliated with the Church of Christ. I assume that Professor has tenure.
State legislatures can overrule the voting results. This nearly happened in 2000 in Florida, to decide the election. I think Marco Rubio was the speaker of the House that came into session to consider it.
Lucia
One confusion over the use of the term “ratify” is the PA uses that language.
so they say 109 countries have ratified… by their definition of ratifying
but we all knew this.. we all knew that their use of the term is not what you are talking about.
so we have ratified, and then again we haven’t
Personally, I would not withdraw from the agreement.
Look at the work plan they have for the next 4 years.
lots of room for mischief
lucia,
“At that time a state could have changed its laws for picking electors.”
OK, the State legislature can change the method of selecting electors before an election, not after. But there would have been be little motivation back in March, because most people (certainly most fevered professors in California!) never expected Trump to be elected. No state legislature would do it…. pure political suicide to say ‘Sorry, we can’t trust you voters to choose what candidate gets the States electoral votes this November’.
mikeN,
Sorry, I completely disagree. That is like saying bananas are almost the same as grapes.
Steve Mosher,
“Personally, I would not withdraw from the agreement.”
.
But Trump will. Or send it to the Senate to be formally rejected. Either way, it’s toast.
“If we increased funding to GCMs by 10x, would they even get 10% better? ”
Since they are only off by about 10% I wasnt suggesting an increase in funding.. but rather consolidation of efforts.. fewer GCMs.
the spagetti graphs of 30 models are annoying and not pretty.
i like pretty things.
Basically GCMs do an astounding job with a rather complex system.
Its a miracle that they get the absolute temperature as close to the real thing as they do.
If you did a 15 year plan for your own finances and got as close you’d pat yourself on the back..
.
MikeN,
The Florida legislature wasn’t convened to overrule the voting results. One could argue that there were no voting results at the time because they were tied up in court. But the state was required to report results by December 12. That became moot when the US Supreme Court ruled on December 12, 2000 that the certification of results by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris giving Florida to Bush would stand.
Steven Mosher,
You are correct that I am using the American definition– especially with regard to international agreements. We in the US use “ratify” very specifically precisely because that word is in the constitution. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that the PA choses “ratify” precisely to give the impression that the signatories has taken the formal actions required to bind their countries.
What mischief do you see as possible?
Mosher,
BTW, this is
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/sites/climaterealityproject.org/files/Paris_Agreement_Toolkit-Edit.pdf
They seem to make the distinction between “signing” (which Obama did) and “ratifying”.
I’m all for the liberal states seceding from the union, then they will very quickly find out where all their food comes from, ha ha. Let’s see if their neighborhood organic urban gardens can feed a city.
Washington would literally burn down if they pulled any shenanigans with the electoral college, a million tractor march, and I might be the guy first in line with a torch. I know this is just a liberal circle jerk to release some anger, but they really shouldn’t even talk about this.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
§ 1. The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.
Failure to make choice on prescribed day
§ 2. Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
§ 5. If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html
It looks like a state could manufacture a controversy and then pick new electors.
Mike–
Florida must have fallen under § 2 in 2000. I guess a state house could concoct some reason they claimed the Nov 8 election had failed to result in a determination. I doubt they could get sufficient number together to agree to vote that had occurred. If they did, lawsuits would ensue. It would be a mess.
Anyway, it’s not happening.
Strictly speaking, Trump isn’t the President elect until the Electoral College votes. The next step before that is the states officially reporting their results by December 12.
This is more from “climaterealityproject” which is filled with all sorts of “obligations” and “commitments”. If, in fact, the document is truly “non-binding” these presumably are “not obligations” and “not commitments”.
Non-binding ought to mean there are no “obligations”.
If the agreement is non-binding, presumably the US can fail to review, not submit anything to the review and fail to make any new commitments.
Lucia,
“If they did, lawsuits would ensue.”
.
I think organized violence might well ensue. Only crazy people and weepy melting snowflakes could imagine this sort of thing could ever turn out well.
SteveF – The prohibition against ex post facto laws applies specifically to criminal law…at least as the Supreme Court has interpreted it for centuries. See Calder v. Bull:
(Justice Chase)
(Justice Patterson)
(Justice Iredell)
This was before Justice Marshall started the practice of having a uniform opinion of the majority — the judges would all write separate opinions even if they agreed with each other — but anyway, they considered the doctrine settled.
Joseph W,
Wow. Thanks, I would never have gotten that from reading the Constitution. I sure hope the Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin legislatures are not so unwise as to try to ‘undo’ the election results. I think it could lead to a lot of violence if they did.
JosephW,
I checked: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin have legislatures with both upper and lower chambers with Republicans in control. Trump will receive those States’ electoral college votes.
SteveF,
Some ideas about legislatures doing things between the election and convening of electors are practical impossibilities because legislatures may have gone home.
I googled and evidently, in Wisconsin, bills are passed during scheduled “floor periods”. My impression from this schedule is the most recent floor period ended May 17 and 18, 2016. That was the “veto review periods”.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/session
If that’d correct, WI doing something about electors would require them to:
1) all decide to reconvene.
2) actually reconvene — get necessary quorums
3) Introduce some sort of bill.
4) Debate it — going through their entire process.
5) As their legislature is surely bicameral, pass in their house and senate.
6) Send to governor Walker (GOP), he has to sign pretty promptly.
As it’s unlikely they had any inkling who they would want to replace Trump with and the entire process would likely be political suicide for at least some, I can’t imagine they could do this by Dec 13, which is an absolute deadline for this. Walker might like to be president himself, but he’d make a shit-wad of GOP enemies if he advocated they direct electors to vote for him. Paul Ryan is also from WI. He wouldn’t want them to put him up for it- he wants to stay Speaker of the House which he would not if WI did this!
I’m sure we’d find similar situations if we googled other states.
I fail to understand those who think Trump CAN NOT submit the Paris Accord to the Senate. He is head of the executive branch and gets to do things. In fact he is required “to do” things. He does not need to support the submission with anything other than to state it is his opinion as the POTUS that the Paris Accord needs to be ratified by the Senate OR it is not binding.
As pointed out, if he does this for this or lots of things he can be sued. So what.That is OK, since that is how such things get decided as to their legality or not, at least sometimes. Some things are fluid, such as the EPA MAY regulate such and such by such and such reasoning. They may decide not to do it. Maybe unlikely maybe not.
In fact, a president can “break” a law and if not impeached and convicted, and spend lots of time and money of the USA doing these things.
Ex post facto laws: Joseph W. You did a real good job. Must be a good historian. The Wikipedia article on ex post fact laws seems to be very good and cites other cases. See United States section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States
….
Snowflake Law School: The University of Michigan’s law school was hosting a Lego and play doh extravaganza as a stress buster following the election that was set up by the law school’s embedded psychologist. I guess this is what you get for $54,600 a year tuition. See http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/12/university-of-michigan-law-school-tries-and-fails-to-scrub-trump-trauma-play-doh-event-from-website/ (Full disclosure — I went to Ohio State)
JD
Lucia, in 2000, I think they did convene the House, while the Senate was calm.
John Pittman,
I think he can submit it if he wishes. However:
1) If he does not submit, it’s not binding.
2) If he submits and they reject, it’s not binding.
3) If he submits and they accept, it’s binding.
The only open question viz submission is :What would the purpose in doing so be? Those who want it want to make some sort of point. I think the point is equally well made by not submitting, pointing out it is not a ratified treaty and be done. Option 1 is much less fuss, takes up less time and give Trump and the Senate time and energy to work on more politically important things.
Basically: Is it worth the political capital to submit and get it rejected? I think no because it’s a waste of political capital that could be better spent changing obamacare, working on reversing regulations, advancing political appointments (e.g. Scotus) and doing things that are actually useful.
Others think it’s worth political capital to do this “dance of rejection” in 2.
“Steven Mosher,
You are correct that I am using the American definition– especially with regard to international agreements. We in the US use “ratify†very specifically precisely because that word is in the constitution. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that the PA choses “ratify†precisely to give the impression that the signatories has taken the formal actions required to bind their countries.
What mischief do you see as possible?”
Ya if you check the agreement they use the word ratify.. so the US has ratified by THEIR definition, but not by the definition we use in this country
Slick.
As for Mischief.. Look at the work plan.. they have to figure out and agree to all sorts of stuff in the future… especially on transparency.
If you stay engaged (until 2020 at least ) you can turn their processes into nightmares ( what folks have to report, how they report it ect etc etc ) and then leave.
bascially work from the inside to make it an unworkable mess and then leave it
I don’t get all of the attention focused on the Paris “Agreement.” By its terms it is not enforceable on the US or any of the other signatories. (It uses the word “should” instead of “shall” See my earlier post). Also, it has no enforcement mechanism. There is no reason to submit a publicity ploy to the Senate. Even if the Senate approved it, as it is currently written, it wouldn’t require the US or other countries to do anything.
JD
JD, it requires the US to submit progress reports. It also permits other countries and groups in the US to declare the US in violation.
I’m not sure if adjusted emissions trajectories are allowed under the agreement, but if so, there is room for lots of mischief.
StevenMosher
But Trump can’t be sure he’ll win in 2020, so the risk is turn it to a nightmare and your successor deals with that.
MikeN: ” It also permits other countries and groups in the US to declare the US in violation.”
It is violation of nothing. All Trump has to say is that the “Agreement” is non-binding on everyone and that, in addition to the economic costs, there is no reason to sign an agreement that was designed to be non-binding. If people want to criticize the US outside of a non-binding agreement they can. They will also criticize us in essentially the same way if the Senate rejects the treaty, which it will. By placing the treaty before the Senate, you are simply giving the Democrats and the AGWers a chance to posture because they can vote in favor of anything, knowing that it won’t pass anyway.
JD
Steve Mosher, It is a very low bar to say GCM’s get the GMT within 10% after all the tuning etc. Simple energy balance models do as well and their tuning is far more transparent. GCM’s one would hope would provide more detail such as regional climate. They seem to fail at that rather badly. So, I don’t get your defense of GCM’s for climate. Seems like there is little value added..
JD Ohio,
Yep. And it doesn’t make it any more rejected than if Trump just deposited a paperwork saying we withdrawn, simultaneously announce that the US isn’t going to be participating in anyway.
Tom Sharf: What you propose is that the US give up all of it’s most important naval bases and 99.9% of it intellectual property? That’s just as silly as the Calexit blather. No one’s going anywhere so there is no need to act hysterical.
Mosher is full of it. He still thinks GCMs are models. They don’t work like CFD models used in aerospace. However, he is right. We can expect warming as CO2 rises.
The way to plan policy is to pick an RCP, say 4.5 and make that the ideal goal and pick RCP 6.0 and make that the not to exceed redline.
If after 25 years (~2040), the temps are higher than expected, adjust the plan accordingly. If they are lower, keep with it for another 25 years and reset from there.
The initial stage could be accomplished by replacing coal with LNG while advanced nuke is developed. This will also slow down the blackening and melting of the arctic ice cap while improving air quality in China and India.
Then, we have all that coal in reserve for making plastics, chemicals and other synthetics.
Sauce, goose, gander…
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/26/climate-change-as-a-political-process/#comment-668857
Steven Mosher (Comment #155885)
” GCMs are only off by about 10%
the spaghetti graphs of 30 models are annoying and not pretty.
Basically GCMs do an astounding job with a rather complex system.
Its a miracle that they get the absolute temperature as close to the real thing as they do.”
–
There is a time frame which is rather important, 10% off in only 30 years could be > 100% off in 120 years and since we are using them for longterm projections this should be acknowledged.
There is a number of models which is rather important, 300 or 3000 models would only be the start of a reasonable sample.
In medicine and maths you would be laughed at using such a small sample size
Since there are only 30 and the time frame is only 30+ years and they are all calibrated to match at the start it would be a miracle if they were not in the ballpark really.
Basically GCMs do an astounding con job on trying to deal with a rather complex system.
Its a miracle that they get the absolute temperature as close to the real thing as they do.
.
Hmmmm…..
.
Absolute temperatures appear to range by 3C.. Assuming reality is somewhere in the middle of this range ( not a given ), then the models are off by +/- 1.5C
.
Since 1C is about a doubling of CO2, 1.5C is about a tripling of CO2.
.
So the models which were motivated to solve what would happen with a doubling of CO2 are off by 300% of the phenomenon one is attempting to predict.
Lucia:
1. As you point out, the PA uses ratify. It has political meaning.
2. POTUS is not just the leader on domestic issues but international as well.
3. As such, there will be international political capital to consider, such that a international stance may be more favorable than the domestic stance you outlined in reply to me.
I think the international stance outweighs the domestic political capital cost because he can use it to generate domestic political capital for himself.
1. As you note, he can simply do nothing and walk away. This will considered by both other countries and the Democrats as political fodder to assault his position. Although it has no enforcement other than shaming, this plays into their favor not Trump’s.
2. By stating that it needs to be ratified by the Senate since it uses that word, he directly challenges its authority over the his and he puts himself in the back up position that he can punt the treaty as a non binding poorly worded document. Not his fault.
3. By declaring that it has been the USA’s long time stance that a ton of CO2 is a ton of CO2 no matter who emits it, it is therefore unacceptable that China as the world’s first or second largest economy is not held to the same standard, which will be a domestic victory in domestic political capital.
4. He should come out and say it now for the same reasons you and others have pointed out. He can always after being sworn in, reconsider, and choose what course he thinks is most beneficial.
All above, assumes that the Democrats, especially those who are adamant about addressing climate change now, are not really interested in his success, but their own.
John F Pittman,
1. I think you are wrong. Walking away does not play into the DEMs favor. Anything against climate is “political fodder” for the Dems. The basket full of fodder is so huge that adding to it makes zero difference to the ability of Dems to say things in public. So I don’t think “political fodder” is worth worrying about. And beyond that: if the agreement is exited once and for all, we subtract all the “subsequent fodder” for each and ever individual action that will be said to mean we are violating the agreement. WRT to newscycles, one clean break is better than keeping the DEM talking point alive. Doing 1 — tearing off the bandaid quickly– is very much in Trumps favor.
2. To be valid as a treaty it must be ratified. It’s not. There is no requirement that it be submitted and rejected to not be valid as a treaty. So wrt to that: he doesn’t need to submit it to make the point that it was never submitted and ratified. And bear in mind: politically, it’s not just Trump that needs power– so does the GOP Senate. Submitting to the Senate means he is forcing everyone in the Senate to have to discuss and defend this– often back home. Since an effective Senate is part of his capital, this will use up lots of capital and time. And bear in mind: The first 100 days are critical. Wasting Senate time on an issue that achieves nothing is not an effective use of the limited time afforded by those first 100 days.
Maybe he should do this. Maybe not. But it tends to use up a lot of political capital. I tend to think that political capital would best be used to do things, not try to put extra decorative icing flowers on a cake that is already baked, iced and ready to eat.
Beyond: I don’t think it’s either accurate or helpful to say the rejection by the Senate will be seen as “not his fault”. Those who want to stay in Paris will still see his taking active moves to exit as his fault– and he will have taken an act to submit to the Senate with the intention of getting it rejected. No one who dislikes Trump or the idea of exiting will think he’s a passive person to whom this “just happened”. And beyond that: even whoever might think this is “not his fault”: Trump still loses power because he will have wasted precious time on something that was unnecessary and does not advance the causes they care about: Economy, Trade, Regulations, Fixing/Reversing Obamacare.
Honestly, it’s not in his interest to spend a ‘yuge’ amount of time discussing climate either now or in the first 100 days in office. His focus should be: Economy, SCOTUS appointment, Obamacare reversal, deregulation, who to appoint at head of various agencies– and what directions he can give them. That’s where he needs to talk and act.
Obviously, he can’t reverse any previous executive acts until he is in office. Once he’s in office, if he wants out of Paris, he should have his people file the formal paperwork, announce we are not in, and do this with the minimum amount of rhetoric possible. There will still be some, but this is not a situation where he needs to spend lots of time “educating” and so on. If he wants the bandaid off: tear it off quickly and with the minimum of discussion is a better political move for him.
Others may want him to do other things– but their reasons often have to do with “making a point” (possibly about the constitution.) But it’s likely unwise politically to worry too much about making or scoring points– especially any attempts to score points about constitutional interpretation — if the point scoring done outside SCOTUS.
It’s probably better to worry about getting certain things done and leave arguing actual constitutional points to later on when people who want to reverse things he actually did by bringing suits. At that point, issues like “can he just walk away”– if justiciable — can be argued in court. He needs to give enough considerations to his actions to win in court– but wrt to Paris, that shouldn’t be remotely difficult.
lucia,
I agree on the political capital thing, although I would rather use bandwidth than capital. Nobody but the climate obsessed really cares about the Paris Accords. A recent poll had most Americans wanting to spend less than $10/month/person on climate. A majority would spend $1 and the percentage dropped rapidly from there. His best move, IMO, would be to simply ignore the issue. He has far more immediate and important issues on the table like the ACA, tax cuts and regulation, and that’s what he should say if asked a direct question.
While it is well known that constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to criminal cases as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the fact that other laws can be changed ex post facto should give one pause about the power that gives government. We can call it the rule of changing law.
Based on the way Trump campaigned, I suggest he could care less about “political capital”. He burned uncountable metric tons of political capital on his way to the White House. I expect he will govern the same way.
The standard way to do this is the put the sword through the heart on day one of your presidency so everyone has forgotten by the time the next election shows up. The left has already had the funeral for the Paris agreement this last week, it will surprise nobody if he follows through. It is a pointless exercise because the agreement is window dressing. If Trump was wise (is anyone accusing him of this?) he would trade the window dressing of the Paris agreement for support from the left on something more important (Supreme Court, ACA, etc.).
If anyone is interested in feeding their anti-elitist addiction, you can read this nauseating piece.
A Newly Vibrant Washington Fears That Trump Will Drain Its Culture
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/us/politics/a-newly-vibrant-washington-fears-that-trump-will-drain-its-culture.html?_r=0
“Liberal and environmental groups are determined to stay and fight. Debbie Sease, who heads lobbying for the Sierra Club, presided over a gut-punched office of employees who took silent Metro rides into work last week and hung “free hugs†signs on their desks. She expects an invigorated resistance to come to Washington, bringing moral outrage as well as sophisticated palates. “I’d be surprised if all the good restaurants disappear or become steakhouses,†she said.”
Here is a link that argues for ex post facto applying to civil cases.
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1995/11/cj15n2-3-4.pdf
Lucia, as I read her view on how to end the US role in the PA, is on the right path. It is not worth the trouble and complications of asking the Senate to kill off what is not a treaty in the first place. Kill it the way it was created, put an end to the funding, and don’t look back
From Tom Scharf’s Link:
Like the high crime rate. You win some, you lose some.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
And the great public school system. /sarc
I heard a lot of talk prior to the national elections about the demise of the Republican party and now after the elections I hear some, but not as much, talk about the demise of the Democrat party. The Republicans increased their hold on the national and state governments in this cycle but neither party was or is on the verge of demise. I say that being an advocate of multiple parties and getting away from the two party system. These exaggerations are usually motivated by political agendas and are on scale something like the “Super” moon that actually appears only 7% larger in diameter than the average moon and 15% brighter.
Tom Scharf
On the contrary. I think he carefully observed what does and does not hurt his chances– that’s paying careful attention to capital.
I think he doesn’t care about alienating those who would never support him: they aren’t “capital” and having them continue to not support him isn’t “wasting capital”. He won’t care much if Democrats criticize him — and that’s by John Pittman’s 1 doesn’t quite work. (This was 1
The Democrats aren’t his “capital”. The Republicans are.
I think he’s very much going to care about getting his own interests advanced or reducing his power to get it done. In that regard he shouldn’t (and I think doesn’t )want to waste his capital — which are the powers of his office, the time and effort of GOP senators and members of the house. He’ll should (and likely will) want that capital to be spent focusing on the important agenda: deregulation, SCOTUS, overturning obama care and so on. Wasting time “educating” on climate or “showing” democrats by having long unnecessary debates in the senate about Climate– I think he’s not going to want to do that. And doing so would waste his capital.
DeWitt
I hear Trump likes charters and vouchers.
Lucia,
I’m going to go ahead and disagree with you on the “careful observation” part. It is arguable that Trump’s buffoonery is planned genius, but I’m having a hard time applying that to some of his antics such as demeaning gold star families. He alienated Republicans just as much (well maybe not quite as much). If anyone thinks they have decoded Trump’s thinking, they will be proven wrong tomorrow, I have given up on this and look forward to a wild ride which hopefully doesn’t include any missile launches that purposefully land inside the US.
Other people do believe in political capital and they do care, so it’s not like it is irrelevant. Trump not caring about political legacies of the left / right and purity tests is total upside from my point of view (remember “raise your hand if you will not promise to support the Republican nominee”).
The most compelling argument is Trump wants to “win”, and what that means is a moving target updated daily.
Joseph W., JD Ohio, Kenneth Fritsch –
Thanks for the discussion of the issue of ex post facto laws. I have to say, I’m horrified that civil laws are excluded; that seems so…illogical.
HaroldW,
‘horrified’
Indeed. So a State can enter into a contract with a private entity (say, a contractor to build a roadway), and then after the road is complete, reneg on the contract and refuse to pay…. Just pass a law which says ‘Payments to contractor XYZ are hereby illegal’. Wow, just wow.
Tom Scharf,
I agree that Trump probably does not think in terms of political capital like most politicians do. I do suspect he has a reasonable sense of what is politically ‘easy’ and what is ‘difficult’; I think the first crisis will be when 48 democrats in the Senate filibuster many of his cabinet nominees.
As far as I can tell, they are in no mood to give Trump his cabinet nominees like the Republicans gave Obama his cabinet. They act like the election didn’t happen, or maybe is not legitimate and ‘shouldn’t count’. It’s weird. The Senate democrats are defending 10 Senate seats in States won by Trump. If they are simply obstructing everything, they are in real danger of dropping below 40 seats… at which point, the Republicans would slaughter every ‘progressive’ sacred cow they care about. They need to be very careful.
SteveF: “Payments to contractor XYZ are hereby illegal”.
No that can not be done, since there is a contract.
The allowing of retrospective laws seems to be extremely narrow: “laws which only vary the remedies, divest no right, but merely cure a defect in proceedings otherwise fair, are valid”. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Retrospective
I think Chris Christie would have trouble getting confirmed, but Giuliani will be OK.
Mike M.–
The Cato article linked above suggests that it is not so narrow:
Mike M,
I would argue that voters going to the polls under a statute which specifies the selection of electors represents a binding ‘contract’ between the state and the voters. Seems to me the SC justices have been often obtuse from the beginning of the Union. Fortunately, this election outcome is not going to lead to any ex post facto laws.
We have not had a legal opinion here, but I assume the contracts clause does not cover an ex post facto law that could change how the elecorial process operates in a national presidential election after the fact.
Kenneth,
Legal opinion or not, it is the kind of thing you would expect to find in a banana republic, or perhaps were guns ate unlawful. Were it to ever happen here, I suspect armed violence would follow.
SteveF
Countries can renege and have. Those states end up putting their economies in the trash. Definitely “banana republic” move.
Alexander Hamilton advised against the US doing that. He won the argument back then; let us how the Feds continue to follow that sage advise.
Mind you: we are likely to see cities and states declaring bankruptcy especially if public workers pensions are controlled.
Just pass a law which says ‘Payments to contractor XYZ are hereby illegal’. Wow, just wow.
That runs into several issues — depriving them of property (their right to payment) without due process of law, the Obligation of Contract Clause (states can’t make laws “impairing the obligation of contracts”), and the Bill of Attainder clause. For the latter see U.S. v. Lovett, which is fairly similar to the situation you describe. In general, you can’t pass laws that say, “Punish this one guy,” and that includes, “You can’t pay him.”
So, no, while that would not be an ex post facto law, the Constitution has more protections than just that.
P.S. – It might also be a “taking without just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment, depending on just what the state had gotten from the contractor. And probably other things I’m not thinking about.
HaroldW,
The retroactive aspects of General Motors Corp. v. Evert Romein appear to have been very narrow.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/503/181/case.html
As near as I can tell, a court interpreted the law in an unexpected way, and the legislature then passed a law to make things right, including the period that passed between the court decision and the legislative act and overriding an attempt by GM to apply the court decision retroactively.
“Just pass a law which says ‘Payments to contractor XYZ are hereby illegal’. Wow, just wow.”
Actually SteveF we have a situation in IL where vendors doing business with the state have not been paid on a regular basis and some are many months in arrears. How the state prioritizes payments I would guess is on some arbitrary basis by the Comptroller. If you are a deadbeat state like IL you do not have to write a law to do what you said but merely delay payment to that entity forever or until the state defaults on its debts. IL cannot go bankrupt and instead would default.
There is much that is arbitrary in governments and much more so than we are taught in Civics 101.
Below is a link to a rather comprehensive discussion of retroactive laws.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/-retroactive-legislation_155633329059.pdf
“The best example (of a retroactive law) is the so-called Superfund law, which Congress passed in 1980 to deal with hazardous waste sites, as it has been interpreted by the courts. This law, officially known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),20 can impose massive retroactive liability on individuals or companies who generated, delivered, or owned waste that is found at a contaminated site.”
I was involved in Super Fund action against a company for which I once worked. Our company legally disposed of waste with companies that later were charged with responsibility for contaminated waste sites. Many of those companies could not financially handle the fines or the cost of cleanup and under the Super Fund retroactive law the federal agencies went after the companies with big pockets who were accessed a supposedly proportional payment for the cleanup. We had records of what waste and how much we had disposed with a given waste company, but we estimated that we were apportioned at a considerably higher rate than our records indicated.
Joseph W
You are making me feel a little better, but the issue that got all this going was if State legislatures can simply reverse an election result by changing the rules AFTER the public has already voted. What say you?
A case that extensively discusses Ohio’s Retroactivity Constitutional Provision is found at the bottom of the page on the link I am providing. Retroactivity analysis in Ohio often turns on whether one has a vested interest. It can get real complicated and subtle. See http://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2016/SCO/0504/141769.asp#.WCt-1ckYFvs
SteveF, I think we have to ask ourselves whether we are comforted by depending on a court ruling on these issues and whether we are even confident that those rulings will not change from one case to another or over time.
That link I gave above on retroactive laws gives me no comfort in these matters – although I really liked how in depth the discussion was and how even laws not defined as retrospective and/or retroactive can in affect go against the concept of the rule of law.
I know that Bush v. Gore partly turned on whether the state government (in the person of its Supreme Court) could change the rules after the ballots were cast. “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, Florida may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another. See, e. g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665.” Arguably this would be an extreme case of that, since the votes of voters would be discounted to zero while the votes of legislators would be elevated extremely.
That suggests “no” but I don’t have time to reread it carefully or chase links to other case law in this area just now.
I see that Article II of the Constitution gives Congress the power “to determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” And I see that in 3 U.S.C. 1 Congress said the electors would be appointed on the Election Day we all know, after which are provisions concerning what to do if the electors were not appointed on the right day. (Basically, the state gets to decide how the electors are chosen and how controversies are decided, as long as they do so with laws that were already in place before Election Day, see 3 U.S.C. 5.) That suggests to me that a post-Election Day surprise would not be allowed….not because of the ex post facto clause or one of the others we’ve been discussing, but because of the structure of Article II and the power of Congress to set limits on when the electors are chosen, plus possibly the “equal protection” issue raised in Bush v. Gore.
Here is wikipedia description which comports with my memory: “Although ballots list the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates (who run on a ticket), voters actually choose electors when they vote for president and vice president. These presidential electors in turn cast electoral votes for those two offices. Electors usually pledge to vote for their party’s nominee, but some “faithless electors” have voted for other candidates or refrained from voting.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Evolution_to_the_general_ticket
I am pretty sure each candidate chooses his own slate of electors. Since the electors, in a sense, have individually won an election, it makes no sense to say that a State could modify its procedures after an election. Since the candidate chooses his or her own electors, the chance of them going off the reservation is small. Still, it is an outdated procedure.
JD
Joseph W,
Thanks. That does seem to put a post election ‘reversal’ out of reach. I appreciate your several comments on this subject.
.
JDOhio,
re: antiquated system. Be careful what you wish for. Any revision of the electoral college system would lead to demands for a popular vote only presidency. Some believe that would be more ‘fair’. I would see it as a step toward the tyranny of the majority, which I think the Constitution was designed to avoid.
This link is in agreement with what JD and Joseph W have said about the electoral college process.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html
I am curious though about the Joseph W reference to US Code where Congress spells out the rules for electors and dates for changes. That code refers to congressional law enactments and thus the question might be whether that law could be changed retroactively.
North Carolina governor’s race may get decided by the state legislature, overturning a Democratic win.
JD, the voting for electors means that JFK did not win the popular vote. Official tallies credit him with votes given to a Democratic slate in Alabama that was explicitly anti-Kennedy, voting for Byrd I think.
SteveF:
Agree completely. As long as the present distribution of political sentiment continues, citizens in the red states will have an advantage in the electoral college, as they do in the Senate. But that is not a reason to change this method.
This may be true in the winner-take-all-states as well, where all of the electoral votes can will represent the choice of only a simple majority or possibly a plurality of the voters in that state, thus denying any voice to the the minority.
Winner-take-all would presumably die with the electoral college.
Here’s French President Hollande telling Trump that the PA is an irreversible agreement. Heh. I’m sure President Elect Trump will be very impressed…
mark bofill,
I don’t know in what sense Holland thinks it’s irreversible; perhaps it is. But Article 28 says parties can withdraw. Our withdrawing doesn’t destroy it; presumably it continues to exist. But if we withdraw, that would have nothing to do with us.
“There is no reason to submit a publicity ploy to the Senate. Even if the Senate approved it, as it is currently written, it wouldn’t require the US or other countries to do anything.
JD”
.
Lucia argues that no political capital should be wasted, even though failing a 2/3 senate ratification would be as hard as putting on socks. But Republicans need immigration and health care reforms. The best way for that is not to repeat the go-it-alone mistakes of Obama, but to get legislation through. With 60 votes threshold needed in the senate this is where one could use the PA as a bargaining chip to get Dem compromise. If it worked Trump will have broken gridlock, built unity, gotten reforms cemented in legislation, all for a non-binding agreement. Then,reform NOAA, NASA, NSF and EPA, allow satellite record to gain authority as the official GMST and the PA may become a very low issue for the world. If the pause does not resume for the next 4 years then legitimately alternative energy should be promoted.
.
Also, I am thinking the Stein v Mann case should get going any year now. Revisiting MBH98 and Climategate in a courtroom could be the Scopes trial of the 21st century exposing climate science religion.
.
Lucia, I am 100% with you 80% of the time but I feel the conservatives must be the ones to heal the divide, not simply repeat the Obama mistake and say, “Elections have consequences. We don’t need you.”
Ron,
It’s not hard but it will consume time and news cycles. Time that could be spent on something else; news cycles that could cover something else.
So, are you open to staying in PA? If yes. Then you can use it as a bargaining chip. But if no, you can’t use it as a bargaining chip for… something. What, dunno. But something. Perhaps he could get something with it.
My view on killing quietly and quickly assumes that Trump wants out. Not that he is indifferent enough to use it as a bargaining chip. But certainly, if he is willing to stay in, he could use it as a bargaining chip.
Congress and the legislature doens’t have the power to decrees what is the “official” GMST. Trying to do that is like trying to get congress to decree π = 3 “officially”.
I’m all for conservative trying to heal the divide and reach across aisles.
But I’m not sure what healing steps you are suggesting. Encouraging a loud, raucus discussion of PA by submitting ratification is not a step that can “heal” any divide; it’s more like taking an unnecessary kick to the groin when you would have won already. Trying to “decree” the satellite temperature “official” cannot “heal” any divide. Those trying to achieve that change would lose and create more discord at the same time.
Wouldn’t be great to see the Democrat sell out the undocumented guests and those on Obamacare subsidies for climate? There are so many ways this can be played if Priebus is as good as they say.
Lucia: “Encouraging a loud, raucous discussion of PA by submitting ratification is not a step that can “heal†any divide. Trying to “decree†the satellite temperature “official†cannot “heal†any divide.”
.
My point it the order in which the chess moves are made has significance. Right now, after 8+ years of propoganda, fighting climate by brute force, when being labeled an anti-science moron, is bad politics and unnecessary. If one is confident that the right move that climate alarm will fade after agencies have conservative administration and the pause continues, then compliance will be a non issue even if it is ratified by the 2/3 senate vote. In other words, if the PA will depreciate in political importance over the next four years trade it. Revisit when its stock is lower.
Well, without doing any research, we can always look directly at the language in Article II that empowers Congress to enact these statutes (which I now see MikeN quoted before me):
“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors . . . The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
This is the Constitutional provision that allows Congress to enact those code sections, so they can’t enact in opposition to these provisions. My reading of the plain language is that it’s forward- rather than backward-looking; i.e., Congress doesn’t get to say, “the choice shall be made on November 9,” then change their minds on November 15 and say, “Haha, Ohio gets to re-pick their electors now.”
This is especially so as, in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decided to import an “equal protection” analysis (equal protection applies to the states through the 14th Amendment, but since the 50’s the Supreme Court has held that the 5th Amendment implies that the federal government must also grant equal protection). If one state got to re-pick their electors after all the others had gone, that state would arguably get outsized influence in the election — since they get to play kingmaker when the other results are known.
Unfortunately climate is a purity test for the left, and they won’t deal on it is my guess. The left has so many purity tests right now that I think it’s going to cause the filibuster to die over the Supreme Court appointments, and once that flood gate opens….
It’s possible that they may be so worried what crazy Trump may do, that slaying a few sacred cows might actually happen, that’s how crazy works to your advantage.
TE
“somewhere in the middle of this range ( not a given ), then the models are off by +/- 1.5C”
Yes. The actual temperature is 15C
getting within 10% is astounding.. near perfection
.
Ron
I’m fine with someone trading it. But I don’t have any notion what you think that means one would do to encourage a “trade” with something.
What if Trump submits to the Senate for ratification, and the vote is filibustered?
Zeke Hausfather, energy systems analyst and environmental economist at Berkeley Earth:
“ I certainly expect to be talking a lot more about geoengineering and overshoot scenarios now than I did a few days ago.â€
Funny that.
They did not exist before but in the new age one adapts to Climate change.
Is an overshoot scenario alternative lingo for “GCM’s are wrong by 10%” ?
angech,
I’m pretty sure “overshoot scenarios” means “The GMST increases more than +2C”.
But yes, I do expect people are going to talk more about geoengineering, carbon capture and so on.
Yes. The actual temperature is 15C
getting within 10% is astounding.. near perfection
.
No, it’s worthless.
.
The phenomenon to investigate is an increase in CO2.
.
Raising temperature by 1C is about 3.7W/m^2 of 2xCO2.
.
Being wrong by +/- 1.5C is about 3xCO2.
.
So the models are uncertaon by +/- 3x CO2 when they’re trying to model 2xCO2.
.
Now, all the models do indicate warming – something known well before GCMs.
.
But the models are very wrong and even getting worse.
Truly amazing. No one has ever done anything like that before. Let’s make a statue of it.
Andrew
MikeN
Then fails approval and is not ratified.
The political difficulty is it then becomes “a thing” with a news cycle and just goes on and on and on.
Lucia, Trump can’t ignore the PA. The press and Dems will hound the issue. Compromising to ratify it would disarm their attack without giving up anything of major value. The information war is won in the agencies and science reporting and climate reality. Most of the public do not understand the climate debate. They think the Earth is cooking up and the seas are rising in a dangerous and unprecedented way and the conservatives politicians are creationists in denial. The issue can be turned around with exposing that we don’t know how unprecedented and we don’t know how dangerous. Even with an “astounding” crystal ball that does not tell us anything we didn’t know about the future GMST, we still have no way to know what progress will be made on alternative energy and/or geoengineering.
.
A filibuster can be ended with 60 votes while a treaty ratification takes 67 votes, so there is no treaty filibuster.
.
Also, if the conservatives are willing to deal on the treaty it would disarm attacks of obstruction. Passing the treaty would disarm the world blaming the US for all its problems. And, we all know that it will not be complied with by half the countries that signed it. Let them be the ones to be its downfall.
Mosher: “getting within 10% is astounding.. near perfection”
Nonsense. For a first principles, no adjustable parameters calculation that would indeed be astounding. But I can take a simple energy balance box model and get exactly the right temperature, no matter what the right temperature might be. There is nothing even slightly impressive in getting close to the right answer when you have dozens of knobs to adjust.
Mike M.
Its akin to doing a crossword puzzle where you have some of the letters filled in and then looking in the back of the book to get the right answer and then filling the rest of it in.
Real impressive.
Andrew
Mosher and Mike M.
Please use Kelvin instead of Celsius for % comparisons
What matters is long term predictions, being within 10% after a decade when you have 50 years to look back on isn’t very impressive. I could have charged $50 and used a ruler to draw a straight line based off the data since 1970 and been within 10%.
We don’t know how accurate these models are for the big questions, namely climate sensitivity.
They have spent enormous amount of money and have failed to even narrow down estimates from 15 years ago, not impressive. Of course a lot of this is politics, if this estimate wasn’t so politically sensitive it likely would have been narrowed.
The jury is still out, they might be great with long term assessments. We won’t know for decades. It’s a useful exercise, but I think we may have hit a point of diminishing returns. Better to focus on clean energy technology.
Mosher and Mike M.
Please use Kelvin instead of Celsius for % comparisons
Off-topic:
Birds may be more concerned about global warming than humans. The little-noticed Paris Avian Agreement is producing an effect:
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-bird-excrement-cooling-arctic.html
Getting a model to match data to any arbitrary accuracy is meaningless when the modeler knows the answer. The only meaningful comparison is model projections (eg 0.23 C per decade predicted, versus ~0.13 per decade measured). There the models don’t look so hot (pun intended). Funding for multiple (expensive) modeling groups is one of the things I would cut if I were Trump… and transfer all those funds to measuring aerosol effects. Enough money has already been wasted on GCMs.
MikeM and Andrew are correct Stephen Mosher. Getting energy balance roughly right just means they did a good job of tuning all the parameters for the GMT history. It means nothing else. I can give you a paper by Tony Jameson where he actually implemented the basic method used in GCM’s for the Navier-Stokes equations and showed some pretty washed out dynamics. That’s why regional climate is badly predicted. This whole idea of integrating a weather model on a very coarse grid for centuries was criticized when Hansen proposed it for this reason. Hansen was wrong and really rather stupid to propose it without any understanding of the underlying science.
Thanks for your patience, Joseph W, and I do not mean to nitpick this issue but rather I am attempting to learn here. My question should perhaps have been more general and that is, given the restrictions that are provided by the constitution to prevent certain classes of retroactive legislation, could the Congress retroactively change the applicable US code as long as the change did not violate the provision in Article II that you noted. I am well aware that the federal and state governments can enact retroactive laws and evidently within the bounds of the US constitution. I also believe that some state constitutions have explicit provisions for preventing most classes of retroactive laws.
I interpret what you have posted is that the stipulations in Article II on Congressional action ties their hands with regards to retroactive legislative actions that could change the election outcome. I cannot argue against that opinion.
More on retroactive laws:
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/retroactive-tax-increases-and-the-constitution
“Two things inspired me to write a book about retroactive legislation. The first is the Superfund Law, which, as many of you know, retroactively imposes strict, joint, and several liability on firms that disposed of wastes long before the bill was passed in 1980. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)2 is, in a sense, a kind of retroactive tax, but it is imposed on those whom the government is easiest able to catch, and it may be imposed on someone whose actions may have been entirely reasonable and lawful at the time that he engaged in them.
The second event that inspired me to write the book was Bill Clinton’s retroactive tax increase in 1993. In fact, as I learned, as retroactive tax increases go, Clinton’s was not so bad and certainly not unprecedented. There have been far, far worse retroactive tax increases. Because I am speaking with Hill staffers, and you all love anecdotes, let me offer a few.”
Who once said at these blogs, and I paraphrase here, that a model’s usefulness depends on that for which it is being used, and now is throwing around temperature percentages without reference to use – or how that accuracy was obtained. Or maybe I missed something in the discussion.
Lucia, if there is a filibuster, you say it means it is not ratified. That logically means it is currently not ratified. However, the filibuster keeps it from being formally rejected.
There is nothing gained from pursuing the vote. There is the loss of conceding that the Senate must reject what the President signs, instead of merely having the new President throw it out.
MikeN, I think the Paris accord, agreement, whatever it is, has been confused by President Obama’s use of “commander and chief” power rather than the appropriate “negotiator of treaties” power under the US constitution. The constitution calls for a senate 2/3 vote to ratify a treaty for the USA. Part of the reason that Obama could get around this I suppose is the lack of legal obligation to comply, the words “should” instead of “shall” in the text, thus breaking this treaty would result in conflict. The founders wanted to prevent the president from getting the country into wars by making sure the states consented to foreign obligations.
It’s hard for me to see how they could retro-change the first few sections of Article 3, U.S. Code, without violating the scheme described in Article II of the Constitution. Especially if they did so in a way that gives one state, or a set of states, an outsized influence in the election (which, per Bush v. Gore, would likely be analyzed as a due process/equal protection violation).
If a Congressman asked me to give him an immediate, five-second yes-or-no, I would still give him the “no.” My reading of the scheme is that Congress is supposed to set a few of the conditions beforehand (including the date of decision), let the state legislatures decide the rest of the conditions, then abide by the result.
Another problem with such an effort is that, under the Twelfth Amendment, Congress already has a role to play in the Presidential election…namely, to pick the President if no one has got a majority in the Electoral College. If Congress got to change the rules for picking Electors by retroactive legislation (doubtless for the express purpose of changing the Election Day Results), they would be expanding their powers beyond the Article II/Twelfth Amendment scheme…also, the sitting President, by signing such legislation, would be giving himself a role in the selection process that he doesn’t have.
That’s my unresearched guess — but it seems pretty sound to me.
Antiquated Electoral College: When I made that remark, I was talking about the procedure of having individual electors with some discretionary authority. I think each state should just be allotted its share of electoral votes and the individual electors should be bypassed.
I think a national popular vote would almost certainly be very unwieldy and would in most cases require a runoff or lead to the development of multiple, highly ideological parties, such as exists in Israel.
JD
I understand what you say about the 100 days and political capital.But it is an international issue as well. I agree with you mostly. I definitely agree that it is important for Trump to work immediately on issues he wants to be successful.
http://time.com/4571421/francois-hollande-donald-trump-paris-agreement/
Because of international claims of ratification, and duty, I still think it is worth Trump’s time to take it before the Senate. I think he may well have to if it is taken to the world court. FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
Whether he takes it now or later, I can see your point about simply walking away and concentrating on items he wants to be successful.
I think that other countries will try to use pressure and that this will be equal or perhaps more distracting than submitting. As you pointed out, the Dems are likely to use anything as fodder. From my point of view instead of one senate with Dems we will have 50 countries setting up news cycles and the distraction of the day.
Meanwhile in Marrakech Mr Kerry maintains that things are business as usual. Hunky dory, A-OK, and the cheques will keep winging their way over. And 360 US companies call for continued transition to low carbon or something. To which one might reply: you go low carbon if you want to, if you feel so strongly about it.
“Americans believe in the reality of a warming planet,” according to Kerry. He does not grok that the quantity of the warming is the central issue.
Oh, and thanks for the chuckles, HaroldW. Priceless link, and valueless work.
JD, what if President collapses day after Election Day?
PEHarvey (Comment #155975)
Actually, it would be better to look at the error as a fraction of the greenhouse temperature effect. That is: we have a “base” answer that can be obtained from a simple radiation balance for a black body (Intercepted solar, emmissivity, surface area, surface temperature). The temperature difference between that and the actual earth temperature is all the stuff that one is trying to estimate by modeling things like effect of carbon in the atmosphere, reflectivity of ice, how much water is in the atmoshere and so on and so on.
Doing it this way, you find evaluate the efficacy of models by taking a ratio over a ratio; you can use K, C, F, R. Doesn’t matter: same answer either way.
But as Steve noted: the modelers ‘know’ the answer, so you’ll be getting a lower bound on the ability of models do caputure a “greenhouse” effect if you compare average temperature of the earth. It is better to have them predict trends. (Although that is hard to do because they need to predict the forcing too.)
MikeN — If you mean the current President, see the 25th Amendment. If you mean the President-Elect, see the 20th. (Except if the Electoral College hasn’t voted yet, presumably they will be free to vote for a living man instead of a dead one.)
Lucia (Comment #155989)
I agree and I would add that getting the “correct” answer with a model that gets the ratio of the warming of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres greatly different than the observed and has greatly different noise than the observed and has other parameters greatly different has to be greatly discounted.
I did say greatly different and not wrong since while a model can have multiple runs and we can obtain a distribution and a reasonable estimate of the mean we have only one realization of the observed and we can only estimate where an observed climate value resides on the model distribution.
Joseph W. (Comment #155983)
Thanks Joseph W for your detailed analysis on this matter. I guess there is no way Gary Johnson will become president in this cycle.
Not without the Orbital Mind Control Lasers, preferably working in conjunction with the Fiendish Fluoridators. Fnord.
Ron Graf
Ok… I’m not getting this. PA will depreciate in political importance to whom?
Right now, there is at least some element of people/govts who make a living by getting subsidies, grants, and etc. based on climate change. Many of these people/govts are outside the US Even if the US has a more conservative administration, they are still going to want to pressure developed countries to send money, set target and so on.
As long as we are officially parties to PA, these people will be pressing for actions. That’s true no matter what the domestic administration is or finds.
PA– an international agreement is not going to diminish in political importance merely because our domestic agencies are under conservative control. It especially will not diminish in importance if we are sending people to meetings, sending regular reports and actively participating– which is what happens if we don’t exit PA.
Now, I recognize there are people who don’t want to exit PA and perhaps they are right not to wish to exit it. But the reason they don’t wish to exit is precisely because they know that the entire purpose of PA is to create external international pressure to take action on climate change and to ensure that pressure persists despite any changes in domestic administrations.
Did people see more Trump ads or Hillary ads? Reportedly, Trump was far more effective, particularly in swing states. Hillary ran more ads in Omaha than Wisc and Mich combined.
Something unusual happening with temperatures at the DMI Daily Arctic mean temperatures north of 80N.
Way above normal for this time of year and prolonged.
Either DMI has some more serious explaining to do or something weird is happening to the climate.
I certainly hope the former.
De Witt??
angech,
Extreme variation in temperature above 80N in winter is not uncommon. It appears associated with an exchange of air mass with lower latitude regions (popular description is “change in the polar vortex”). IIRC, there has been a large region of exceptionally cold weather in west-central Siberia at the same time. It’s always possible there is a glitch in instrumentation or data processing, but this seems less likely.https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/repository/Temp_maps/Month_10_2016_plot_1_branded.jpg
Thanks SteveF. I will be happy when it goes either way.
Lucia, I understand your point, that to acknowledge international action is in order is to surrender the debate. I respectfully disagree. I think one can be for an “all of the above” energy policy, which would lower emissions of GHG in multi-pronged approach including reducing approval times on nuclear plants. This policy is aligned with getting off fossil fuel for non-climate reasons, although one does not need to say climate is a hoax to be against overplaying it with alarmism and dishonesty.
.
The goal of the US president should be to guide the optimal coarse through multiple conflicting factors. To succeed and make a case for re-election Trump will need to make the case that liberals were wrong on the science. That is going to take years and maybe another look at Climategate revealed bias through Mann v Steyn.
.
Scientific American is already denouncing Trump. To win on climate one needs to win the scientific argument. Brute force just feeds into the ant-Trump 2020 Dem presidential campaign which started 7 days ago.
angech,
I posted a comment on that a while back. It’s the current La Nina Modoki that’s putting warm air over the Arctic and apparently the Antarctic as well. Antarctic ice extent started dropping into record low territory in September, which was also about the time that the La Nina Modoki started.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00055.1
Ron,
Good luck with that. I don’t see any way to do that other than to wait a few decades until it’s obvious that temperatures aren’t going up at catastrophic rates.
The main argument would be the same as the argument against Kyoto. Until China, not to mention India, gets serious about cutting emissions, which won’t happen before 2030 at the earliest given current plans, there’s little the rest of the world can do. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot for no good reason.
Anything we do should be something we would do anyway, like increasing energy efficiency and switching from coal to methane. Absent more evidence, I doubt that climate change will be a winning campaign issue for the Democrats in the next election cycle.
As long as inconclusive studies are proffered as the science, there is no scientific argument to win. It’s just my opinion vs. yours and that’s politics.
Andrew
Ron Graf
Not “acknoweldge” but to say one participates and agrees with PA.”Participates and agrees” with PA is what being a ‘party to’ means. Also: not ‘surrender’. But if one is formally saying they “participate and agree” to the goals in that document it’s a bit much to simultaneously say they don’t participate and agree with it. Consistency requires one to either “participate and agree” with PA or “not ‘participate and agree'”.
You’ve got “the” in “the debate”. I’m not sure which debate you think I am suggesting we would be participating with if we stay in PA.
I’m not sure he is going to have to prove liberals are wrong on the science to get re-elected. People may continue to be as indifferent to climate as they currently are.
But beyond that: Whether or not he needs to prove liberals are “wrong on the science” has nothing to do with whether he can or should leave PA.
Whatever actions a US president might take to have the government ‘test’ the science would happen in agencies like the EPA. This has nothing to do with how or whether he leaves PA. I don’t think the government has any role in wasting time looking at “climategate” emails and the executive office has no role in the lawsuit involving Mann or Steyn which also has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to stay in or exit PA.
Brute force on leaving PA? Hardly. He can just file paper work– just as Obama did not too long ago.
DeWitt
That’s pretty much how I see it. Whether Trump can “show” AGW is or is not a problem largely depends on what the temperature are over the next 4 years. If they go back down to pre-2000 levels and stay flat lots people will tend to think AGW is not a big problem. If they fly high, nothing he can do with EPA, government agencies and so on is going to convince the world or the voting public it’s not a problem.
I came late to this discussion, and found the comments about leaving Pennsylvania puzzling, until I figured out “PA” meant the Paris Agreement.
Leaving the Keystone State might be a good idea for unemployed Pennsylvanians seeking jobs in manufacturing, since Trump’s plan for a tariff on cars imported from Mexico won’t do them much good.
I agree with Lucia’s comment on temperature over the next four years. However, IMO Trump would be wise to avoid confrontation on climate change and the environment. These were not key issues in his campaign, and being labeled the Anti-Science President or the Pollution President will not help him get re-elected.
Lucia I see WUWT is 10 years old and that you got a mention along with others.
Congratulations.
While you are not trying to change the world ? your blog is vital as providing a parallel commentary and discussion spot for those not rusted on to either camp and trying to discuss things rationally, well you and some of your commentators at any rate.
Present company excluded I know.
Max, I was following from the beginning, and I kept thinking it was Palestinian Authority.
Well… I guess PA evokes many things. . .
Max, it was a key issue. Dems kept attacking him for calling it a hoax, and he denied it in the debate.
Lucia:
First, I am pretty sure that no nation signed the PA without intending to follow the committed path regardless. The major possible exception is the USA conservatives vs. Obama intentions. But even with that I doubt all the countries will be in compliance unless LENR (low energy nuclear fusion reactors) is coming to market in 2017. It also may not be a major international political priority if global temperatures resume the pre- El nino trend, which means observed EfCS (effective climate sensitivity) stays ~2.0, which means CAGW was a false alarm.
.
Without implying a conspiracy was holding up Mann v Steyn for 3 years to see a courtroom, I predict 2017 will be the year the decision on whether anti-SLAP rulings can be appealed and the case will break its log jam.
.
In the last week there has been scores of claims that one particular issue or another was the cause of Trump’s win. Climate has polled as around the bottom of the top 10 issues for the average American. But appearing to be an effective leader, heading the best science available on issues relying on science, is important for Trump’s needed growth of respect. There are science voters.
.
I agree with both sentences and tried to make those points myself, which in my proposal would mean use ratification of the PA for three gains:
1) Show that treaties need to be ratified by congress in the USA, which would set the stage to perhaps renegotiate the Iran deal, please the constitutional compliance focused libertarian conservatives by genuinely strengthening the constitution.
2) Show that he can compromise and thus can keep the moral upper hand in the cross finger-pointing of obstructionism and bad faith.
3) Combine into ratification conservative energy initiatives like lowering regulatory requirements for nuclear, limiting the scope of the EPA in regulating CO2 as a pollutant and anything else on your with list. (Healthcare might be too far from the issue to deal on.)
4) Setting senate ratification is a requirement sets a precedent for any future liberal administration attempts international agreements. Putting the PA up to the senate to be shot down summarily does not set the precedent nearly as well as demonstrated positive execution.
.
My point about climategate, Mann v Steyn and instituting new protocols like Roger Pielke Jr has outlined leads to news stories that tell the other side, the lukewarmer side of the story.
Most people are impressed by the truth, especially when they find they have been misled. Use the truth as a political too, not the phone and the pen, as Obama did. Executive power should be used always as a last resort, preferably in emergencies to save lives. Again, show a contrast — a new way of doing business.
5) Following Obama’s commitment, by having it ratified by the senate, would broadcast a strong international message. Because, you can be sure that by the time the ratification come to vote the liberal world press will have totally trashed both Trump and the USA for being weak, inconsistent and selfish.
.
Obama made the mistake of devaluing America’s investment of blood and treasure in Iraq due to political arrogance. Trump has pointed out many times that although he would not have invaded, he also would not have left if vulnerable with a complete withdrawal.
MikeN (Comment #156013)
November 17th, 2016 at 7:55 pm
Max, I was following from the beginning, and I kept thinking it was Palestinian Authority.
________
As Lucia said “PA evokes many things.”
I think about the Steelers, Gettysburg, and the Amish. Also pretzels.
Pennsylvania may have more of a future than the Palestinian Authority.
Pain in the ass is what I was thinking.
So do I. Those cheap shot artist *****’s.
Andrew
As the topic is “climate nonsense,” I think this qualifies.
Thomas Bateman and Michael Mann write, “Considering the severity of the climate challenge, our leadership crisis is a species-level adaptation failure…”
Among their suggestions: “Climate leaders need to talk and forge productive working relationships with people holding differing perspectives, knowledge and interests.”
O brave new world,/That has such people in ‘t!
.
h/t Paul Matthews
My take on a Trump administration might be somewhat different than what I see posted here and further how that might affect his administrations stand on the Paris Agreement. First of all Trump is a political opportunist which is evident from his campaign. He said a lot of things to get elected that like most politicians can change once elected. These changes of mind for political expediency are very common amongst politicians at all levels of government and since Trump takes all things political a bridge or two further I would think what he will do on specific issues is not predictable at this time.
There are also moderate Republicans that in the end could well become closer political allies with Trump than the more conservative ones. It should be recalled that Trump not that long ago considered himself a Democrat. He talks about a Federal infrastructure spending plan which would be right out of the Obama playbook and of Keynesian economic origins. The leftwing Democrats saw the failure of the Obama spending to revive the economy as being too little and if Trump tries again he will actually be in the leftwing Democrat camp. Trumps populist views on trade and immigration are just signs of political expediency and going with whatever appears popular with the masses at a moment in time.
I judge also that the consensus on AGW and the need for immediate mitigation is much stronger on the Democrat side than it is on the Republican. Both sides seem to have a penchant for putting forth arguments for and against that are usually the least reasonable from a scientific or economic standpoint. There are a higher portion of Republicans than some may think who on reading what the intelligentsia in the name of the NYT and WaPost have to warn about AGW will more likely succumb to this political pressure – and that may well include Trump.
The only hope I see for avoiding the precipitous actions on AGW being pushed by those who are in the game to increase the scope of the Federal government is for individuals and groups to put forth intelligent and well thought through counter arguments from both science and economic standpoints and additionally forcing the opposition to make specific and detailed points about the probable effects of these precipitous actions and away from generalizations that amount to being for motherhood and apple pie. It would be of utmost importance in these counter arguments to point out the incorrectness of the emotional and uninformed arguments that might at first glance appear aligned to the more thoughtful counter arguments.
Ken,
I also think Trump is likely to go for political expediency– in fact I hope he does so. At the same time, I think it will political expedience to enact and throw out what he wants. In the meantime, he will probably continue to blurt out outrageous things.
I think in the end, with respect to the Paris Agreement, he is likely to consult with Senate leadership to find out if they want him to send the treaty to them to discuss. I think they won’t for many, many reasons. Of course I could be wrong.
If they do turn out to want it sent to them, I think Trump ought to have his people explain why the document must be treated as a treaty, say he could just let it lapse– since his predecessor failed to submit it– but then say that as a courtesy to Obama and the international community– he will submit it for ratification giving it a chance to be approved. Then alsostate that if it fails to be approved f in a timely manner (say 2 months) for any reason including no-vote– he will consider the treaty to not have been approved– and so for all practical purposes rejected and he will submit papers to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
He should also say he will consider our participation to end– not withstanding article 28. And say his basis for considering us to be out was that it is a treaty and Obama’s actions did not conform to requirements to bind us to a treaty. That means we are not bound– and obviously “Article 28” which purports to continue to bind us for 4 years does not count.
After that, should anyone, anywhere wish to dispute his interpretation, they can do whatever they want. (Take it to the UN? File a suit? Dunno.)
That said: I think all sane GOP members in the Senate will prefer him not to submit this to them and so avoid all the discussion. Those who want out will prefer him to simply state that we are not bound, but he is going through the formality of submitting paper work ‘withdrawing’ and stating that he considers our participation to be at an end. Once again: anyone who wants to dispute his view can then do whatever they want to enforce whatever they think they can enforce.
In Americas history the senate has passed 1500 treaty resolutions with 2/3 vote, rejected 21 and killed 85 by not voting, many of them never making it out of the Foreign Relations Committee. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
.
Lucia, I agree that Trump probably does not have the time to think a strategy through, and nobody close to him is likely to do it either. The most likely outcome is that the Trump will do as you first suggested which is just ignore the PA or issue a notice of exit.
Lucia –
I’m wondering why you think that “all sane GOP members in the Senate will prefer him not to submit this [PA] to them.” Pre-Kyoto, the Byrd-Hagel resolution passed unanimously. Neither party’s senators seemed to consider this as something which they would get a push-back from voters on. It sounds as though you now believe that tying a GHG agreement to the inclusion of China/India/etc. is now a partisan issue.
Humm. I assume that Trump will spend his time on the hard stuff. This is easy: climate issues are unpopular in the US, and he will lose nothing by ditching it. He will probably make a press conference his first day saying, “Today I did these things ___!” – with a nice list. One of the things on the list will be that he cancelled the Paris Accords, finished. So too many other Executive Actions that don’t suit him.
Anything that doesn’t need Congress will be done very quickly indeed. Anything that does is likely not to get done, given that the Senate Republicans are not at all monolithic. They will probably do something pretty severe to Obamacare, and confirm some judges – they seem to think that they can do those things without fear of filibuster. We’ll see.
HaroldW,
I think now all sane members of the GOP will not want to waste time and news cycles on “ratification”. They will prefer to have no record on a vote on this issue. They will want to avoid any possibility of a time consuming filibuster, discussion on the senate floor and so on.
It is a partisan issue now. But even if it weren’t the Senators want to manage their time just as much as votes. They will want to use their time to work on things that matter to voters: regulations, Obamacare, clean air act and so on. They will not want to have to deal with PA which is a distraction from the issues they are going to want to work on.
Meanwhile, Dems would use every possible opportunity to spend time on something other than Obamacare, reducing regulations, clean air act and so on that they possibly can. Endless ratification discussions would permit them to waste the GOP Senators time.
MikeR
Assuming he wants to ditch the treaty (and past sound bites suggest he does), that’s pretty much what I think he is mostly likely to do. That’s what I think the GOP Senate would prefer: Tear the band-aid off fast.
Lucia –
You’ve made the point about time (and focus) before, and it’s a good one.
I’m still dubious about the partisanship, though. Byrd-Hagel noted the senselessness of (expensive) unilateral commitment without corresponding commitments elsewhere, while throwing enough bones at the climate-concerned, that it passed with bipartisan support. I think a similar dynamic still holds — conservative senators don’t want to be seen as ignoring the issue, while liberal ones don’t want to be seen as increasing costs for millidegree effect on temperature. I could be wrong about that; certainly Sec. Kerry claims this is the most urgent challenge. But climate change wasn’t mentioned much in the campaign.
I think you’re right that Democrats would make a big fuss if the PA were submitted, if only to distract from real issues. We’ve seen that sort of gamesmanship from the other side, too.
I am not at all confident that this discussion has given due considerations to international pressures and laws on the US to act on the Paris Agreement.
Sarkozy of France has proposed a carbon tax on US imports into the EU if Trump trashes/ignores the Paris Agreement.
http://www.thelocal.fr/20161114/sarkozy-wants-tax-on-us-goods-if-trump-trashes-paris-deal
I would not be surprised that international law would be used to pressure the US to follow through on the Paris Agreement signed by Obama. I have excerpted from a paper on international law linked below that might give some pause about what pressures could be brought to bear.
http://research.policyarchive.org/2174.pdf
(My bold above)
HaroldW
I’m not seeing how this is makes support for climate change “not partisan”. It only means that occasionally, if someone organizes something in just the right way, those who want to promote action on climate change. They do it by putting something together that makes Dem’s pretend they aren’t increasing costs while putting GOP in a position where blocking makes them seem to be ‘ignoring’.
But the preferences are still partisan.
But in anycase: if it is true that conservative senators don’t want to be seen as ignoring climate change then they won’t want Trump to send them a treaty for ratification. Because (a) they don’t want to ratify and (b)– if you are correct– they don’t want to be “seen” voting to not ratify. So, in this case, any sane GOP senator who thinks as you believe they do will not want that treaty sent to the Senate. Because the treaty arriving there will force them to either vote against it (which would make them “be seen” to ignore the issue of climate change) or vote to accept it, which will be an outcome most don’t want.
To be fair: The DEMs think climate change is a real issue. But here making the fuss would serve their purposes in two ways: 1) create news cycle for an issue they want to discuss a lot and 2) choke work in issues the GOP wants to work on. Who wants to work on them is not what makes them “real”. But it would not serve the GOPs interest to shine the news cycle spotlight and give time to the Dems pet issue instead of those the GOP cares about.
Kenneth,
What are the “obligations”?
Yes, please have the French threaten Trump with a trade war over carbon. That will give him every reason to dump it. Trump does not respond well to “losers” threatening him.
I think we are heading to a trade war, but that doesn’t mean it will be all bad. Trying to revitalize the manufacturing sector basically requires a trade war.
What matters is what happens with China. China has as much to lose as we do here.
The differential voters (Midwest) that gave Trump the WH don’t care about climate change. I think it will be very unwise for the Dems to make a huge issue out of this in 2020, or even 2018. The left will likely continue the same on climate change, a lot of smoke, but no fire.
The left is progressing through their post-mortem, and just like the right, they will throw anything under the bus to get back power. They will repeat the same platitudes but I have seen exactly zero people on the left say climate change is the key to getting back power at either the state or federal level (in fact several people have said exactly the opposite).
Underestimating your political opponent is unwise, it can result in things like….Trump. I have seen several people ready to throw identity politics under the bus, and that will be effective in my view.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?_r=0
Gavin has warned Trump not to meddle with climate science- good way to get Trump to meddle.
Trump is probably not ideologically committed to being against the global warming agenda, but he is also the wrong target for ‘97% consensus’. He will see right through that argument. Fans of The Walking Dead can compare him to Ezekiel.
Tom, what will the left do about the renewable energy mandates they have passed in so many places?
Compare Trump or Gavin to Ezekiel? Most of my liberal friends seem to view Trump as more of a Negan.
Kenneth,
Would you please provide instances where international law forced the US to do something it didn’t want to do anyway. I’m not convinced there are any. The US can veto any UN Security Council action. IIRC, the General Assembly has no enforcement powers.
To put it another way: International law is something you cite when it supports what you want to do and ignore when it doesn’t.
To make my point clearer here I will suggest that Trump and the Republican party could well go all weak kneed in the face of the combined pressure of international forces, Democrats and the US intelligentsia. Withstanding that onslaught would require the opposition to have a good understanding of the science and politics involved and ability to communicate it to the public.
DeWitt, I am presenting a scenario here whereby those nations that very much favor the opportunity that AGW presents to expand govenment power and reach can use international law to impose or rationalize sanctions on the US. With Trump as the evil President the public relations job of doing this will be madmuch easier. After all these nations are willing to sacrifice their own economies in the name of AGW mitigation.
Ken,
Weak kneed would mean do what? Real question.
International courts can only find one in violation if there is an obligation.
Trump as Ezekiel. Think of his statement to Carol.
Hillary as Negan, You will produce for me. However, no humor.
Kenneth, if Trump inherently understands the agenda is bogus, then he doesn’t need the details to sell opposition to the public.
Kenneth,
Sure, as long as the rest of the developed world wants to bring the global economy down in flames with a trade war. It would make the Great Depression look like a church picnic. Again, as far as I know, only the UN Security Council can impose global sanctions. That can’t happen without our consent.
So, does anyone think that it would be the wrong move for the WH to to turn the PA over to senate ratification with a stated desire to pass it tied to deregulation of nuclear and EPA over-reaches?
.
Remember:
1) It would silence the domestic and international critics and set a stage for compromise and renegotiations of all the other important agenda items.
2) It would set the precedent for future similar agreements needing senate approval.
3) If the agency heads are replaced with non-climate obsessed executives the science debate will likely have a more even playing field. This should be what drives policy and it will take years of readjustment.
4) If the climate falls back to resume the 1997-2014 trend over the next four years climate will be a much diminished concern. If warming accelerates then perhaps the PA was good politics and good policy. We don’t know for certain right now.
Ron
Honestly, I can’t see one good reason why the WH would consider proactively offering what you are suggesting — unless Trump hopes they pass the treaty. I think he would prefer to they not do it. So I have no idea why he would come forward and beg the GOP to pass it as a favor to him.
I also don’t see how his basically throwing in the towel and giving up what he wants without– as far as I can tell- getting anything he wants sets the stage for “compromise”. I want nukes– but I haven’t heard Trump say he wants them. So it seems rather nutso that he would “trade” something he doesn’t want (ratification of Paris) to encourage people to pass something he has never expressed any interest in (nuclear.)
More generally: if you are going to try to craft “compromises”, you really seriously need to wait until the people you are trying to get to “compromise” come forward to negotiate. The way compromise works is the WH first says what they want and plan. Then if some ‘other side’ objects, that side can express their objections, and then both sides can propose to discuss and craft a solution. It doesn’t make sense for the WH to dictate what the “compromise” should be. If the Dems want PA enough to suggest deregulation of the EPA and promotion of nukes they can say so. Let that be their idea.
Trump has not expressed any strong feelings on energy policy except to point out the Dems willingness for killing jobs by shutting down fossil fuel and clean coal. Climate is an aside for Trump, a political calculation, a lot like his new-found pro life convictions. Immigration, trade, taxes, rebuilding military, deregulation and Obamacare are his core issues.
.
So if Trump wants to win on climate he should use it to shock his critics and come out for ratification — but with conditions (which would be expected). This makes him look both strong and reasonable. He gets to quiet the distracting issue while making it his own initiative. If one does not agree there’s a reasonable approach for political success in execution of this strategy I would say that is debatable. But I think through Priebus he could coordinate with the senate leadership so they would understand the plan. Staying the course on fuel economy standards and not revisiting the alternative energy credits would be the course of least resistance. What is really desired is to reign in the EPA and slow down NOAA and NASA climate propaganda.
.
The greens would be hard pressed to give Trump a hard time with the science and environmental agency appointments after leading senate ratification. Also, it would be a cynical argument for the greens to complain that setting the ratification precedent would make it harder for future Obama-like international executive ratifications.
Ron, the PA was specifically designed as an ‘agreement’ not a treaty to avoid going to Congress. Remember the Senate resolution on Kyoto was unanimous – no Dems voted for it. It was a warning shot to not even submit the treaty.
.
But the ‘agreement’ is non-binding so it was kind of a lie to begin with, which is what the people wanted – a lie they could believe in. ( nobody really wants economic hardship, but they want to believe they’re ‘saving the planet’.
.
Of course, that was before fracking. The Senate resolution was introduced by West Virginia’s Robert Byrd defending coal. But things change. Byrd has passed, cheap natural gas has vanquished coal far more than any policy.
.
And that’s why the PA and all the rest of it are nonsense. CO2 emissions are already decreasing for China, Japan, Russia, US, Europe, Indonesia and a growing list of countries BEFORE and policy. It’s a predictable result of demographics, continued technology and the preference for natural gas.
.
Demographics and technology will continue to decrease CO2 emissions in the future and as the recent report indicates, we’re witnessing peak CO2 emissions. Slowing rates mean slowing forcing and even lower rates of warming.
.
Government climate ‘action’ is a waste of time and money, but that’s what governments do best.
.
Ron
I realize you are all for ratification. But I’m totally unconvinced coming out for it is a “win” for him. I certainly don’t think asking for the opposite of what he wants makes him look “strong” and I don’t see how it makes him look “reasonable”. I does the opposite of making the issue quiet– it provides a loud, immediate, platform for multiple parties to debate. (And it will make GOP Senators unhappy.)
Ratifying PA does not one single thing toward achieveing eitehr goal– and is, in fact, counter productive tot he first.
He can reign in the EPA by merely (a) appointing the person — he’s picked Myron Ebel (b) writing appropriate executive orders. Ratification of Paris could only screw things up by allowing people internally to claim EPA needs to act to advance the Paris Agreement.
NOAA and NASA can be “reigned in” through the budget and funding process. NOAA can have more money on “weather prediction” and less on “climate”. NASA’s budget can be curbed altogether– and limted to space. Neither of these require ratification of Paris– nor are they affected by it in any way.
I uderstand SteveF’s reasons for wanting PA submitted– he said it way above. It is purely a constitutional principle for him. But I really don’t get why you think ratification of PA does any of the things you think it does. I don’t think submitting for ratification of PA does any of the things you think it will do– I think it generally does precisely the opposite.
Lucia, you say ratifying PA does nothing to reign in EPA. I said before that I agree; it does nothing directly. Politics is a chess game. however, and sometimes a meaningless pawn can be sacrificed for the benefit of developing a new and better board setup.
.
TE says the PA was designed no to be a treaty. My understanding is that our constitution does not mention international executive agreements. It’s a power invented by the executive branch to for expediency, basically saying there are agreements that don’t warrant the trouble of a big old senate debate and the 2/3 hurdle needed, requiring rarely seen bipartisan support. Declaring an executive treaty leaves it up to the senate to go out of their way to pick a constitutional fight with the president, something that is not a winner if you have the media and/or the courts against you.
.
Lucia, I think you and I agree on goals and the chess pieces. We just would play them differently. I am more a long game player. The left is upset because they see Trump’s election as a big middle finger to Obama, (even though Trump was against all establishments). Trump’s first order of business is to try to change the narrative spouted by half the country and the world that he is on a vindictive mission.
.
He needs to try to convince the majority he is not a pig.
Trump may not be emotionally entangled on climate, but it is a poster child for many of the things he ran against. Disconnected DC liberal elites meddling in the economy to promote their own agenda via administrative fiat. The net effect is punishing the working man in flyover country and promoting a bunch of public sector do gooder jobs for the over educated that gets almost nothing done.
I think I used enough buzz words there to get so kind of prize, right?
Europe already tried to unilaterally impose carbon tariffs on airlines flying in/out/over the EU. It didn’t go well. The Senate unanimously passed a law making it illegal for airlines to pay those tariffs, and China did something similar. The EU backed down. Trade wars are not to be entered lightly, and I doubt very seriously anyone will trigger one over the PA. It’s just bluster, bluff, and virtue signalling. Kind of like the entire anti-Trump campaign.
A long read, a fact based breakdown of the more salacious charges against Trump that we have all heard a 1000 times by now that the media repeated endlessly. This guy is not a Trump fan, but also apparently not a fan of the way he was covered.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
Tom
If true, not ratifying PA will not trigger a trade war.
And sometimes losing a pawn is just losing a chess piece resulting in a worse board set up. That’s what your various strategies look like. You can’t just claim something is a better board set up; it has to actually be one.
Which is precisely why I am puzzled that you are suggesting picking this fight by having Trump submit it for ratification. You now seem to be admitting doing that is not a winner. It’s not.
Encouraging the Senate ratifies PA will not make anyone think bragging about pussy grabbing is not pig-like. He is a pig; that has nothing to do with his stand on climate.
Lucia,
Yes, it is a constitutional issue for me. I support submitting the PA to the Senate, where it would be rejected, either by Democrats filibustering a vote, or more likely voted down after some nervous Democrats facing the voters in 2018 refused to support a filibuster.
.
From a tactical POV, submitting to the senate is probably not the best path. It could lead to European “retaliation” with a duty on US goods and services…. and US duties on European goods and services, which will have negative economic impact. The same effective outcomes, like overturning Obama’s executive orders, etc., do not require any submission to the Senate. But from a strategic POV, explicit rejection of the unconstitutional entry into agreements with foreign governments by the president alone (including the Iranian agreement), is I believe too important to take the tactically easier path. I think it is crucial that both the legitimacy of the Constitution and the explicit limitations on executive authority be defended. Formal repudiation of Mr Obama’s unlawful behaviors is for me more important than offending Mr Sarkozy and green extremists. Adopting a tactically easier path means the next ‘activist’ president will cite Mr Obama’s acts as precedent, and proceed to enter agreements without ever asking for Senate approval. IMO, Mr Obama’s assault on the Constitution and the rule of law must not be allowed to stand.
I think perhaps we are not considering how seriously other nations will be taking the Paris Agreements. The Agreements are a foot in the door for actions that are binding. Handing over powers to national governments and super governments to do something like AGW mitigation is an issue with which the EU is already familiar and promotes currently. Almost all other nations have little or no political compunctions to oppose the Paris Agreements and going beyond those agreements. Those nations are many and will not let the issue of AGW mitigation be ignored by the US.
The immediate political strategy by these nations will be to isolate the US and specifically the Trump administration so that it will be the world, the Democrats, the NYT and WaPost against Trump and his supporters in Congress vis a vis attempts at immediate AGW mitigation. Peeling away that congressional support would be the next step.
The only hope I see in avoiding this strategy from being successful is for reasonable arguments being put forth that include uncertainties of predicting future warming, GHG scenarios, detrimental effects from future warming, and the unintended consequences of attempts at AGW mitigation which always derive from governments actions of this nature and further force the advocates to make clear, detailed and specific statements about the predicted reduction of warming the actions will bring about and its costs.
Trade wars will be avoided at all costs and by all sides but could be a weapon used in a political stare down on the Paris Agreement.
Lucia, here is a view on the obligations matter from an author who is obviously in the camp who would have wanted the “shall” version over the “should” version that was actually used. Knowing how our own Supreme Court can take meaning from words to fit a political agenda gives me pause about how binding this agreement might be taken at some future date or how it can be used politically by those outside of the US.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/paris-agreement-climate-change-legitimate-exercise-executive-agreement-power
Here is a link to the UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf
SteveF
‘Formal repudiation of Mr Obama’s unlawful behaviors is for me more important than offending Mr Sarkozy and green extremists. ”
Yes
Also, the Greens have now provided perfect cover
Trump: ” Given the seriousness of Sarkozy’s response, Given the fact that people are now threatening action against the US, I think it is only wise that we submit this agreement to our congress as a Treaty. Before I looked at this as only an excutive agreement that I could sweep away with a pen and a phone. but the French have convinced me that it should be a full fledged Treaty so I am submitting it”
Climate news: Arctic Sea ice extent has been decreasing for the past couple of days. Couple that with the unusually rapid melting of Antarctic Sea ice and we have global sea ice more than 2Mm² or 9% below the the sum of the lowest Arctic and Antarctic ice extents for the same DOY, not necessarily in the same year.
Steve Mosher
Then we agree…. which it seems, is not so common.
“Steve Mosher
Then we agree…. which it seems, is not so common.”
Ya. I think the opportunity to lay it at the feet of the French should not be wasted. I’m just talking tactically.
The Threat of the French– basically argues for the fact that this agreement needs to be treated as a Treaty. So just say that
“Hey France thinks this is so critical that they are threatening economic war over it. Looks like this should be treated as Treaty.”
Then Of course while it is hung up in debate, you have time to do whatever needs to be done to the EPA
basically they rattled a sword.. and need to get lesson 101 in threats; basically you dont threaten them back, you take an action.
Mosher
Yes.
Obviously, in this case, Trump would not be trying to persuade the Senate to ratify. He would be wanting the opposite: not ratify.
To the extent that the document imposes obligations that supposedly could be taken to court and binds use to any domestic actions, it should be treated as a treaty as we define it. That needs to go to the Senate. If the French or the international community thinks it has enforceable provisions, it would be best to have it formally rejected. (Unless the Senate actually likes it.)
Trump should ask Obama to submit it to the current Senate. It will be in session from November 28 to December 16. If they don’t vote on it before the end of this session of Congress, it’s dead. Besides, it will give them something to do. If Obama won’t submit it, Trump could argue that it’s just as dead.
While they’re at it, they could formally reject Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court, unless he has sense enough to withdraw his name.
I like the way Dewitt thinks.
The term ratified is used in the Paris Agreement differently than what we are discussing here in terms of Senate ratification. The status of ratification is listed in the link below and includes the US. Obama ratified the agreement without the Advice and Consent of the Senate.
http://climateanalytics.org/hot-topics/ratification-tracker.html
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
My current view of the Paris Agreement is that it was ratified in the eyes of the other nations by Obama’s presidential agreement and thus until further notice it remains ratified by these other nations just as it would if the Senate had ratified it. If it goes to Senate now for ratification and fails the question becomes how does the process undo the Obama agreement domestically and internationally. I think it is rather clear that domestically the constitutional view of the Obama agreement is greatly weakened by a Senate vote against ratification (although who knows what it means to Supreme Court justices who might interpret the Executive power to further an agenda) but I am not sure what that does in the eyes of the other nations.
Ron, how many of Trump’s important items- taxes, trade, etc- are areas where you agree with him?
Kenneth, the international insistence on following the Paris Accord will fall just as much as the Kyoto cabal fell when W unsigned. India and China are in it for the money. Russia hasn’t signed. When the top 4 Co2 emitters accounting for half of emissions are not involved, there isn’t much left. US, China, India have only been parties to the agreement for 2 weeks, and #5 emitter Japan only signed on Election Day.
Note that since this thread started, my claim that the US withdrawal would put total emissions under 55% activation level is no longer true, with Japan, Australia, UK, Italy, Pakistan, and Malaysia adding another 9% to the total.
Obama has a reputation as having a good founding in constitutional law which in the case of a good modern liberal as Obama is means making the interpretations of the constitution work for a modern liberal agenda. No way is he going to put the Paris Agreement to a vote for ratification by the Senate when he has already ratified it without their advice and consent and furthermore has the view of other nations that the US has ratified the Paris Agreement. What do they care how that was accomplished. I am quite sure that Obama thinks that what has already transpired will put pressure on the next administration and congress to do his bidding. The man is a consummate politician and tactician even if he has presided over a shrinking Democrat representation at both the federal and state levels of government.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/
Kenneth,
Other nations would care if Trump made it clear that, according to US law, neither he nor the US is bound by the signature of an earlier President. If the Paris Agreement is submitted to the Senate and fails, then Obama’s signature is null and void and withdrawal is not an issue because we were never a party in the first place. Any requirements of the UNFCCC Treaty that are duplicated in the PA, remain in force.
MikeN: Ron, how many of Trump’s important items- taxes, trade, etc- are areas where you agree with him?
.
So what about America needs to be great again?
.
I still get a lump in my throat when I read about the struggle for the American revolution leaders to try to create a government that would not fall into the same mold of tyranny and corruption that had befallen the post-revolution governments throughout history. Trying to preserve the “spirit of 76” for generations to come rather than the otherwise certain rebuilding of a centralized oppressive power. The idea of a government of, for and by the people as lost its luster at times. The southern United States wanted to split the country in 1861 and lead to one of the bloodiest wars in history.
Faith was lost again after the carnage of the first world war and the inequities caused by industrialization, a roving worldwide depression. The Bolshevik Revolution, which promised equality as well as efficiency through central planning and a powerful government. Intellectuals of 1925-1933 divided between favoring communism or fascism as the wave of the future. Yet, WWII and the Cold War led to a renewed appreciation of the “spirit,” the faith in the populace over the faith in elite central leaders. My children, however, have not been touched by the “spirit.” And, from what I read and hear this is the trend. There is a loss in faith by the liberal cause in populace as the solution. Increasingly humanity is described as the problem for which we need a powerful central authority to organize and control.
.
All of my political beliefs derive from the respect and faith in the wisdom drafted into a 228-year-old document.
————————–
Steven McIntyre has a post at CA remembering the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme (WW I). Although the USA did not join the war until 1917 the Canadians were there from the beginning (1914). Steve Mc’s grandmother’s sweetheart had a front row seat and shared his pride in fighting for the allies and democracy in scores of letters. He didn’t come home. It’s a very touching firsthand account.
Ron, my suspicion is you attribute the positions where you agree with Trump to be Trump’s core issues.
MikeN, I suppose we will have to see how Trump’s disdain of socialist globalism translates to positions on particular issues.
But here are my predictions:
1) Borders will be secured, criminal aliens deported and sanctuary cities shut down.
2) Trade deals will be renegotiated.
3) Corporate overseas cash will be repatriated. The moving of factories to Mexico or overseas will be severely disincentivized.
4) Corporate taxes will lower and personal taxes will be little changed.
5) Military spending will increase modestly but there will be greater efficiency in procurement.
6) Regulation will be more business friendly.
7) Obamacare will be modified but unless market forces are introduced health care costs will not decrease.
8) NOAA, NASA, NSF and EPA will have new directors but energy policy will change only modestly. The Keystone XL pipeline will get approved. Public lands will be reopened to leasing for fossil fuel extraction.
9) Social security disability, food stamps and welfare will return to Clinton -Bush requirements for eligibility.
Ron,
1) I predict a lot of blathering but little action.
2) Same as #1
3) That will follow from #4 if corporate taxes are lowered enough. Building plants in Mexico does not necessarily mean moving production to Mexico. If you want to reduce illegal immigration, you want to boost the Mexican economy, not damage it. Also, if we don’t build plants in Mexico, Europe and Japan will.
4) See #3. If we’re really lucky, income tax rates will be flattened and deductions cut.
5) Yes and no. It’s not possible for the government to be efficient.
6) I certainly hope so. The key will be repeal of Dodd-Frank. If that doesn’t happen, the rest will be window dressing.
7) Yes. Market forces won’t help. We spend as much as we do on health care because we’re less healthy and more violent than the rest of the developed world.
8) Fairly good chance.
9) I’m betting he’ll trade that off to get lower taxes.
1) “I predict a lot of blathering but little action.” Meh. This is his signature issue. The Wall and deportations of felons will happen if nothing else does. Anyhow, he can do a lot of it himself without even asking Congress.
2) This I’m not sure what he’ll do, because as a businessman he probably understands the chaos that would result. Dunno.
3) He’ll try. No way to get rid of robots, so I don’t know how much effect there’ll be. Most of those jobs aren’t coming back anywhere.
4) Depends on Congress, so nothing may happen.
5) I hope he moves money around here, making foreign countries chip in or do without. NATO, South Korea, Japan. Should be interesting.
6) Again there are things he can do on his own; I expect he’ll do them. If he really gets Congress’s help he can decimate a lot of really stupid agencies, but who knows if Congress can do anything.
7) “Obamacare will be modified” Obamacare will be gutted: again a signature issue and not hard to do in numerous ways. The hard part is, what to replace it with. He has already said that he supports keeping guaranteed issue, which is the most expensive part.
8) See 6)
9) Dunno.
MikeR,
How many quatloos are you willing to bet that the wall will be built? I’ll even give you odds. A few miles here and there doesn’t count. It has to be the entire length of the border. It may be his signature issue, but he can’t build it without Congress appropriating the money. It certainly won’t come from Mexico.
DeWitt, why is this so hard for people to believe? What’s the big deal about building a wall? As Trump says, he’s a builder. Israel built one or two, West Bank and Sinai, and they were completely effective. For this one, just multiplying how much Israel spent by the increased length gives something like ten billion dollars. No one will notice.
As for quatloos, what odds are you giving? Note that Trump has already said that it doesn’t need to cover the entire length of the border – some of the border is pretty impassible. He estimated about a thousand miles of fencing is needed. There also seems to be an Indian reservation in the way of some of it (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumps-border-wall-will-have-seventy-five-mile-wide_us_581feb7ae4b0334571e09e64). The article doesn’t seem to consider the obvious solution of putting the wall on the other side of the reservation.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/624488/Europe-border-fences-migrant-crisis
Etc. I repeat myself, but I have no idea why so many seem to think that this is impractical in the US.
DeWitt,
” It has to be the entire length of the border.”
Well, of course that is not ever going to happen. A fancy fence (multiple, electrified, video monitored, etc.) is more likely, but even that would require Congressional funding, and would be filibustered in the Senate. Trump can do lots of things without any help from Congress: just enforce existing laws, especially WRT immediate deportation of illegal aliens that commit crimes, prosecution of employers who knowingly hire Illegal aliens, pressure officials in ‘sanctuary cities’ who refuse to cooperate with immigration officials… some of this is ‘sanctuary’ crap is simply illegal, like refusing to hold someone with a federal warrant outstanding, and the officials in sanctuary cities could well be (and I think should be) personally prosecuted for that sort of thing.
Trump’s “instabilities” are an asset in foreign policy. Being non-transparent in that area leads enemy aggressors to shy away from adventurism at the same time promotes allies to self-defend i.e. building local alliances and trying to strengthen NATO by making their own contributions. Likewise on trade, Japan would be less likely to decide to build a plant in Mexico when they can’t be certain that wouldn’t trigger restrictions to imports into the US. Mexico can fix their own economy by cracking down on corruption.
DeWitt, during the campaign, Trump already said it wouldn’t be the full length of the border. He was around 2/3, excluding Rio Grande.
Congress has already authorized and required construction at the border. Trump does not need any extra authorization, unless for extra funding. It is possible it can be done within authorized fees already collected by DHS.
I find this excerpt below from Wikipedia telling with regards to repeal of the Paris Agreement. Unfortunately the Paris Agreement was entered into by Executive Agreement and not a treaty and the question becomes: how is a Presidential Agreement repealed. I would think it important that the Senate takes active repealing action on the Agreement and not passively ignore it. It would ideally be better to allow a debate on the contents and consequences of the Agreement which is something a Presidential Agreement can avoid and did in this case. The debate in a Senate fulfilling their Advise and Consent constitutionally granted power (and duty) of a treaty seems to something I never see discussed for those advocating for the expediencies of Executive actions. In fact, under the administrations of Johnson and Nixon, secret executive agreements were being made until Congress decided that they had to be informed on such matters.
Unfortunately congressional hearings and debates often are no more than an exercise in the members showboating for the public and making some weak and emotional appeals. I would hope that enough reasonable points would be made to justify Senate actions and allow perhaps other nations to see counter arguments to the Agreement that would not be produced in their legislative debates.
Such action would also in all probability result in the Democrats taking action through the courts and thus we may be allowed to see how the current slate of Supreme Court justices will handle such matters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
“the question becomes: how is a Presidential Agreement repealed.” Given that a Executive Agreement is created by a president without Congress, it is obvious that another president can reject it. Nothing more needed.
Here we go again. Some conservatives are suddenly ok with executive actions when they think the President will do their bidding in executing the orders and agreements. They also see no problem with spending large sums of taxpayers money on such items as building a wall on our southern border that has many obvious unintended consequences awaiting it. The larger expense of a wall is maintaining its integrity once it is built. What about a wall merely pushing illegals to enter by other means and locations and now those means and location will require more money to control. Like a lot of government programs this is one that is more symbolic than useful.
Congress has not required construction. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was effectively gutted in 2007. Since then attempts to get the fence, not a wall, built have died in Congress. Then there are the other problems, like environmental impact statements, acquiring the rights to privately owned land along the border, etc. There will be a few miles built where it’s easy amid a lot of hoopla and then it will stop.
Finally, a fence is not a wall, and pretty impassable is not impassable. The coyotes smuggling immigrants can be very resourceful.
Not so much: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.716361
“Here we go again. Some conservatives are suddenly ok with executive actions when they think the President will do their bidding in executing the orders and agreements.”
? Ok with executive actions like what? Enforcing laws that Congress passed already? Indeed, I’m okay with that. Cancelling agreements that some other president made without bothering to ask Congress? Indeed, I’m okay with that.
“They also see no problem with spending large sums of taxpayers money on such items as building a wall on our southern border that has many obvious unintended consequences awaiting it.” Yes. Like those many other countries that I linked above that are frantically building walls, I think that controlling our borders is _important_. We will have to deal with the consequences, since we would rather not deal with the consequences of having unrestricted access to our borders. That doesn’t seem too remarkable.
Kenneth,
Some executive actions and agreements are ok. Thinking so is not a double standard. It is obvious that if a presidential agreement was valid in the first place, the subsequent president has the authority to set it aside. Either that agreement fell under the purview of the president or not. If it did for Pres #1, it does for Pres #2. He can cancel it.
If it was never valid in the first place, it was void and doesn’t need to be set aside. That is not to say Pres #2 can’t write an order that is technically a nullity, or a formality “just in case”.
That said yes: many people on both sides of the partisan divide have double standards.
Kenneth,
There is precedent. Bush 43 unsigned the Rome Statute of the International Court in 2002. He never did formally unsign the Kyoto Protocol, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#United_States
MikeR,
I would say that the odds against completion of the full 700 miles of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 by 2020 are greater than 100:1.
“I would say that the odds against completion of the full 700 miles of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 by 2020 are greater than 100:1.” What would you have said about the odds of Donald Trump being elected President of the United States? People tend to assume that they’re looking at the tail of a bell-shaped curve, when often they’re missing some factor that makes their calculations irrelevant. Experts are known to make this mistake more than anyone. Would you honestly bet your money at 100:1? I would think that a big mistake.
MikeR (Comment #156086)
And how is that rejection carried out in a formal manner?
“And how is that rejection carried out in a formal manner?” Dunno – an announcement, or does he need to contact whoever the previous president agreed with?
By the bye, this is really interesting: https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2016/11/trump-supporter-hamilton-actors-cry/ Did it occur to the actors that they were vulnerable to the same thing they were doing?
While it may be required for, or requested by Congress that, the laws be carried out by use of Executive Orders, that process, as is also the case for Executive Agreements, is readily abused and can not infrequently appear more as a case of an expediency by the executive branch in putting in place its agenda where it otherwise would need congressional approval. These Executive actions can certainly abrogate the Constitutional intent of separation of powers. While there are supposedly constitutional remedies the timely use of those remedies or even predicting whether those remedies are truly available makes these processes both dangerous and without distinction between good and bad actions.
http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html
I find it humorous that a bunch of unelected Eurocrats are trying to push the US around on climate. After Brexit and Trump this is tone deaf behavior that has a pretty good chance of backfiring spectacularly. I hope they continue.
Kenneth: “Here we go again. Some conservatives are suddenly ok with executive actions when they think the President will do their bidding in executing the orders and agreements. ”
And the left will all of sudden find the politics of obstruction appealing. Rinse. Repeat. Recycle.
Dewitt P: “I would say that the odds against completion of the full 700 miles of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 by 2020 are greater than 100:1.”
Listened to Trump 60 minutes interview and he said part of it could be done by fencing. Also, somewhat interesting that he mentioned that he was in construction — he may know more on this than we are giving him credit for. Also, the border agents union supports the wall. Myself, if a wall is combined with sensors and possibly other means of detection, I am happy to spend 25 billion to build it. (Will add that I think the idea of Mexico paying for the wall is ludicrous. If it is helpful to the US, the US should pay for it.)
….
I do think that the US needs an effective way to keep people out. Otherwise, whenever a country has internal discord, people will want to come to the US and sneak in. Then once they are in the US, they are very hard to remove. For many Central American refugees, their first choice is the US. Why shouldn’t it be Argentina, Mexico or Chile?
JD
There have been several comments stating that if the US gives notice that it is abrogating its participation in the Climate PA Public Relations ploy, that other countries may retaliate against the US. Interesting to note that Sarkozy, who brought up the issue of a tax imposed against the US, recently got thumped in a French primary election.
Also, in the US Nov. 8 election, Oregon voters rejected a carbon tax.
JD
Possibilities for building a wall:
1) Illegal immigrants are given amnesty based on leaving to Mexico and constructing the wall.
2) Mexico benefits greatly from Nafta. Continued participation may bring benefits that are more than the cost of paying for the wall.
3) There was a report that DEA considered using satellite and drone surveillance to combat drug traffickers, but were vetoed when it was discovered that it would be so effective it would shut down illegal immigration as well.
JDOhio,
It is good that Sarkosy is out. I wonder if his “shocking” defeat (as described by the French press) in the conservative party primary was in any way related to he threats of retaliation he made on the 15th against Trump over rejecting the Paris Accords. One might hope the French voters have had enough of extreme green hectoring, but it is hard to know.
Trumps contract with the American voter:
Ron,
I like your comments with respect to Trump’s contract with the American voter. Trump’s program is probably much more do-able than his critics realize. I really like your linkage of renegotiating NAFTA with the “wall”.
.
I think that Trump’s requirement “that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated” is much more do-able than you recognize. One way to achieve it would be to have no new regulations. So the effect could be to force regulatory agencies to either stop issuing new regulations or overhaul their regulations to remove obsolete, overlapping, and contradictory regulations from the books.
.
The directive to “to use every tool under American and international law to end” trading abuses should also be do-able. Trade agreements actually give us a lot of latitude to act unilaterally by imposing things like countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties. The spirit of the agreements might require that we be restrained in taking such actions, but a tough negotiator could use the threat of such actions to get concessions, such as partially renegotiating NAFTA.
.
The pearl-clutchers will say “that might start a trade war” but I think there is little to worry about. We probably couldn’t start a trade war with Mexico if we tried. U.S.-Mexico trade is perhaps 2% of our economy and is of questionable net benefit to us. But it is something like 30% of Mexico’s economy and is of enormous benefit to them. Of course, we don’t want to tank Mexico’s economy since that would cause a surge in illegal immigration. But they have more at stake than we do, so a skilled negotiator ought to be able to force some changes.
.
My guess is that what Trump will settle for is two things. First, some changes to NAFTA to make it unfavorable for U.S. manufacturers to move production to Mexico. Second, to get Mexico to “pay for the wall”. I think that most people who take Trump seriously rather than literally realize that “build a wall and make Mexico pay for it” really means “secure the border and get Mexico to do their part, since it should be a shared responsibility”. That is probably do-able.
Cruz endorsed based on a commitment to only select from the list of 20. Trump would be breaking his promise by nominating Cruz, and it would be hypocritical for Cruz to accept. I suspect that the purpose of the meeting was for Trump to evaluate Cruz’s intentions for 2020.
All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting.â€
What?
Mike M: “I think that most people who take Trump seriously rather than literally realize that “build a wall and make Mexico pay for it†really means “secure the border and get Mexico to do their part, since it should be a shared responsibilityâ€. That is probably do-able.”
.
I agree. I was tongue in cheek that he would make Mexico pay for the wall. After the amount of political backlash the president of Mexico received for even meeting with Trump there would be cannons fired before Mexico will pay for any steenkin wall.
.
If Trump is not crazy he will use the threat of humiliation to get excellent cooperation from Mexico but allowing them face-saving.
What is the cost of the wall? At $10000 a foot, it is $35 billion. Green card applications cost $1000. Numbers from Mexico and further south could be counted as paying for the wall, as well as asset seizures from cartels, and other fees at the border.
$10K per foot?!? How or where do you get that?
Comparison of trade with GDP is not terribly meaningful. Better is the fraction of total export and import of goods and services. Mexico is our third largest trading partner. In September, 2016 we exported $189.2 billion and imported $225.6 billion worth of goods and services. The Mexican share of that is $19.85 billion exported to them and $25.1 billion imported. That’s 11% of our total foreign trade. You may think that’s trivial, but it isn’t to the people in the US whose jobs depend on it. It’s not a faucet you can turn on and off at will either.
If you want to reduce illegal immigration, destroying the Mexican economy is not the way to start. It would likely precipitate the US into a recession as well. We’re borderline as it is. For one thing, the US auto industry depends on cross border trade with both Mexico and Canada. Parts can move back and forth across the borders several times in the process of making a car.
With a tip of the hat to John Mauldin, here’s what I think Trump and the Republican Congress should do to get the economy growing faster:
1. Cut the corporate tax rate to 15% on all income over $100,000. No deductions for anything. Period. A 10% tax rate on all net foreign income (with allowances for taxes paid against total income.)
2. Cut the individual tax rate to 20% (or possibly 15% depending on item #4) for all income over $100,000. No deductions for anything. Period.
3. Institute a VAT of 15% to fund healthcare and Social Security.
4. Eliminate the payroll tax for both business and individuals (see #3). If you keep the 3.9% Medicare tax, the income tax rate can be reduced to 15%
5. Subsidize the interest, not the principal, on local infrastructure bonds up to $1 trillion of bonds. There are details on this I’m not going into.
6. Roll back regulations, including no new regulations without eliminating at least one old regulation. As part of this, replace the FDA with something that works.
7. Reform the Federal Reserve, particularly get rid of Humphrey-Hawkins. The Fed should not be in the business of guaranteeing full employment.
8. Be very careful with trade. 11.5 million jobs in the US depend on exports.
9. Prepare for the effects of a strong dollar. The euro is near parity now.
According to a story in the WSJ:
52% of those polled said the economy was the most important issue with terrorism at 18% and with foreign policy and immigration at 13%. A 70% support for legal status for most illegal immigrants was up from 65% in 2012.
Going by those numbers, building a wall along the Mexican border should not be a top priority. IMO, it would be a distraction that the Democrats would love to see.
DeWitt (1565115),
While laudable, I doubt some of those things can/will pass Congress.
.
A VAT of 15% will crush international tourism. It may be worth it in the USA as a whole, but I would not bet the ranch on it. More likely Congress will simply accept an ever deeper debt level. At current interest rates, the cost approaches zero.
DeWitt,
You persist in taking Trump literally, but not seriously.
DeWitt, the exit poll was rigged to produce that result. Change the question, and the numbers would move, instead of ‘Chance to apply’ vs ‘deported’ they could ask ‘Allowed to stay permanently’ vs ‘enforcing existing law to encourage people to leave’.
Terry, I made up $10000 a foot. Started with $1000, but we don’t know height or thickness.
uh oh…
https://thinkprogress.org/president-elect-trump-reportedly-asked-foreign-leader-to-approve-permits-for-high-rise-f97b2fc2c446#.2k30cu8yh
Lucia,
Thinkprogress, is of course an absolutely unimpeachable source of factual information, especially about everyone/anyone they consider to be “not progressive”.
.
One of the great things about rubbish leftists sources is that they can’t be easily refuted. I’ll be a lot more convinced when there is substantive evidence, not innuendo. Trump, with a many hundreds of millions of personal assets (or several billions, depending who you believe), is not likely interested at this moment in enriching a company that he must hold at arms length. Think Progress is (as usual) quite crazy… it does not pass the ‘you have to be kidding’ rational test.
SteveF,
Of course you are right the story might not be true. I read it early this morning and waited to see if it’s repeated. The story that he asked about the variance has been reported elsewhere too — though those sources might be suspect also. (Not WSJ, NYT yet.)
We’ll see what comes of this. He isn’t president yet, I’m not sure what the legality is if it’s true. But I seem to recall Nancy Reagan got flack for even accepting dresses.
SteveF
Trump denies it. So does the President of Aregentina
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/21/argentina-denies-news-report-that-trump-sought-personal-favors/
A quick impeachment and conviction of Trump would be a godsend for conservative Republicans. I keep thinking that there are not a few Republicans who have had those thoughts and on the other hand not a few Democrats who are thinking we want to keep that oinking pig in office.
DeWitt, the deportation of criminal aliens and win after standoff with sanctuary cities will lift Trumps stock among the 60% of the population. With that support he will secure the border. Those who haven’t taken Trump seriously have not won a lot of bets so far.
Kenneth, Mike Pence backed down from a fight in Indiana. With the way the Left is attacking him, it will be a while before he moves in a liberal direction.
Israel’s Sinai border wall cost $450 million and was 245 miles long (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Egypt_barrier). If the US border wall is 1000 miles (that’s the length Trump said needs to be fenced), one might suggest a total of $2 billion. Even if it’s more, there’s no reason it needs to be that much more.
As for that poll mentioned above, it seems to fly in the face of many others I’ve seen over the years. Blocking further illegal immigration is favored by a considerable majority of Americans. Which seems obvious: what kind of person would be in favor of more illegal immigration?
“I doubt some of those things can/will pass Congress.” This to me is the thousand dollar question. What can Trump actually get through Congress? It all depends on (a) the filibuster, and (b) will some Democrats go along because they’re close to re-election?
“A VAT of 15% will crush international tourism.” Not so obvious to me that tourism is that elastic.
I would be in favor of getting rid of deductions, even though every single deduction has powerful interest groups defending it. Charitable donations! I do think you have a better chance reforming them all at once: maybe a significant fraction of Americans can understand that losing here, here and here in order to gain over here is not worth spending days of forced labor filling out your taxes.
SteveF,
The strong dollar will do more to reduce tourism than a 15% VAT. The Euro has already dropped from $1.25 two years ago to $1.064. The British Pound has dropped from ~$1.50 a year ago to ~$1.25. And for those who think China is a currency manipulator, the Yuan Renminbi has dropped over the last year from $0.155 to $0.143 and the rate of change appears to be increasing. That’s not going to help our trade balance, if you worry about that.
.
All costs of doing business are deductible. He must mean no tax credits or subsidies. I am against government tweeking in general in that it creates conflicts, areas that get abused and need policing and give lobbyists business. Tax credits and subsidies are not worth it.
.
I am also a free trader. We should eliminate customs and duties as a hindrance to small business’s international market access. For small transactions they barely are worth the cost of the paperwork and processing. We should have only targeted tariffs as a counter to specific foreign market targeted subsides or dumping.
Ron,
I did say income, not sales. Perhaps I should have said profits, but I was more or less copying what Mauldin wrote. What we need to get rid of are things like the investment tax credit. Requiring immediate expensing of capital investments and elimination of depreciation might be on the table too.
DeWitt,
I am painfully aware of exchange rate changes, because a majority of my business is outside the USA. Still, throwing on a 15% VAT with an already strong dollar will for sure reduce tourism. I presume that 15% VAT would be on top of the 5% to 7% state sales tax… effectively ~22% tax rate. VAT rates in other places vary widely, but the upper end is typically near 35%; the more heavily taxed countries also have sizable import duties, so imported goods then can cost 70% to 100% more than here.
SteveF, how does VAT affect tourism?
MikeN,
It makes everything more expensive, like hotel rooms and meals. OTOH, with a lower corporate income tax, it’s not clear that it wouldn’t be a wash at the consumer end.
MikeR: “Which seems obvious: what kind of person would be in favor of more illegal immigration?”
…
Obama and the leaders of the Democratic party. They look at illegal entrants as the source of future votes (children of illegal entrants born here are American citizens). If things get too bad in the US and it is overwhelmed with illegal entrants, the elites can just leave.
….
Would add that there does appear to be a good amount of agreement between the Left and the Right on this issue. When the NYTs writes articles on immigration, both people on the Left and Right complain about the violation of American law. Also, polls show that large numbers of Americans favor stricter enforcement of immigration laws. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/10/cnn-poll-illegal-immigration-important-to-9-in-10-voters/ However, it appears to me this is a first tier issue for the Right and a second tier issue for the Left.
JD
“it appears to me this is a first tier issue for the Right and a second tier issue for the Left.” Indeed, Mickey Kaus (kausfiles.com) has been complaining bitterly about this for years. He’s a liberal, but has long been saying that the liberals are badly missing the boat on this one.
Does anyone else think that for a child to be born a citizen of the USA their parents should be legal permanent residents (having green card) at a minimum? I believe Trump’s position was exactly this in the early campaign and that the US Constitution could be interpreted by the executive in that way. I think most, but not all, believe the supreme court would knock it down. But what if Trump replaces one of the liberal justices or centrist Stevens? Does that opinion still hold?
Ron,
If I were a wagering man, I would bet the Supremes would be unanimous in support of the current interpretation. In fact, I doubt it would ever make it to the Supreme Court. I can’t imagine it would ever make it past the Circuit Appeals court, assuming you could find a Federal judge that would even take the case, much less rule against. Standing would be an issue, for one thing.
I’m late to this conversation, but it’s never too late for Winston to learn something. So who exactly are the sane members of the GOP? Is that just a long-winded way of referring to the empty set?
Ron Graf
I don’t. And those who want it to be that way would need to amend the US constitution.
For all I know it was. Or not. Dunno. I don’t recall his proposing amending the constitution. If he thinks the constitution can be interpreted to not give kids born on US soil birth right citizenship, he is sorely mistaken.
Neither liberal nor conservative justices think the Constitution can be read to not grant birthright citizenship to people born on US soil.
Ron Graf: “Does anyone else think that for a child to be born a citizen of the USA their parents should be legal permanent residents (having green card) at a minimum?”
.
I think that makes sense in theory but not in practice (see below).
.
Ron: “I believe Trump’s position was exactly this in the early campaign and that the US Constitution could be interpreted by the executive in that way.”
.
I mostly agree. Lucia’s certitude is misplaced since the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue. I do not see how she can possibly know the opinions of the current justices. But you are mistaken in suggesting that the President can make that decision. Birthright citizenship for the children of those here illegally, or on tourist visas, is the law and would have to be changed by Congress. Only then could we find out what the courts think about how the 14th Amendment applies.
.
I don’t think that changing the law makes sense in practice. How do I know that I am a citizen? Because I was born here. If that were not enough, I think it would be hard to go back and prove that my ancestors came here legally. So if you eliminate birthright citizenship you would need to create a bureaucracy to decide who is and is not a citizen. That bureaucracy would have the power to declare that certain people born here are not citizens. As a skeptic about government power, I’d much rather keep the law the way it is.
.
The way to deal with the problem, if it really is a problem, is to get control of illegal immigration and to drastically cut back on immigration justified by family reunification. The later would make anchor babies much less valuable.
Mike M.,
I suspect that what would happen is that everyone born in the US prior to the adoption of a constitutional amendment on birthright citizenship would not fall under the purview of the amendment. They would be grandfathered in as citizens. Anything else would open up the can of worms you mentioned.
MikeM:
“I don’t think that changing the law makes sense in practice. How do I know that I am a citizen? Because I was born here. If that were not enough, I think it would be hard to go back and prove that my ancestors came here legally. So if you eliminate birthright citizenship you would need to create a bureaucracy to decide who is and is not a citizen.”
….
The vast majority of countries do not allow birthright citizenship, and I have never been made aware of any problems in those countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli (I am sure they occasionally happen, but apparently not enough so that major issues occur in what are called “jus sanguinis” (right of blood) jurisdictions. Literally read the 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship, but it could be amended. (Very difficult now, but not so much in the future possibly)
JD
MikeN
Yes. They have.
Winston,
Obnoxious, arrogant idiots are rarely welcomed into any honest conversation. Please take your arrogance, fold it five ways, and then place where the sun don’t shine.
MikeN,
Prices in the USA for common goods (clothing, shoes, toiletries, books, etc.) are very low compared to countries with a combination of high import duties and VAT/sales taxes. These taxes are much easier to implement where the informal economy (off-the-books) makes routine collection of income taxes difficult or impossible. As a result, one of the attractions of the USA to tourists is the low price of things they can easily carry back to their home country in baggage. These countries (of course) place severe limits on the total value of goods purchased abroad, but it is impossible to administer these limits…. the US$500 suit purchased in the States is just ‘clothing’ which is identical to a suit purchased in the home country for US$1200. Many people routinely travel to the States to buy goods at much lower prices than in their home country.
Lucia: “Yes. They have.”
OK. Please tell me what case that was.
U.S. v Wong Kim Ark dealt with the children of legal residents. Some scholars interpret it to apply to children of illegal residents and others disagree.
Some cite Plyler v. Doe, but it certainly does not apply directly to the issue of citizenship. It was decided 5-4 in 1982, so it is hard to extrapolate to what might happen now.
JD: “The vast majority of countries do not allow birthright citizenship, and I have never been made aware of any problems in those countries.”
.
Many countries have far more intrusive governments than we do.
Edit: It seems that about 100 countries have compulsory national ID cards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_identity_card_policies_by_country#Countries_with_compulsory_identity_cards
I’d prefer what we have now.
MikeM “Edit: It seems that about 100 countries have compulsory national ID cards….I’d prefer what we have now.”
….
ID cards are a separate issue from birthright citizenship. Also, I would much prefer not to have ID cards, but immigration in the US is so messed up now, that it is an issue I would consider. No European country has a pure birthright system, and Europe, so far, does not appear to be a draconian place.
JD
Mike M, I did consider that congress could work on the issue but since there is no specific legislation covering birth right citizenship I am thinking it could be tried as an executive enforcement choice. The Dems would filibuster such a change, which might be good politically for them to take an unpopular and special interest motivated position, but it still would kill the objective. One the other hand if the President took action the congress couldn’t interfere but by successful legislation. The courts are another question.
Lucia, I disagree that illegals are protected by the Constitution. The 14th amendment Citizenship Clause states:
.
The US v Wong Kim Ark specifically cited the need for parents to have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States. There is no test of children of two illegal alien parents but I would argue that they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” If one argues that anyone setting foot on US soil is subject that specifically fails for diplomats. I think common sense says it fails for invaders, whether benevolent of malevolent.
.
I don’t think Trump mentioned what he felt about the citizenship of those already born. But I see area for compromise, which we will have to do across the board due to the government’s lack of law enforcement for decades on immigration.
.
If I were and illegal couple in the USA I would be busy trying to get an anchor baby right now. This is very similar to the unexpected spike in gun sales due to the left’s gun control initiative.
.
The Center for Immigration Studies claims that up to 400,000 children are born annually to illegal immigrants in the US, representing about 10 percent of all children born in the country.
.
I suggest if the US abolishes jus soli Canada will follow. Right now the US is a shield for them but it that changed — like Trump says, nobody is a stupid as we are.
hunter (Comment #155569)
November 10th, 2016 at 2:44 pm
“lucia,
I completely agree: Everything Mr. Obama attempted in circumvention of the Constitution should be unwound asap.
Climate is just the main topic today.”
While we’re at it should we also unwind the executive actions of his predecessors (who did so more frequently than he)?
Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes issued executive orders at a higher rate than Obama.
On the subject of immigration Bush’s “Family Fairness” plan was notable.
Phil.
If Mr Obama thought the executive orders of earlier presidents were unwise, or unlawful, he could have immediately written contrary orders. Mr Obama’s orders WRT illegal immigrants were clearly unlawful (as Federal Courts have already found). Mr Obama’s efforts to bypass Congress, on a host of substantive policy issues and international agreements, must not be allowed to stand if the separation of powers prescribed in the constitution is to have meaning.
duplicate post
Ron,
Diplomats are specifically exempted by law and custom. Any child born to a diplomat is not a US citizen. Any child born on foreign embassy grounds is not a US citizen. Any other individual on US soil, whether they entered legally or illegally are subject to the laws of the US, i.e. the jurisdiction. An invading army in uniform is a completely separate issue. However, if they’re not in uniform, they’re possibly spies and still subject to the laws of the US.
Australian news today trumpeting that Trump has said climate change caused by humans is real? Is this over reported or a sign of a change.
He is also saying leave Hilary be. Very christian. Does this mean she will not need a pardon from Obama?
Can she be given a pardon anyway based on unspecified yet to be proven crimes like a Monopoly get out of jail free card?
angech,
Presidential pardons can be very broad…. eg. all acts between 2009 and 2012. I suspect Obama will issue broad pardons for several administration functionaries, including Hillary, Loretta Lynch, and perhaps some IRS officials, all of whom could be pursued by AG Jeff Sessions. The only thing I have doubt about is pardons for Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play schemers. Mr Obama probably does not want to dirty his ‘legacy’ with pardons for Bill and his corrupt posey.
Ron
I didn’t say illegals were protected. I said people born here are citizens. Naturally, those born here, who are not illegal are protected. For what it’s worth, jus solis citizenship predates the 14th amendment, which explicitly extended it to those of African descent who had been excluded.
Ron Graf,
There is specific legistlation (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401) but it uses the same language as the 14th Amendment, so there is the same issue of interpretation.
angech,
One more point: While I suspect the Australian press does not give it much coverage, the personal enrichment of the Clintons, via the sale of political access/influence, using the ‘fig leaf’ cover of huge payments for ‘speeches’ (up to $750,000 for a brief talk) netted them somewhere north of US$100 million personal income between 2009 and 2016. This probably offended enough ‘normal people’ to have swung close states to Trump. It wasn’t just that Hillary was a terrible candidate (she was!), and an absurdly bad liar, it was that she was personally and profoundly corrupt, which offended many voters.
MikeM
Read Wong and Ark. While Wong was a child of legal parents, it is quite clear that it was his birth in the country that anchored him. Not their “legality”. The text goes on and on about this citing cases that predate the 4th amendment.
I get that “some” want to argue that somehow the fact that he didn’t happen to be illegal means that isn’t decided. But the text is clear: we have birthright citizenship — with exceptions of invading armies or diplomats who are explicitly granted variances from jurisdiction of US courts.
Illegal aliens are subject to jurisdictions of our courts. They can be jailed, fined, deported and so on.
Dewitt
“All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The 14th amendment was written to account for the traditional exceptions. Diplomats and invading armies are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction”. That’s why they can be jailed, fined and so on. Diplomats… not so much because we have agreements with them. Invading armies even less.
If Ron wants to think we can’t jail illegal aliens for rape, murder, theft and so on he can argue they aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US. But the US courts sure as heck think they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. There’s no open question there.
Also: Wong Kim Ark says nothing about the parents being legally domiciled– they were merely domiciled. That is: they lived here. Parents live here, kids is born: US Citizen.
Lucia,
You are completely correct about birthright citizenship; there is no serious legal argument about this.
.
However, birthright citizenship in 1800 was different from today. I had a waitress some days back who was from the Ukraine. She and her husband gained residency because she gave birth to their son while she was ‘traveling’ in the USA. She seemed very nice, and I am sure her son will grow up to be as american as I am, but I suspect those who wrote the Constitution did not expect someone could travel to the States in a few hours by airplane to give birth and so secure residency. I think it would be prudent to amend the constitution to limit birthright citizenship to the children of lawful residents.
Phil
Of course. Any action any president took that was unconstitutional should be unwound.
Any president can reverse executive actions of any other president. This is because they are executive actions and not law. Whether a president implemented a lot of only a few executive actions isn’t relevant to these principles.
If a president wants something to be permanent, it needs to be supported by legislation. This can sometimes happen if congress has already granted a power to the executive branch (as they sometimes do through agencies which might involved explicit rules about making or reversing rule). But if they have not granted any such power the next executive can easily reverse the order . Just as you can decide to eat something different for dinner than you had last night.
SteveF
I agree thet didn’t anticipate air travel. And sometimes that’s an issue. But most of the strum and drang isn’t over kids whose parents flew in to give birth.
I’m not for it– because I don’t think the issue of people flying in to give birth is a very big one. (I’ve heard of a small business in Chinese doing it too btw.) But anyway: I don’t think it’s worth the bother if those are the people you are worried about.
And I’m not at all concerned that kids whose parents move here, live here and who happen to be born here become American citizens. I think the alternative that they aren’t citizens is quite a bit worse.
At least we both agree that according tot he current constitution they are citizens and the constitution would need to be amended.
By the way, I’m tempted to take bets on how many days Trump will be in office. I’m figuring something less than 365. (My theory is he’ll get sick of the job and leave.)
Anyone else suspect a similar thing?
Lucia,
“I’m not for it– because I don’t think the issue of people flying in to give birth is a very big one.”
.
Depending what source you believe, it is between 7,500 and 40,000 per year. I suspect these totals may differ based on the length of stay in the USA. Births to long term illegal residents are probably included in the higher number. I don’t think you could get an amendment passed, I just think it would better reflect reality today if birthright citizenship were restricted to the offspring of lawful residents.
Lucia,
I would bet at least 4 years. He may not run for re-election (he’ll be 74 YO after all). That could change if he has big legal problems, of course, but I very seriously doubt he will walk away in less than a year on his own. Much too stubborn for that to happen.
Lucia: “I didn’t say illegals were protected.”
.
You are right. I apologize. I was under the mistaken impression that legal permanent residents enjoyed constitutional protection; they don’t. Illegal anchor babies have more rights, and by relationship infer more rights upon illegal aliens than legally applied immigrants without children. This is wrong in my opinion. I understand the 14th Amendment was for the purpose of providing citizenship to former slaves. I am curious if there is specific knowledge that its intent was to allow all but uniformed invaders and diplomats from being excluded.
.
Expanding on the moral issue, the main argument for legal abortion is to prevent the situation where mothers would put themselves in danger by having illegal abortions. Yet, largely the identical constituency advocates for mothers to be incentivized to place themselves in harrowing danger to illegally cross the border in sealed trucks or desert marches.
Lucia:
Something seems to have been added in the translation – much improved.
I’d also thought that when Trump realizes what he’s gotten himself in for, he’ll leave… less than 365 days. The delay will be in coming up with a reason why he didn’t fail; can’t be a loser for sure.
Alternatively, the Republicans could realize that he’s more than a little liberal and when he’s fully emerged from the closet they’ll impeach him for some misdemeanor unless the wording of the Constitution also requires that there have been ‘high crimes’. I doubt that he’s capable of a high crime, but then he is pretty versatile.
SteveF (Comment #156161)
November 22nd, 2016 at 9:01 pm
Phil.
“Mr Obama’s efforts to bypass Congress, on a host of substantive policy issues and international agreements, must not be allowed to stand if the separation of powers prescribed in the constitution is to have meaning.”
So why does the separation of powers apply to Obama but not the Bushes?
Lucia: ”
“By the way, I’m tempted to take bets on how many days Trump will be in office. I’m figuring something less than 365. (My theory is he’ll get sick of the job and leave.)
Anyone else suspect a similar thing?”
I was hoping that he would get bored before election day and that Pence would stand in his stead. I think Trump has no clue as to how hard it is to be President, and it is always possible that he will walk away. Don’t think it is probable now because I think his vanity would prevent it.
JD
Re: Phil Executive Orders and Prosecutorial Discretion
….
There are two elements that separate what Obama did with executive orders issued under the guise of prosecutorial discretion as compared with his predecessors. 1. The scope of Obama’s orders was very broad. For instance, he intended to give 4,000,000 people illegally in the US work permits — See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/us/politics/obamacare-unlikely-for-undocumented-immigrants.html?_r=0 2. His executive orders directly contravened clear laws passed by Congress. I know of no orders issued by other Presidents that were as broad as Obama’s and were also issued in direct and clear violation of the law. The number of executive orders is not what is important. It is their scope, and in the case of Obama, their clear encouragement of practices that violated statutory law.
….
If you know of other Presidents who have done similar things, you are welcome to cite those incidences.
JD
Bush 1990 Family Fairness Policy,
I missed this in my previous response. There is an argument that Bush’s executive order could have applied to 1.5 million people. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marshall-fitz/the-bush-family-fairness-_b_6319760.html The person making the argument also stated that “it bears noting that the existence of comparable precedents has zero bearing on whether the president’s actions are legally authorized.” — which I agree with 100%. The problem with not enforcing the law and actively encouraging the violation of the law is that the exception can swallow the rule. Prosecutorial discretion can apply to any law; such as environmental laws or equal opportunity laws. You don’t like a law — you can simply say that you want to allocate resources to other areas.
….
Should add that there is much evidence that the Bush Fairness policy really only applied to about 100,000 people. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/24/did-george-h-w-bush-really-shield-1-5-million-illegal-immigrants-nope/ Also, Congress at the time that Bush implemented the policy was leaning towards implementing it, and in fact, the basics of the Bush policy became law in the Immigration Act of 1990.
JD
Ron,
There are many US constitutional protections that apply to citizens and non-citizens, like due process.
SteveF (Comment #156165)
Presidential pardons can be very broad…. eg. all acts between 2009 and 2012.
Seems wrong morally but…. there you go.
Any oceanographers here who could explain if alkalinity in the sea [Mostly CaCO3] comes from the earth’s crust, both above and below the ocean. Wiki seems clueless on this and I am locked in a go around with Dikran. A source would be handy.
angech,
Chemist, not oceanographer. Weathering (see Wikipedia) of igneous rock takes CO2 from the air and forms carbonates, which end up in the ocean. Weathering also adds more soluble salts like sodium chloride to the ocean. Volcanoes release CO2 to the air. Calcium carbonate becomes less soluble as ocean water warms and loses CO2 to the air (thermohaline circulation, see Wikipedia), so warm surface water tends to be supersaturated in calcium carbonate, making it easy to form calcium carbonate shells and also leading to the formation of precipitated spherical calcium carbonate sand (called oolite sand) on tropical beaches. Most of the Bahamian islands stand on a huge deposit of calcium carbonate a thousand meters or more deep, removed from ocean water by shell formation and direct precipitation. Subsuction zones (see Wikipedia) carry carbonates deep into Earth’s crust, taking carbonates out of the surface/atmosphere systems for geologic periods. The CO2 can later be released via volcanic eruptions. Not sure what there is to argue about in this area beyond the rather hysterical (and mostly false) claims that shell forming organisms are in danger from rising CO2 at plausible maximum atmospheric CO2 levels.
JD Ohio,
Lincoln arguably did some very extreme things. But the situation Lincoln faced was also more extreme.
JD Ohio
Which of course, means his action can’t be “unwound” because it was given legislative basis. Mind you– that doesn’t mean he had a right to do it, only that it can’t be unwound.
In contrast the “Dreamers” program is at risk of being unwound.
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/three_michigan_college_preside.html
As it happens: I liked the Dreamers program. I would have liked to see the Dream Act passed and implemented. I might have picked 14 for the age one had to come here– that way kids would have been here through nearly all of high school and are mostly too young to come on their own. But I certainly prefer kids who are brought here when they are 3 years old and who grow up here some how managing to avoid deportation, and stay never really making the choice on their own to be able to stay. I don’t think it’s remotely fair to them or helpful to use to deport them.
But things like these need to be enacted by Congress. It’s at risk.
Lucia: “I’m tempted to take bets on how many days Trump will be in office. I’m figuring something less than 365. (My theory is he’ll get sick of the job and leave.)”
.
So far, people who refuse to take Trump seriously have been consistently wrong. I expect that trend to continue. But I would not be surprised if he does not run for reelection.
Mike M.
Yes. It’s true. People have been unable to predict trump. If I wrote the betting script, how many days would you enter?
angech: “alkalinity in the sea [Mostly CaCO3] comes from the earth’s crust, both above and below the ocean.”
.
That is correct. In the long run, increased atmospheric CO2 results in increased alkalinity in the ocean, so the pH of the ocean is buffered against the increased acidity that would otherwise be produced by the increase in CO2. But that takes tens of thousands of years. On time scales of decades to centuries, alkalinity hardly changes, so increased CO2 results in decreased pH in the ocean near the surface. As Frank says, for plausible CO2 increases, the concern over this is probably exaggerated.
Angech, Nike Stokes just did a good chemistry summary of the surface geologic carbon cycle. https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2016/11/chemistry-of-sequestration-and-carbon.html
Lucia: “how many days would you enter?”
1461
Trump’s interview with the NYT is out today (who once again proves he is not as dumb as he looks as he apparently forces the NYT to print transcripts of their interviews).
He has many comments on climate change, prompted by Friedman of course.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html?_r=0
He is going to “look at the PA”, doesn’t believe other nations will impose carbon tariffs on the US, doesn’t like wind subsidies or the fact most windmills are manufactured outside of the US, and hits them on their hypocrisy of turbines killing golden eagles. These transcripts provide better insight than any journalist’s interpretation.
They asked not once, but twice, with follow ups about some white nationalist / Neo Nazi meeting in DC attended by about 200 idiots. Hard hitting journalism from our finest newspaper about important topics, or possibly pathetic attempts at character assassination.
Tom,
I saw Trump ‘s tweet after he cancelled, then saw a later one took place. I thought he was probably wise to cancel and tweet– assuming it was true they’d reneged on negotiated rules. (If they had, they could have said they hadn’t. But it seems the NYT didn’t correct him on that claim, so my guess is it was true.)
Now that he required a transcript, I think it was an even better move.
Often, the President wants to press to ‘like’ him. But Trump knows damn well the NYT does not like him. Insisting they print the entire transcript is a good move on his part. (And of course, he could tell them that if they do not, he will.)
Tom Scharf,
If you are thinking two terms, when betting be sure to add in the leap-day in 2020 and 2024. Otherwise a similarly inclined better will edge you out.
Lucia: “As it happens: I liked the Dreamers program. I would have liked to see the Dream Act passed and implemented. I might have picked 14 for the age one had to come here– that way kids would have been here through nearly all of high school and are mostly too young to come on their own.”
….
There are many, many cases of children in the US that I am very sympathetic to. (I personally oppose the use of the term “Dreamers” because it is used by many people with amoral political objectives as a tool to achieve their ends, and is an attempt to bypass many very important practical issues by narrowly focusing on the sympathetic aspect of this issue.) However, their unfortunate situation is used as a tool by those who essentially support open borders to advance their agenda. If a way could be found to secure the borders, I would be inclined to give them a path to citizenship. Until the borders are secured, I will place the responsibility for the children’s very unfortunate circumstances on their parents. My real problem is not the people who are currently here but the tens of millions of people who will come in the future if those currently here are able to game the system with essentially no penalties.
….
Considering how many cities are refusing to cooperate with the enforcement of immigration laws, I would repeat a suggestion that I have made previously that substantial financial penalties be imposed on illegal entrants, such that most of them could leave on their own terms within a period of 6 months to 18 months. And, those who have done very well could afford to stay [and eventually become citizens]. Among the very many financial procedures that could be implemented is a credit to employers and possibly landlords who check the the legal status of their potential employees or renters through an e-verify system. Given the will and time and imagination, you can accomplish a great deal through a system of financial penalties and incentives as Americans living abroad have discovered as they attempt to do their banking overseas and run into numerous problems caused by American government pressures on foreign banks.
JD
Tom Scharf,
I was actually a little surprised Trump was not more forceful when the Times staff kept bringing up crazy-left bogeyman stuff like Steve Bannon being some kind of right-wing nutcake. I expected he would push back with something like:
“Look, Steve Bannon disagrees with you on lots of substantive policy issues. So do I. I think Bannon is a lot more correct about most of these issues than is the Times. There is absolutely nothing I have seen Bannon do or say which supports the kinds of accusations which you and other media organizations routinely publish. You do neither yourselves nor the country any favors by publishing fabrications designed to smear a perfectly decent person….. and that is what they are…. fabrications, designed to smear. Please stop it.”
.
SteveF,
Yeah I was thinking of some better responses to those questions. He really doesn’t want to start playing 20 questions on identity politics with the NYT, they will just narrow him down to some semi-unobjectionable group that they will then say is the KKK in disguise because a member of that group had a cousin’s uncle’s father in-law who said the N word according to an anonymous source. Case closed. The fact the NYT thinks “Trump disavows Neo-Nazi group” is headline news kind of tells you their mind is in the gutter. They hammered identity politics for two years in this election cycle and it didn’t go well, if they want to continue that is fine by me. We will see if that convinces people in WI, PA, MI, OH to vote for the left.
Personally I definitely am more inclined to vote for people who just called me racist at the top of their lungs for 8 months straight based on…something….and one only needs to vote blue to inoculate themselves from being a bad immoral person. So enticing, I want to be a good person, and it’s so easy.
Yes, there’s a lot of “KKK supports Trump, KKK is evil, therefore Trump and his supporters are evil” logical non-sequiturs out there. Remember the furore when Heartland put up a stupid billboard with “Unabomber believes in climate change” (or something like that)? Strange that some people can’t/won’t identify the two cases as the same fallacy.
JD Ohio
The unwillingness to add provisions for secure borders is what killed the bill. I agree it would have been better to connect the two. Sadly, no compromise could be reached. Perhaps legislators will be able to reach a compromise to solve the problem now– securing borders is going to need to be a key element under present circumstances. That was a main campaign plank.
This was also a reason I tended to support “prove you got here at 14 yo”. It is a simple fact that while 16 yos are vulnerable, and not fully adults, they are also perfectly capable of setting out on their own and even being able to fit in somehow for a few years. Less than 14…. more difficult. But certainly, more secure borders would help.
I was looking at some statistics about the percentage of white males without college degrees who voted for Trump and was attempting to see what the breakdown was for those voting for Obama in 2008 and 2012. While that breakdown was readily available for Trump it was not directly for Obama or at least in my searches. I used instead for Obama a breakdown in white males by income and if it can be assumed there is a correlation between income and formal education level it would appear that a significant percent of that white male vote shifted from Obama to Trump.
Now given some contemporary views on these things, I think you have to assume that the shift was caused by Trump’s campaign converting these white males to racists. Whoda thunk.
TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.
SULZBERGER: Not like this (sic!).
The Donald face to face with Stupidberger.
Oh I can’t wait for at least 4 more years of this kind of duel of wits.
Andrew
Birthright citizenship was discussed at one debate, I think it was the first one, and Rand Paul gave some support to Trump’s position, that it was constitutional to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, saying the Supreme Court’s ruling was unclear on that point.
Children of diplomats are not denied citizenship. One of the Guantanamo cases would have flipped on this point, as the person arrested was a child of a diplomat and should not have been considered a citizen.
MikeN,
(a) The court has ruled that illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the US in other cases.
(b) The wording of the 14th amendment is not unclear on that point . Those born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the court are citizens and
(a) The ruling is not unclear on that point. Those born here to parents domiciled hereand who are not diplomats are members of invading armies are
legalbirth right citizens. That’s a specific ruling.Maybe if your gripe was someone born when their mom
s plane airplane touched down, the mom was rushed to the hospital and the family immediately left, you could come up with some theory that parent was not “dominciled” here. But that doesn’t seem to be your argument.
There is no lack of clarity on this point — not unless one is willfully trying to misinterpret.
Lucia (Comment #156174)
I would tend to agree that Trump probably does not have the temperament to stay in office long -providing that the MSM is relentless in their attacks on him and that conflict of interest can be used against him with his business holdings and dealings. I would also note here that I do not see much wrong with the MSM handling of presidents with whom they do not like or agree. I do, however, have great disappointment in how they handle those with whom they agree and like.
I do see some signs of Trump reverting to mean from his outlandish (more outlandish that is than the average politicians promises and the average is outlandish) campaign rhetoric and promises and that mean reversion we should all remember would be to when he was calling himself a Democrat. He may well find that he can relieve a lot of those tensions that I noted above simply by doing more of the MSM and intelligentsia biddings. I doubt very much that Trump is committed to any political philosophy, unlike Obama, and is very pragmatic and that would include in making his job easier.
I recall in the 1960s that Republican congress people from IL would be sent to Washington with a constant minority and on a repeated basis because instead of putting up any opposition they would merely cave on most matters and then tell their voting constituents that that was how the game was supposed to be played and cannot we all just get along. I still hear those who want to hearken back to those good old days.
Kenneth,
Oddly, I think the press attacks are more likely to make him stay in office. I think he thrives on that.
But I think there’s a certain grind to being president. Plus, there is all the conflict of interest stuff which really does exist. I’m not sure he’s really faced up to that. But we’ll see. Maybe he’ll turn out to be well suited to being executive of a nation.
Volokh Conspiracy considers birthright citizenship the stronger argument, and here is the strongest counterargument.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422960/birthright-citizenship-reform-it-without-repealing-14th-amendment
MikeN,
The national review article, while long, is clearly a bad argument that kids of illegals don’t get citizenship. They have a long winded argument about “partial” vs. “full” jurisdiction (and read in an awful the presence of this distinction into the wording of the 14th amendment– where words making the distinction are clearly absent.)
But the fact is: the argument doesn’t work.
“Partial” jurisdiction is precisely what the parents had in Wong Kim Ark because they were also subject to the Emperor or China. That was precisely the argument the people who thought citizen should not be granted made in that case.
So the court as already ruled that “partial” jurisdiction on the part of the parents sufficient to grant the kids citizenship. So: removing birthright citizenship based on that argument requires overturning Wong Kim Ark.
Lucia: “removing birthright citizenship based on that argument requires overturning Wong Kim Ark.”
.
I find your absolutism on this to be unjustifiable. We have a court decision from well over a century ago, at a time when there was really no concept of illegal immigration, and birth tourism was undreamed of. We can guess what a modern court might say on those issues, but we can’t *know*. The Supreme Court is not bound by earlier decisions, let alone the reasoning behind those decisions, although it normally treats prior decisions with great deference. A case that exactly fits the precedent would almost surely be summarily decided. But if a case is different from the precedent, even if the wriggle room is very slight, it might be considered as a different case, with a different result.
.
The only way to know how the court would rule is for Congress to pass a law restricting birthright citizenship, wait about a nanosecond for it to be challenged, and see how it gets decided once the case works its way up to the Supremes. My guess is that the law would be stricken down, but I would not bet anything I really care to lose on that outcome.
.
That would be an awful lot of effort and angst for a result that at best solves a problem that may not need solving and at worst creates new problems of its own. Not worth it. Not even close.
“I think Trump has no clue as to how hard it is to be President, and it is always possible that he will walk away.”
Heh, interesting idea. There are a lot of things he apparently plans to do on Day 1. That isn’t so hard, he doesn’t need Congress. So I’ll place my bet that he’ll resign on Day 2 and let someone else do it. That way he could go back to Trump Tower and stuff.
But I don’t expect to win: I’m imagining that he probably feels that he has exactly the expertise needed to fix “his part of the business” – the Executive branch. For that he’ll need Congress’s help, but he might get a lot of it. Can’t he find some Democrats in the Senate who support cutting needless bureaucracy, or requiring a sunset on regulations?
Hopefully he’ll stay out of foreign policy as much as possible; a president who doesn’t think that he’s the world’s policeman would be a tremendous relief to all of us.
“I think Trump has no clue as to how hard it is to be President, and it is always possible that he will walk away.â€
.
What a silly statement (I see that it did not originate with MikeR). Why would Trump have less of a clue than Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan, or Carter? From what I have heard (but I don’t have a reference), the man is a demon for work. The quote above is just a continuation of the wishful thinking that led people to believe he’d quit before the primaries started, or once he lost Iowa, or after he got his butt kicked in Wisconsin, or once he really came under attack in the general election campaign. I originally harbored such hopes, but came to realize that I was wrong and that Trump is serious and determined. No way is he going to quit now.
MikeM
And I find your position unjustyfiable.
So? Really, so? Back when the first amendment was written, the concept of internet publishing was unheard of. That didn’t prevent people from writing laws that said precisely what they meant. They didn’t need to include the words “internet publishing” or anything similar. Because they could write laws that capture a concept.
And people writing amendements continued to retain this ability. If the founders had wanted the 14th amendment to exclude those under “partial jurisdiction” they could very well have added the word “whole” or “entire jurisdiction”. Partial jurisdiction already existed – lot of foreigners visited on vacation even if their stays were longer than the few days required to give birth– the jurisdiction for them was just as “partial” as any other. But those writing the 14th amendment did not add any words to distinguish between “partial” or “whole” jurisdiction.
People who want to believe the absence of an important adjective restricting the right implies those writing the amendement meant to include the adjective– which would cover a concept people perfectly well understood at the time– are just grasping at straws.
As for whether a case would be heard: if a person is deprived of rights, the case will be heard. It doesn’t matter if their rights were deprived under a clear precedent it gets heard. The only issue is whether those depriving are willing to accept the ruling at the first court or continue to stubbornly pursue it to SCOTUS. .
But the argument for depriving citizens rests on the distinction between “partial” and “full”, then removing birth right citizenship requires overturning Wong Kim Ark. Because his parents were under partial jurisdiction and also under jurisdiction of the Emperor of China. The legal argument is– whether you like it or not– exactly the same with respect to this “partial” and “full jurisdiction”.
In fact, wrt to “partial” vs “full”, even legal aliens are only under “partial” jurisdictions. They are also bound by laws of their own country!
The parents of the plaintiff in Kim Wong Ark were under “partial” jurisdiction.
So: if that argument prevailed that would represent overturning Wong Kim Ark. Could happen— but it would represent overturning. Overturning happens: SCOTUS overturned Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown vs. Board Education.
More than a nano-second. It wouldn’t be challenged until a specific person was denied an anciallry right of citizenship — voting rights or something. That would take much more than a nano-second. Precisely how long would depend on what they wrote. But even if they want to take away rights from children of illegal aliens they can’t take it away from those who already have it. There are other rulings about that. So you would have to wait to deprive a child born after the statute was passed of a sue for. These could be voting rights– first cases would be in 18 years. Or it could be trying to deport them (not just their parents) or refuse to issue a passport– which means someone needs to apply for the passports, which most people don’t do and illegal alien parents are very unlikely to do.
Certainly, if Congress did this the case would be heard. It would be heard even if it was exactly like Wong Kim Ark because cases depriving rights get heard. Period. Even if they are just repeats.
Obviously, this would be a lot of angst. And enough Congress-critters know the law would be found unconstitutional because it already has been. So sanity will likely prevail and they will never pass it. So you are right: the law is unlikely to be passed.
MikeR
Oh. I wasn’t betting Day 2. I was figuring about a year or two. He’ll get some key to him stuff done– regulations and so on. Then bag it. I’m not confident in my prediction. I just won’t be surprised if it happens.
Of course there are other more dramatic ways out. Heart attack & etc.
“I do not see much wrong with the MSM handling of presidents with whom they do not like or agree.”
That is not the argument. The problem is the overt bias towards one candidate, a bias the US electorate does not share. They were overtly for Obama in 2008, and overtly against Trump in 2016. This is reinforced by statistics of editorial endorsements, media donation patterns, journalist voting patterns, patterns of academic institutions that educate journalists, reader satisfaction surveys, and voting patterns of large cities where media companies reside.
Can they overcome these social pressures and still be unbiased? Theoretically, but it sure doesn’t appear to be the case. Who could we count on to investigate a potential systemic bias in political media coverage? The press? Social scientists? SNL?
It is arguable they went so far this election cycle that it became counterproductive. Their coverage became part of the story. Republican trust in the media cratered to 14%. It’s not just that they drove voters to Trump, but they also failed to convince people of Trump’s flaws because people simply don’t trust them at all.
Negative coverage is what the media does, so that isn’t a problem by itself. I think people want a balance of viewpoints on the editorial pages and with political reporters. I think people believe they are being spoon fed what they should believe and the people doing it have become a bit too preachy.
“The problem is the overt bias towards one candidate, a bias the US electorate does not share.” Well, this week Trump brought in the MSM heads, gave them a stern lecture, and then released a YouTube video with his plans for Day One.
He doesn’t need them any more.
New world. Should be fun. Freedom of the press, but who elected them as “the press”? Lucia is the press too, and apparently so is Donald Trump and YouTube.
An example of where I think the media goes too far is Trump did X and that makes him a racist (fill in your own favorite delegitimatizer here). I would prefer the story was Trump did X. Full stop. I will conclude what that means based on my own value system.
Racist, xenophobic, etc. are opinions and conclusions, not news. They are also incendiary terms that carry a lot of baggage with vague definitions where the goalposts seem to be moved just so a target can fit in. I can’t tell you how many stories I read with these labels that never even bothered to include supporting evidence for the accusation. I hope we have seen the peak of name calling and group shaming by the media with election coverage but I’m not optimistic.
MikeR,
I agree with you on MSN. They don’t have a duty to be unbiased. Viewers and the American public aren’t required to believe they are unbiased either. Currently, may people think they are not unbiased.
I also think Trump seems to know how to handle the press. Given that he knows their spin is not what he wants, he’s just going around them. Bush (either one) might have had trouble doing so. But the internet is a bigger place now. He will have no difficulty doing so.
Tom Scharf
Sure. If they pause a moment the press will realize that the people come to view any news outlet that does this with any noticable frequency as biased. Then people will either (a) take the conclusions of those who do this with a grain of salt (just as the do with their crazy uncle at the dinner table) and/or (b) turn to getting news from other sources.
Most people already do both. These aren’t “new” skills. They are the same news filtering skills people have always had.
Broadly speaking you are right. The federal courts don’t issue advisory opinions. Sometimes, however, you can bring a lawsuit because you anticipate a rights violation–not just as something that might possibly happen, but something that will happen.
So a person here under birthright citizenship might have a firm intention to vote in the 2018 midterms, and sue early to enforce his right to do so. (He would be asking for an injunction to force the government to let him vote when the time came, and possibly for “declaratory relief” that the no-birthright-citizenship law was unconstitutional.)
The question would be whether the controversy is ripe for determination, and that in turn would depend on whether the upcoming violation is speculative.
Tom Scharf,
“It is arguable they went so far this election cycle that it became counterproductive.”
.
Yes, this is almost certainly true. Coverage of the campaign (and now the transition) was grotesquely tilted against Trump. I see little indication of any regret or doubt among well known journalists; they mostly continue to hold that only ‘deplorables’ and stupid people would ever vote for Trump, and that Hillary’s (shocking!) loss was due to tactical mistakes by Hillary and an electorate filled with too many evil/incompetent people. I do not expect this to change except through the continued fall in the influence of MSM news coverage. ‘Progressive’ journalists will continue to appeal only to those who share their political views, while most people will gather information from non-MSM sources.
.
I would liked to have been a fly on the wall for Trump’s off the record conversation with the NY Times publisher. I expect the conversation went a little differently than the on the record transcript of his conversation with the Times staff.
Joseph,
Sure. But for this person, the law would have to take away citizenship already granted. So they don’t need to touch the other issue. His birthright citizenship was is already granted– you can’t take that away even if the grant was statutory. The court need go no further and so this wouldn’t necessarily test Wong. (I can’t remember the ruling. But it actually applied to people I know who were born in El Salvador to American parents.)
I suspect given the fact that those trying to pursue such a case could see that they would no way no how win this means that revocation already existing citizenship couldn’t be the test case for Wong. They’d lose too may ways.
Naturalized citizens can’t have their citizenship revoked for reasons other than things like lying to get it in the first place and so on. (Past laws tried to have various sorts of post-naturlization residencies requirements. These were thrown out as violations of the constitution. Both the rule for natural born and naturalized citizens actually mattered to my sisters God mother, her kids and so on. The got their citizenship “back” as a result of a ruling (for a different plaintiff of course) Obviously, the ruling was that these sort of ‘revocation’ never happened. If necessary I’ll look up the case– but I can’t remember the name googling is otherwise difficult for me in these cases.)
You know… the issue of voter ID always makes me remembering the first time I registered to vote. I assumed I would be required to prove citizenship. Especially since my answer to “where were you born” was “El Salvador”. But all I had to do was answer “yes” to “are you an American citizen” and no further proof was required. That passport in my purse was not needed.
In contrast, now I need all sorts of things to renew my drivers license. How times have changed.
SteveF
Well… she did make tactical mistakes. Like not going to Wisconsin. And evidently, failing to extend her campaign in PA where the locals said they had sufficient resources to do so.
That said: if the “borg” “press brain” was circumspect, they would realize that the appearance of bias on their part did not help her. They and Hillary could openly laugh, scoff or whatever at people saying the press was biased. But they might have done better to ask themselves (a) why so many people think so and (b) whethere those people were correct.
(There are some “analyses” I’ve seen– via twitter– and they just make me laugh. Because they show viewing patterns of “right”, “left” and “balanced” news outlets, and “studies” notion of “balanced” is absurd. I think one considered “MSN” balanced! )
Good point, that. So you would still have to wait for someone born after the statute went into effect to at least get old enough to wish to claim, or anticipate claiming, some privilege of citizenship. (Or for his parents to wish to claim it on his behalf…say if there’s a state welfare or education program that only applies to children who are citizens.)
If I remember, Roe v. Wade includes a finding that the “right to life” in the Fourteenth Amendment does not cover the unborn (I don’t feel like wading through it again just now, but they based it on a survey of 19th century abortion laws; it is not one of the more tightly reasoned cases in the Supreme Court’s history). So a child in the womb might be up for a test case as long as the law went into effect before his birth.
So, you could get a case pretty fast, but not on the “nanosecond” principle you’d have if the courts issued advisory opinions.
BTW,
I expect Trump to have even fewer question/answer news conferences than Hillary did during the campaign…. essentially none. IMO, he was treated unfairly by the MSM, especially if you compare his coverage to the fawning coverage Hillary got. He is not going to forget that any time soon. He will continue to mostly ignore the MSM and get his message out in other ways.. such as televised addresses to the nation, which the MSM will have no choice but to cover, and YouTube videos.
JosephW,
“..it is not one of the more tightly reasoned cases in the Supreme Court’s history”
For sure. If Ginsburg and/or Kennedy retire or die in the next few years, I expect Roe will be revised to allow States more authority over late term abortions. It might even be reversed outright. If Ginsburg and Kennedy stay on through the end of Trump’s term, then the only thing that could reverse Roe would be a second Trump term, which seems less likely than not to me.
Joseph W
The earliest might be an orphaned child who is denied a passport. Whoever was caretaker for the child might want the passport– perhaps uncle, aunt or other relative who was naturalized. (Heck, could even be a friend who ended up as child’s carer.) The parents ‘illegal’ status wouldn’t put them in danger of being deported if found.
That could be a few years. And the aunt and uncle have to want to do it. But it’s less time than required for the kid to apply for right to vote– even in anticipation.
Lucia,
“They don’t have a duty to be unbiased.”
I would say that don’t have a duty to be “unfactual”. I feel that the large media outlets do have a duty to be unbiased (no prejudice for or against something; impartial). There should be “bias” when reporting on a vaccine autism connection, etc., but most probably agree that they shouldn’t claim they are politically unbiased and then have a clear appearance of bias. The Puffington Host openly wore their bias on their sleeve, and that is OK by me. I don’t think there are Snidely Whiplash type people plotting Trump’s demise in dark rooms or intentional falsehoods. It is mostly through selection bias on what to report, how to report it, and what gets left out.
Tom Schraft,
In what sense are you using “duty”. Unlike the military or public employees, the media have no “duty” to the public.
Organizations can hold themselves to standards. And civic associations & etc. can do so as well. But these are mostly voluntary with respect to the news media who can join or not join as they prefer. They aren’t required to adhere to any particular standard to report news.
Do you mean FTC standard for broadcast? That applies only to stations that broadcast. That’s the overwhelming minority of “news media”.
Ripeness & Birthright Issue
I would think the birthright issue would be immediately ripe for some babies born after the passage of potential legislation. Would assume that various welfare and medical benefits are premised on citizenship. So, an attorney could sue for a baby immediately seeking benefits that would [presumably] accrue to citizen infants and be denied to non-citizens.
JD
A happy and healthy Thanksgiving to all.
SteveF: “A happy and healthy Thanksgiving to all.”
Ditto. Can’t improve on that.
JD
Word.
No legal duty or anything like that. Ethical duty. Journalistic Integrity. Etc. I would personally extend that to be representative of the community you serve.
Happy Thanksgiving to all back at you.
SteveF — In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice O’Connor wrote the plurality opinion that kept Roe in place. She didn’t try defending the reasoning of Roe (which would be very hard to defend). She just wrote that the principle of stare decisis — “let the decision stand” — was so important that Roe should remain in place. Scalia’s dissent was quite blistering….we’ll see how “O’Connorish” the court remains.
Happy Thanskgivings all around!
JD Ohio,
Most states have language like this
That makes it sound like the adult guardian needs to be legal. Some states don’t include the highlighted stuff. But if the benefit is considered to be given to the guardian on the basis of their legality, the child might not have standing.
https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/1648
https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/browse-by-category/category/28
Lucia, “the child might not have standing”
….
Standing and ripeness are different doctrines. Without looking at it closely, my strong best guess is that the child would have standing. It would seem to be nonsensical in some circumstances to say the adult would have standing and not the child. The whole point of a guardianship is to protect the best interests of the child. So, practically, to me, the issue seems to be whether the child has standing, and the adult would be standing in the shoes of the child. Also, from a purely practical standpoint virtually everyone would want this issue decided as promptly as possible. For instance, it would be awful for a child born the day after the passage of a potential act to have to wait 18 years to find out what his or her future would be.
…..
Here is the Ripeness standard from the Abbott Labs case, which is also based on practicality. “The Court said in Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967):
Without undertaking to survey the intricacies of the ripeness doctrine it is fair to say that its basic rationale is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties. The problem is best seen in a twofold aspect, requiring us to evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripeness
….
There is much that would not be abstract that would occur if Congressional legislation did away with birthright citizenship. Also, between the many children born in all 50 states, the different laws of guardianship in each state, and the many general laws of the various states, and the many creative lawyers, undoubtedly some lawyers would find some children positioned with standing and ripe cases, even if the courts were to construe those doctrines strictly.
JD
Lucia, checking the box is still the requirement for voting registration. Motor Voter should be repealed.
JosephW, the Casey opinion has 3 listed authors, but reports are that it was written by Souter and he convinced Kennedy to switch sides. Close reading of the opinions shows incorrect references, with the opinion intended to be a dissent.
It’s here complete with its various concurring-and-dissenting-in-parts. O’Connor’s opinion was not a dissent (she’s listed first so I call it hers). That’s why it ends with the words “It is so ordered” (the opinion of the court is the only part that ends with actual orders as to what the lower courts have to do; dissents never have that).
I hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving. Okay, I used restraint to keep it politics free, but just a few words here before bed though.
.
My prediction is that if Trump gets to replace one of the liberal SC justices he will kill birth right citizenship for undocumented aliens as part of his comprehensive reform legislation that also builds pathways to legality and citizenship.
.
Regarding the presidential election result protesters, they recruited Jill Stein to ask for recounts in three states. She just got the 1.1 million dollars required to file for in Wisconsin.
It seems that Hillary has no taste for the fight but Stein is taking it up for her. The allegation is that the electronic voting was hacked, as evidenced by a statistical edge by Clinton in paper ballots that were scanned vs. the computer ballots.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-being-pushed-seek-vote-recount-3-states-084528483–election.html
.
They would need to win the trifecta and swing all three states back to Hillary. Talk about a constitutional crisis, Florida chad counting seems like a speed bump compared to what could happen here if there was tampering.
Joseph W, of course it is not a dissent now. It was a dissent when written, then had to be changed.
Recount: Still in the Denial stage, I see. I’m interested, is it true that a candidate can ask for a recount, even though they weren’t the one that the recount could help? Seems silly, though maybe that’s the way the statute(s) are worded. Clinton won’t ask for a recount.
I wonder if Clinton is happy that so many of her followers are making themselves insane trying to find a way around the reality of their defeat? Is that some sort of consolation for her? If not, why doesn’t she speak up and say, this is stupid and you should stop.
Michigan certified: Trump.
http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/742944-the-fate-of-michigans-election-is-finally-in-we-have-a-winner-in-tightest-race-in-state-history/
One article I read said Penn. electronic voting machines don’t leave paper. If so I don’t know how they can do that state.
I don’t remember the what can be overturned and what not. I remember the vote being certified during the whole Bush/Gore Florida thing.
Recount from NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/vote-count-hillary-clinton-trump.html?_r=0
So, a candidate could file in court if they do so by Monday. Steyn seems to be the one most heppped up. Either she or Clinton could file Monday.
Interesting article about the recount effort in the Washington Post. Stein has raised more money for the recount ($3.9M to date) than she raised in the election campaign ($3.5M). Total cost of the recount is now estimated at $6-7 M. [Edit: Total is up to $4.8M as of this post.]
The estimate of legal expenses changed (on their donation page) from “Attorney’s fees are likely to be another $1 million” to “Attorney’s fees are likely to be another $2-3 million” as the contributions rose. Not sure what that signifies.
If they don’t file pretty soon, it seems attorney fees may be $0.
Deadlines don’t seem to be a problem: “Now that we have completed funding Wisconsin’s recount (where we will file on Friday) and funding Pennsylvania’s recount (due Monday), we will focus on raising the needed funds for Michigan’s recount (due Wednesday).”
HaroldW,
I guess they’ll make it!
Look like you can help out:
The donation limit on that page is $2,700. They used to link to pages for MA and OH organizations which had a $10K limit; contributing the max to all three adds up to $22,700. I wonder why those links have been removed now.
On the Ohio website, there’s a pre-election post against vote-swapping which says
Hard to reconcile that with the hard push for recounts.
Ron Graf: “he will kill birth right citizenship for undocumented aliens as part of his comprehensive reform legislation that also builds pathways to legality and citizenship.”
.
Won’t happen. Killing birthright citizenship is a poison pill for half of Congress and path to citizenship is a poison pill for the other half. Trump is a pragmatist. He dropped his call for ending birthright citizenship a long time ago. He will agree to a path to legality in order to get other things he wants.
.
Ron: “The allegation is that the electronic voting was hacked, as evidenced by a statistical edge by Clinton in paper ballots that were scanned vs. the computer ballots.”
.
This was discussed over at 538. The conclusion they came to was that difference can be fully explained by the demographic differences between the counties that use mostly computers versus those that use mostly scanning.
.
The MSM was outraged when Trump suggested that he might challenge the results. I wonder: Will they be outraged by Stein’s challenge? (Obviously rhetorical.) Not rhetorical: Does Stein have standing? She can not make the case that a miscount cost her any of those states. So unless she came very close to some threshold for future ballot access, I don’t see how she has standing beyond that of a private citizen.
Mike M, I wrote that Trump will try to reform the birth citizenship for the undocumented issue after gaining a clear conservative majority in the SCOTUS . The first orders of business will be securing the border and the workplace.
.
Jill Stein received 50,000 votes in Michigan, five times the amount Clinton needed to be over the top of Trump? Is she feeling guilty for derailing HRC? I think not since Stein campaigned against Clinton. So why is she raising more money to get Clinton in the WH than she raised for the Green Party while HRC has no interest in participating in challenging the election? Is Jill Stein campaigning for followers to begin her 2020 run? I think that is the most logical answer.
.
Edit: The Green Party is so counterproductive to the Dems one wonders if those instant millions Stein raised might be partly from the Kochs clicking “send” over an over.
Edit edit: Or better yet, the Russians.
Ron Graf,
I see no strong reason to believe that conservative justices would rule against birthright citizenship. I would expect the liberal justices to rule against it, because that is what is dictated by identity politics. But before you could get it that far, a bill would have to get through Congress. Won’t happen. I think Trump is smart enough not to waste time on such a pointless effort.
.
Either Stein is, as you suggest, just trying to get publicity for herself and her party, or she was lying about not caring if Hillary or Trump won. I still don’t see how she has standing.
George Monbiot’s take on Paris “Agreement”:
“10. The Paris climate agreement trashed
National climate change programmes bear no connection to the commitments governments made at Paris. Even if these programmes are fully implemented (they won’t be), they set us on a climate-change trajectory way beyond that envisaged by the agreement. And this is before we know what Trump will do.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/25/13-crises-we-face-trump-soil-loss-global-collapse
….
More evidence that Trump should either ignore it or directly kill American participation in it.
JD
Ron Graf,
No matter who Trump appoints to replace Scalia, the birthright citizenship precedent will stand. If Trump got two additional appointments, there might be a tiny chance they would try to overturn birthright citizenship. But I wouldn’t bet on it. This strikes me as little more than a fantasy for those most viscerally opposed to illegal immigration….. sorry, it is really very unlikely to happen.
.
WRT Stein requesting recounts: IMO, she very well may be unhinged. Even if she makes the requests within the specified time limits in the respective states, the chance of overturning all three is… well, just about zero. The other plausible explanation is the whole thing is nothing more than the extreme left’s effort to beat the “Trump is not legitimate” drum for as long as possible. I note that the two explanations are not at all mutually exclusive.
UNFCCC was adopted by the Senate with caveat that future emissions restrictions had to be ratified by the Senate. This is why Kerry tried to put ‘should’ instead of ‘shall’.
Like Xeno, Stein’s fundraising target keeps increasing the more money she raises. There is also fine print that says a recount is not guaranteed; excess money will be spent on election reform.
Hey SteveF, thanks for the clarification, but a simple “yes” would have sufficed.
SteveF, I’ve noticed that blogs under liberal moderators are happy to snip or delete any comment that offends consensus liberal ideology. Yet these same individuals would have no problem in trolling a non-liberal moderated site. I imagine this would be because they are doing Gaia’s work. The idea to suspend the assumed rightness of their cause for the purpose of dialogue never enters the mind.
.
I suggest you don’t waste any valuable time responding to them.
.
Mike M, I’ll grant that it is hard to know how “viscerally opposed” Trump is on illegal immigration but I think it ranks one or two.
Ron Graf,
“The idea to suspend the rightness of their cause for the purpose of dialogue never enters the mind.”
.
What mind? 😉
Of course it rarely serves any purpose to respond to those who’s only goal is to disrupt. But when someone makes an arrogant drive-by, I think it helps to tell them plainly that they are an a$$hole. The people least willing to consider even the possibility they are not the world’s only true moral arbiter are usually avowed ‘progressives’, young and naieve, or both.
.
And that is I think one of the reasons Trump won the election. Trump’s supporters were famously called ‘deplorables’, even though few are. Hillary and many of her supporters can best be described as ‘insufferables’… arrogant, obnoxious, and unwilling to listen or compromise. Let them ponder profound moral issues like the toilet choice rights of the trans-gendered and ‘racial micro-aggressions’…. while excluded from power.
SteveF
A bit ageist there.
Not that I mind.
There seem to be a few old white guys running AGW blogs and getting het up. Nick must be in his late 50’s. Not many young progressives around with blogs.
Reminds me of my bike riding group, average age 60 plus, a couple of younger men and women in their 40’s. Some teachers, left by necessity in Australia, some progressives and a larger rump of more right wing views.
We all get along but we don’t mention politics much. Language gets toned down when the women are riding though.
angech,
Mentioning the obvious (and widely understood) correlation between ‘young’ and ‘naive’ is exactly the kind of thing that provokes mindless PC charges of ‘ageism’, ‘micro aggression’, and the rest of the claptrap. When someone is born, they are 100% naive. Some decades later, maybe they are not at all naive, though there seem some who remain hopelessly naive their whole lives. To suggest there is no connection between youth and naiveté, or to deem mention of that connection ‘politically unacceptable’ isn’t just ridiculous, it is a willful rejection of reality…. part and parcel of the ‘PC’ culture which dominates ‘progressive’ politics.
.
BTW, I would be surprised if Nick Stokes were not at least in his 60’s, and perhaps 70’s.
Winston,
Except that the answer to the question you actually asked was “no”. In fact, “sane republicans” is not a long winded way of referring to the empty set.
It would be best if you didn’t violate the blogs prohibition against trying to make points by asking rhetorical questions. When you ask rhetorical questions, you should provide your own answers so as to make whatever point you intend to make clear to others. To do otherwise, rhetorical questions tend to invite misinterpretation.
In fact, you may well find people react by to you as if you intentionally tried to insult people. That appears to be what SteveF thought you were trying to do. ( For what it’s worth, I assumed your point was to insult a group of people and worse to do so in a way that creates plausible deniability. Moreover, I still suspect it. If that was not your intention: don’t try to make point with rhetorical questions.)
I asked a question many weeks back as to why Vladimir Putin would prefer a Clinton presidency over Trump’s. Nobody had an answer. Like Trump, I thought that there is no way for anyone to know for certain who tricked Podesta with a fishing scam or who hacked the DNC. The fact that Obama said it was the Russians or the Hillary said 17 intelligence agencies say it was the Russians did not impress me as convincing, never mind that intelligence agencies’ job is to provide more disinformation than information to the public.
.
I thought that the issue would disappear after the election but now with the official filing for recounts by Stein with the new support of Hillary I am thinking this is a more serious issue. Their premise is that the poles had been correct and the results incorrect in MI, WI and PA, that Russians hacked computers in these 3 key states to give Trump the win.
.
Looking back on the reporting before the election it is amazing to see how the MSM accepted at face value all accusations that Putin supported Trump and that this was the reason Russia hacked Podesta and the DNC — and now, presumably hacked the voting machines.
.
Newsweek virulently attacked Trump with: WHY VLADIMIR PUTIN’S RUSSIA IS BACKING DONALD TRUMP
BY KURT EICHENWALD ON Nov.4
.
CNN reasoned in “Why Putin fears a Clinton presidency” October 16:
1) Since Hillary supported the Russian protests against Putin’s illegal 3rd term in the 2011 that Putin particularly despises her.
2) That Trump is willing to accept the annexation of Crimea and lift the Obama sanctions.
3) Putin hates uppity women and prefers a misogynist like himself to deal with.
.
Out of those I thought #2 was worth investigating. I found this article by the Atlantic on July 27: “Donald Trump’s Crimean Gambit.”
.
The readers should know by now that Donald never says “I never thought about that.” He will instead say something like, “Sure, there needs to be punishment.” “For the woman?” “Yes.” And, “Voila!” he has a never heard before abortion position making headlines because he doesn’t know the issue. So out of the “We would be looking at that” the Washington Post uses that as their main reason Trump is like by Putin in their Aug 17, “Why Putin wants a Trump victory”.
The amazing thing is that these same media outlets ridiculed Romney as dangerously insane for citing Russia as America’s most important adversary in the 2012 debates. Obama argued that Russia was benign.
In October, I suggested in a WaPo comment that Putin would be better off with Hillary than Trump. My reasoning was that running a country like Russia was likely complex enough without having to worry about unpredictability (instability) in one of the principals across the sea. I thought he could take Hillary’s lack of imagination and timidity to the bank — but only when she has to sign the check, by the way; not when someone else has to pony up. A truly brave advisor.
No-one posting to those comments agreed. I still think Putin would have been smarter to prefer Hillary.
j ferguson: — “I still think Putin would have been smarter to prefer Hillary.”
.
For all we know Putin did prefer HRC as his adversary. I echo you reasoning that a career intelligence chief and political chess player like Putin would prefer someone who telegraphs. To the criticism that Trump is easily baited, who would want to bait him? One baits either somebody more powerful that you know would avoid confrontation or somebody weaker that you relish a confrontation with. Superpower unpredictability, whether by intention or by craziness, inhibits, not invites, provocation.
.
I just watched “CIA in the Cross-hairs” on Showtime, a documentary with interviews of I think every living CIA director and a few deputy directors. The CBS co-produced film covered the rise of Al Qaeda, dissected 9/11, the torture debate and the presidential drone targeting. It will be interesting to see if Trump takes the CIA back to capturing suspects or neutralizing them in their living rooms, or neither.
Ron Graf:
Were the Superpower to be unpredictable I would agree. Suppose Trump’s unpredictability is attenuated by “staff?”
–
I put staff in quotes because I couldn’t come up with a good term for the professionals who actually make things happen, Generals, Intelligence People, folks at State. Also ‘attenuated’ seemed a more optimistic word than ‘throttled’ which is what I really had in mind.
You may remember Eisenhower’s observation after a year in office to the effect that being president was very different from generaling. In his previous occupation if he asked someone to do something it was very likely to get done, but as president he could never count on it.
.
I think the country and the world are hoping for that. But if I were an adversary I don’t think I would be the first to want to test if his generals, Flynn and ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis, were willing to fight when they were ordered.
One might also ask if there’s any requirement in the Constitution that the office of the Presidency be conducted with dignity.
j ferguson,
There is no such requirement. I imagine people’s definition of “dignity” differ. One could argue those who had affairs were not “dignified”. That would be a lot of Presidents. Certainly WJClinton was not “dignified”. I’m sure Trump will be thought not so– though he may not end up soiling any blue dresses.
Lucia,
Yes. I’m having some difficulty with the mid-night tweeting among other less than dignified remarks, the ones referring to the ‘failing NYT’.
I’m also having some discomfort with clearly brilliant KellyAnne’s explanations of the un-explainable. She is very very good, but if one doesn’t like the story, it doesn’t help. She seems better than anyone who has ever been the spokesperson for the Clintons. What was his name? Cringeworthy Cajun?
Anyone’s dignity under a microscope can look questionable. I just ate a potato chip off my shirt while nobody was looking. The main question is will the big things get done in the right way.
1) Market forces brought to all the economic and technological issues.
2) Unity and pride brought to the country
3) Ideas standing on merit of reason rather than their PC
4) Respect for the rule of law and its even application.
.
Cringeworthy Cajun: James Carville
Somebody should be asking the question whether $7M had better uses than throwing it away on “election integrity”. One has no doubt they would have done this anyway if Trump would have lost (ha ha) since it is all about integrity.
I grow weary of this continuous politico doublespeak spin. It has become reflexive to the political class, and it is part of why they are so untrustworthy. The better educated believe their deftness in doublespeak makes them morally superior than their less genetically gifted and culturally refined opponents. A belief that clever bigotry is somehow not bigotry at all as the tribe members give a wink and a nod to each other has become so transparent that even a lowly Trump supporter could see though it. It takes an amazingly low IQ to know when you are being talked down to.
If anyone has any doubt that the media has been operating with a hive mind recently, I have two words: fake news.
Tom Scharf
I didn’t donate, so obviously I don’t think it’s worth throwing my money away on this. But the entire $7M seems to be private money. I believe in personal freedom with ones money. So I don’t see how I can criticize their choice to throw away their money on that rather than say– ridiculously expensive cars, free range beef or the latest tech gadget.
I was wondering who was donating this money. I’m sure it isn’t taxpayer money. I assume the election commissions are charging the prevailing union wages for the work, ha ha. It seems rather pointless from what I can tell, of course I also thought Trump would lose easily.
Perhaps it is a Jill Stein publicity stunt, she has gotten more press lately than the entire election. Always good to wrap yourself in a cloak of integrity while the world is watching.
MikeN,
So was enforcement of the national 55MPH speed limit. The same solution can be applied: cutting off federal funds to the states that don’t cooperate. The Feds have both carrots and sticks. They don’t need boots on the ground.
P.S.
That applies to enforcement of laws against illegal aliens too. How many mayors and governors are going to hold the line when a substantial fraction of their budget goes away? Not many, I think.
Can the AG withhold funds to states that don’t make marijuana arrests?
Sanctuary cities provision was passed by Congress. States generally did ignore speeding, with Montana being blatant and making violations immediately payable $5.
MikeN,
I don’t think it could be done by executive order. It would require Congress to pass laws. But then, so would building a wall, as opposed to a fence. The enabling legislation is there for a fence, but funding isn’t.
The obvious law to pass w.r.t. marijuana would be to withhold some large fraction of federal funding from states that legalize it. I’m not saying that will happen. I don’t think it’s likely. But that would be the way to do it.
The current trend in research on the effects of Δ-9 THC is that the effects on the dopamine system in the brain, particularly a developing brain, might be permanent and damaging. Parkinson’s disease, for example, is thought to be caused by low production of dopamine.
Volokh Conspiracy has a article about withholding federal funds from states. It’s not that easy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/26/federalism-the-constitution-and-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.3d32a72aee64
Dignity probably isn’t the right concern.
lucia,
By that logic, the national 55MPH speed limit couldn’t have been successfully imposed by threat of withholding highway funds.
In fact, they have it backwards. Medicaid expansion could not be mandated, but the government would also not have to send Medicaid expansion subsidies to the states that didn’t expand Medicaid. The states would also be free to legalize marijuana, say, but the government would also be free to not send them money if such a law were passed.
There is no contract that requires the federal government to send any money to the states, AFAIK. It must be authorized by Congress every year. Congress is free to change the terms at any time.
DeWitt: ” Medicaid expansion could not be mandated, … Congress is free to change the terms at any time.”
That is not entirely so. Congress passed a law (Obamacare) that specified that one condition for a state to receive *any* Medicaid funding was that the state expand Medicaid. The Supreme Court struck that down. So although Congress can use funding as a means to control states, that use is not unlimited.
Mike M.,
I suspect I could find more like that. I wouldn’t count on the Supreme Court to rule in the state’s favor every time. The ACA was something of a special case as it barely passed constitutional muster in the first place.
DeWitt,
By which logic? The VC article merely says that
If the law creating the grant unambiguously gives a condition, then it can be done. So: The law creating highway funds has unambiguous provisions– a state can accept them or not. And so on.
But the executive can’t just add in on his own rule after the fact and yank funds. That means it’s not “that easy” for Trump to take away federal funds from cities and states. He would need cooperation from Congress– and that cooperation has to happen as each funding bill is passed. That would take quite a bit of time and effort.
lucia,
I believe I said above that it couldn’t be done by executive order.
The 55MPH speed limit wasn’t imposed by executive order, it was a law. I don’t think it would be difficult to draft a law that unambiguously tied some federal funding to marijuana legalization and that would pass muster with the courts. Passing it would be a different matter.
Then there’s the D.E.A. While they generally work in conjunction with local authorities, I don’t think that’s necessary. The DEA could, for example, legally seize assets of marijuana growers, sellers and users. I don’t think they would have to do it all that often to have, as they say, a chilling effect. That’s something that could be done by executive order.
Trump/Congress could make a new infrastructure bill with whatever conditions they want. If CA, NY, etc. don’t want to participate due to a sanctuary cities restriction, then the rest of the nation will welcome the extra funds I expect. This is a good wedge issue.
FL refused stimulus bullet train funding and ACA Medicaid expansion due to the strings attached. Scott was reelected.
Tom Scharf: “Trump/Congress could make a new infrastructure bill with whatever conditions they want.”
.
Interesting idea. I would think that would pass muster with the courts. Some Democrats in Congress might go along if they want the infrastructure bill. Tying existing funding to a new condition might be a more of a problem.
.
On the other hand, I am pretty sure that Congress has, in the past, passed legislation to require local authorities to work with immigration officials. That may provide the executive with powers that have never been fully implemented and that Trump could use unilaterally.
The infra structure spending under Obama did not work. It is a Keynesian economic ploy that comes out of the magic that says going to war is good for the economy. If infra structure is required let the existing systems handle it.
I am surprised by the so-called conservatives not condemning the Trump proposal and this type of deficit spending and calling it what it appears to be: crony capitalism. Trump better start thinking about deficit spending and the national debt. Perhaps somebody should explain to Trump that a national government default of debt is not the same as a businessman like himself declaring a corporate bankruptcy.
Dewitt
Yes. They DEA can act on their own. But that’s different from ordering states and cities from undertaking enforcement actions on the behalf of the DEA. They can’t currently do that, and it can’t be done by executive order.
I think you are right that Congress could hypothetically pass a bill tying some federal funds to a city or state helping the DEA with marijuana enforcement and that bill could pass judicial muster. For example, maybe they could revise an education bill to restrict access to federal education funds to cities and states who will help the DEA enforce marijuana laws. But I suspect this would never cut it politically. Generally when the feds set up an education program with carrots there is something else they want the states or cities to do– like forced testing on students or adopt a curriculum standard. These are things the Feds can’t do on their own, so they are using the money to get the cities/states to do that. If they simultaneously link federal money under a program to an additional behavior– especially behavior states and cities will see as not related to the federal money, the feds will start finding the cities and states will refuse the money. So: yeah, the cities and states don’t get the money. But the Feds don’t get the enforcement action they want.
Yes. Everyone likes money. But at a certain point, if they go to far, the feds would find trying to buy something that is either not for sale or they aren’t willing to pay enough. So as a political matter, some connections aren’t going to work.
Kenneth
I think a portion of lack of condemnation is that we really don’t know what the heck he is proposing yet. Yes. He’s throwing things out there. But he’s mostly in the process of assembling a cabinet and naming people to appoint to heads of positions.
We know some things coming out of his mouth are going to be modified during discussions in Congress. Because many can only be achieved in Congress comes up with the money. I’m waiting for the end of January before I “condemn” or “applaud” plans for anything that needs Congressional action to happen.
Lucia: “We know some things coming out of his mouth are going to be modified”.
Right. Other politicians test what will fly politically via polling and focus groups. Trump uses Twitter, or thinks out loud, or has allies say something, then listens to the response. And some of the things being said by allies are probably just their own efforts to get a pet idea on the agenda.
Infrastructure bill that has a lot of work in the…ahem…Midwest is the “Trump likes to win again in 2020” plan. He can also make a lot of noise about rural infrastructure vs urban infrastructure to further drive a wedge in the blue/red divide. Let the liberal establishment have a bird because money isn’t being wasted in the city and see how that goes over in fly over country. An outright ban on using the funding for bullet trains would also be humorous. Anything that exposes the self serving liberal establishment is worth its weight in gold. Force private colleges to pay taxes on their endowments, bingo!
Obama spent a lot of money on government employees with the stimulus, a not so subtle thank you to the people who elected him.
I’m no fan of cronyism but my expectation is that Trump will OK a ginormous spending bill and the Congress will go along.
Well then I would worry about a President that is not clear about his policies going into office or does it by Twitter. In general Trump has not shown concerned about deficit spending, debt or unfunded liabilities. These should be major policies issues for conservatives and now they should be letting Trump know about their concerns. I would hope that enough of the free market and trade and libertarian leaning House members remain sufficiently independent to keep Trump from enacting his Democrat agenda.
It would appear that with our two party system programs of whatever political philosophy can be packaged as Republican or Democrat and sold to the party faithful.
“Volokh Conspiracy has a article about withholding federal funds from states. It’s not that easy.” Really interesting idea. Asked over there: Does that mean that after the Civil War, the federal government could not stop state governments from helping slave owners keep their slaves?
MikeR,
Interesting question. I’ll respond with three other questions:
1) What specifically does “that” refer to in your question?
2) Why would “that” mean anything about what what the feds could do vis stopping state govts & etc?
3) What’s your explanation of why “that” might or might not mean the government couldn’t, hypothetically, do that ?
Kenneth Fritsch: “In general Trump has not shown concerned about deficit spending, debt or unfunded liabilities. These should be major policies issues for conservatives “.
.
Trump has sometimes acknowledged debt issues as a problem, but he does not seem to make them a priority. That is one of my biggest concerns about what he might or might not do. Of course, Trump is either not really a conservative or, perhaps more accurately, not the kind of conservative that I am.
MikeR: “Does that mean that after the Civil War, the federal government could not stop state governments from helping slave owners keep their slaves?”
I think that is true. That is why the 13th Amendment was enacted.
Yes, I voted for Trump under protest while worrying about such things. Then again, I’m used to elected leaders pretty much doing a lot of stuff that I don’t necessarily want them to do, anyway.
Andrew
Kenneth, Republicans aren’t necessarily against deficit spending in the near term when we are already dependent on it. The only way to get off the heroin is more investment fruitful spending, encouraging enterprise rather than dependency. Reagan’s liberal press critics screamed about his tax cut and deficits but he had a liberal congress and he needed to outspend the Soviets in defense. All the while the economy more than tripled in the 1980s, holding the debt to GDP to less than half what it is now. We also tripled the debt from 1 the 3 trillion, but we got a peace dividend from when the Soviets collapsed.
.
We need to keep a recession at bay. A 20 trillion debt (over 100% of our GDP) is a very sticky predicament to squeeze out of.
DeWitt, I started by objection that Chris Christie wanted to enforce federal law that conflicted with state law. Now you speak of a Congressional interference.
That does not contradict my objection. Congress would force a state’s law enforcement to engage in action objected to by the population in that state. I generally object to that as well, but Christie would send federal law enforcement. The sheer volume required would make that impractical and make him a poor choice for AG.
Comey’s announcement on Hillary’s emails triggered an epiphany by the Washington Post: our government is too transparent. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/28/this-is-why-the-push-for-transparency-may-have-cost-clinton-the-election/#comments
.
I am not sure I can agree with a single assumption or conclusion in the entire article. It’s like an alternate history is being written contemporaneously with the one most of us observe. The MSM thinks Comey and transparency were the problems with the election.
NYT: This Week In Hate
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/opinion/threats-of-an-anti-muslim-holocaust.html
I don’t condone any of these acts, but I find it amusing that the Chicago beating of a Trump supporter on video and especially the Ohio State terror attack don’t even make this list. Perhaps hundreds of protesters yelling “F*** Trump” might also be a candidate given their apparent threshold for hate.
Try finding the OSU attack at the NYT today, good luck. Hilarious.
MikeN: “I started by objection that Chris Christie wanted to enforce federal law that conflicted with state law.”
.
Federal law takes precedence over state law. States do not have the power of nullification. We fought a very bloody war over that.
.
Federal primacy is entirely proper, provided that the law in question falls in the federal authority. The problem is that we have excessively expanded that authority.
Lucia, you can see on Volokh comments where I asked that question, and various people’s comments to answer it. Not being a lawyer, I can’t vouch for any of it.
Instead of answering your three questions, I’ll just state that the idea seems to be, more or less, that the federal government can regulate for the country’s people, but not for state governments. They do their own lawmaking. Or something.
Mike M mentioned the Thirteenth Amendment. “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” The states can’t nullify laws, the Civil War settled that. But again, what can be done if the states ignore you?
MikeR
The feds can send the 101st Airborne to force you to let kids into high school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
Lucia, I understand that they can send troops. I want to know what they can do to get the _state_ to act. Is it really true that they cannot exert monetary influence?
MikeR,
The feds can definitely exert monetary influence to encourage the states to do what they want. But there are limitations. The basic idea seems to be that they can give the states a choice such as “change the drinking age or don’t get any highway funds” but they can not use gun-to-the-head coercion, such as cutting off all existing Medicaid funding if the state does not expand Medicaid. The dividing line does not appear to be at all clear.
Mike R
Even the article doesn’t say that. But the geds can’t do it willi-nilly. They can on exert monetary influnce if Congress passes a bill that would grant money conditioned on the state doing ‘x’. Then, if they refuse to do ‘x’,the States don’t get the money.
This often influences the state to do what the feds want. But it can and has sometimes failed. After that, the feds can either try to write a new legislation that ups the amount the would grant or do whatever it is they want the state to do themselves (provided they have the power to do it.)
But when writing these restrictive grants, they need to be careful about how they do it.
But yes, the feds can exert monetary influence in exactly the same way parents can exert monetary influence on college. They can offer kids $x on the condition they enroll in school and make progress toward graduation. Then the kids go to school and get the money or refuse to go and not get the money. (Of course, you can often completely cut off kids. But you can’t take away money that is already theirs or take away money they earn at their Barista job and so on.)
Mike M,
Wasn’t one of the problems the fact that the new condition for getting funds did not exist when the states chose to enter the program?
lucia,
The National Maximum Speed Law didn’t exist when the states started to receive money from the government for highway construction and maintenance. That apparently didn’t make the restriction on receiving federal highway money unconstitutional. It’s possible, however, that no one tested the NMSL in court using the gun-to-the-head argument.
Note that enforcement was the measure of compliance with the NMSL. States were in violation if more than 50% of drivers were traveling faster than 55MPH for two years. Needless to say, most stated fudged their data to keep under 50%. It was also a major factor in increased radar detector sales and rapidly improving technology.
OTOH, if the ACA had been written to cut some, but not all, Medicaid funding, perhaps it would have passed muster.
Cutting off a portion of Medicaid funds was approved by the Supreme Court.
Desegregation- the Feds sent law enforcement to prevent the government from acting with discrimination. Getting the states to act is more difficult.
Having an AG saying he will send law enforcement to take over the state law enforcement with regards to marijuana is even more difficult. How much authority do the feds have to make a drug arrest?
MikeN,
According to that (IANAL), a DEA agent has the authority right now to walk into a marijuana store in say, Colorado, arrest the staff and seize the property. That’s not just the entire contents of the store, but the building as well. I don’t think it matters if the building is leased either.
DeWitt is correct. There is a lot of precedent for that from when states first started legalizing medical marijuana. But then Obama decided not to enforce federal law in states that made pot legal. But the feds could not compel the local authorities in Colorado to carry out the raid.
That’s a decision Trump could reverse on his first day in office. I suspect that’s what will have to be done to convince Congress that they need to act to either confirm that marijuana is still a Schedule I controlled substance or not. The bureaucracy has been grinding away on this since 1972 with little progress.
OTOH, marijuana is a Schedule IV (highest ranking) controlled substance according to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, a treaty to which the US is a party. Complete legalization would be a violation of the terms of that treaty.
From Aol News: “Gingrich also described a recent meeting he held with Trump, saying the president-elect told him that “this is really a bigger job than I thought.” http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/29/newt-gingrich-criticizes-trump-for-baseless-tweet-that-millions/21616971/
….
I had previously speculated that Trump had no idea of what he was getting into as President of the US, and someone disagreed with my comment. Gingrich’s quote seems to support my speculation.
JD
“this is really a bigger job than I thought.†Every president feels that way. I remember a quote from Richard Nixon, that there’s a type of frustration that no one but presidents of the United States can understand: Everyone thinks you’re the most powerful man in the world – and you actually can hardly get anything done at all, even in the Executive Branch.
MikeN (Comment #155335)
November 9th, 2016 at 10:05 am
“SteveF, I assumed they would switch away from Johnson. I think the polls were accurate, it was the voters who changed their opinion.”
.
Kuddos to MikeN.
It took Forbes three weeks to figure that out.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/30/in-wisconsin-clintons-pre-election-poll-numbers-were-accurate/#458f3525291e
Any thoughts on the possibility of recounts in the election going ahead, is it just the money or do you need some substantive reason?
At the moment forcing a new vote would probably enshrine Trump deeper in power.
angech,
“is it just the money or do you need some substantive reason..”
.
It is the money. Jill Stein will raise lot of money from unhappy Hillary supporters who are too dumb to appreciate that the Trump margins are much greater than what can plausibly be overtaken by a recount. She will use that money to promote her nutcake self and her nutcake green policies. Reminds me a little of the old joke about the disconnected NY liberal who couldn’t understand how Ronald Reagan could possibly have won election… ‘I don’t know anyone who voted for him…’
Angech,
I’m pretty sure they are recounting in WI. I read Stein is suing to force them to hand count.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/28/elections-staff-layout-recount-timeline/94539210/
That’s from 2 days ago.
Stein claims that she wants the recounts for the sake of the integrity of the process. But she is only asking for recounts in states that Trump won, not in equally close (in terms of number of votes) New Hampshire, Nevada, and Minnesota. Yep, lots of integrity there.
On the other hand, election auditing should be done routinely. That would consist of things like spot checking the computer totals with hand counting in randomly selected precincts and carrying out statistical tests to spot anomalies. Doing so would improve the integrity of the process. So would more thorough voter ID requirements.
MIke M,
I strongly suspect the % of people who think she is asking for recounts for the sake of integrity of the process is virtually nil. That includes donors. She may have many reasons for wanting the recounts– but that claimed one cannot be high on the list.
Lucia,
My understanding is that a judge in Wisconsin refused to force a hand recount, because that could slow the process to the point that it could not be completed in time for the electoral college vote. Which, I suspect, may have been the objective of forcing very late ‘recounts’ in all three states. Stein is still trying to force a recount in Pennsylvania via court proceedings, even though she did not have the money needed to formally request a recount by the last date allowed under Pa law, and the ‘citizen requests’ for a recount, which Stein et al instigated, came after the last allowed date
.
Lawyers for Stein say she will not try to appeal the Wisconsin judge’s ruling. My guess is the courts in Pa (and maybe Michigan?) will come to the same conclusion and dismiss her lawsuits. The whole escapade is the nuttiest thing I have ever seen in the aftermath of an election. She’s bonkers.
Mike M: “election auditing should be done routinely.”
.
I strongly concur. The system was supposed to be foolproof after the 2000 Bush v Gore hanging chads fiasco. They need to keep constantly vigilant to ensure fast accurate election results. The country was lucky this time that the spread was 36 electoral votes. There will be more devise elections ahead and we can’t afford to tempt people to battle in the streets to decide one.
Angech, I suspect a new election might not be as decisive for Trump. Sure some number of typical Republicans would come back on board, seeing his transition picks, but I think much of his support comes from a one time as Michael Moore called it ‘the biggest FU in history’, and once the anger is released, the voters would be calmer.
MikeN (Comment #156347)December 1st, 2016 at 12:56 am
Angech, I suspect a new election might not be as decisive for Trump.
On the other hand our share market is going gangbusters, and people are not seeing any really nutty behavior from Trump yet. The EPA is backing down and Gavin may be out of a job. Not that that last one would count with any voters I guess but overall people would not be very happy that their choice is being taken away.
lucia:”I strongly suspect the % of people who think she is asking for recounts for the sake of integrity of the process is virtually nil.”
From the website FAQ ($6.7M raised so far!):
There is no elaboration of “concerns”, and no links (as far as I can see). In the New York Magazine article, the only concern mentioned is a difference in results between electronic-voting counties and paper-voting ones in WI. The 538 article gave a plausible explanation for WI, and also says that MI had only paper votes, so there can be no similar concern there. Halderman later clarified that he doesn’t think there was any hacking, but the process is vulnerable, and there should be routine checking, a very reasonable approach.
An alternative explanation is that a politician (Stein in this case) might not be completely candid, which is not outside the realm of possibility.
HaroldW,
I think, among other things,
1) She wanted visibility, and this was a possible way to get that. (She’s succeeding.)
2) She wants people to be discussing the voting issues that she thinks are problems. She thinks this is a way to do that. (Really…. this isn’t making front pages… is it? That said, it would if even one state flips.)
3) She needed to raise money to do that and they ONLY way to do that was say she’s ONLY auditing states where Hillary lost. No matter what her motive is, the donors almost certainly don’t want to risk seeing a state flip to Trump. She is succeeding in raising money.
4) No matter what, she wasn’t going to raise enough money to audit all 50 states. There also wasn’t enough time to do all 50– get a campaign going to do that. But really… I don’t think that would have mattered.
The only “real” voting issues of material consequences are on the two ends:
A) Is voter ID and control of polls so weak that lots of illegals do vote?
B) Where voter ID is strong, does it cause disenfranchisement of legal voters?
As far as I’m aware this “audit/recount” isn’t going to do squat to answer either of those. But I may be wrong. Perhaps something in the recount would look at whether provisional ballots were cast but toss unjustly. That might tell us something about (B). I think *nothing* about the recount could tell us anything about (A). The only real way to do (a) is for someone to identify everyone who voted from the voter rolls, select a subset at random then go house to house verifying they are Americans. The report back on the number of illegal voters they found.
Not sure how you’d do that.
I’m legal– and I know I’m not going to rush around to find the passport and “prove” I’m American if someone knocks at the door. I would seriously insist that someone prove that they have a right to ask and I have a legal requirement to “prove” said thing to them. Even if they wished to co-operate, I don’t know if most people have their birth certificates and so on handy to “prove” anything. Anyway, this activity is certainly what’s intended with a “recount” or “audit”.
Unfortunately in MI the taxpayers are going to have to foot about $4M. I believe this is because the vote came within a specified margin that allows for some government funding. If I was a MI resident you could color me very unhappy. $4M would probably be pretty useful in Flint or Detroit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/elections/recount-bids-in-3-states-seem-the-longest-of-long-shots.html
Lucia: “A) Is voter ID and control of polls so weak that lots of illegals do vote?”
.
There are several possibilities for fraud at that end. One is illegals voting, another is legally resident non-citizens voting, a third is voting by phantom voters. I suspect that very few illegals are likely to try to register simply because they try to be invisible, and registering would risk exposure. But the idea of people voting who not only do not have the right but are not even here legally is really galling, so that gets played up.
.
Voting by phantom voters apparently used to be common in some areas controlled by political machines. Party functionaries would keep track of people who died or moved away, but instead of having them removed from the rolls they would send people to impersonate those voters. There are many millions of such potential phantom voters on the rolls today, but I don’t think anyone has seriously tried to determine how many of them vote.
Mike M.,
Wrt phantom voters and maintaining up to date registration data, the screams of outrage from Democrats when anything like that is proposed are deafening. That to me is circumstantial evidence that phantom voting is still being done.
Mike M:
I agree with each of these.
I would add, we also need a standardized method for receiving and processing the data that is acquired, and for generating improved technical guidelines to reduce future errors.
I think we also need better oversight into how districts are set up (to reduce gerrymandering) and on where polling stations are located, the number of days it is open, standards for voter identification, so that there is no disenfranchisement there, intentional or otherwise.
Mike M,
I have no theory about whether illegals are likely to register nor how likely they are to be caught if they do so.
Generally, if the system is lax, and a lot of people want to circumvent it, people will discover that it is lax. Then the method of achieving the goal will be communicated via “the grapevine” and the rate at which people are caught — and actually penalized– will be also be communicated. After that it’s a matter of whether any individual person is motivated to do it or not and whether the assess it is worth the risk of any tangible bad thing happening to them. I have no idea how large that is. Even if their illegal vote is detected, they may not ultimately be caught and deported. On the other hand, for many even a small risk would be too high– especially as the only thing they get is one vote. So… dunno.
Whether the system is relatively “lax” or “tight” would be a question that can be tested empirically– but doing so would be expensive. Mostly I read speculation about what the level should be with all the supporting elements being more speculation. It mostly reminds me of the joke “It’s turtles all the way down!”
Long ago– my Mom reported that when she went to vote she saw some of her kids were still on the rolls. All of us had registered elsewhere by that time. But there didn’t seem to be much communication. And the worst thing about this was our old and fresh registrations were all in Illinois.
I think they’ve fixed this somewhat now, but I don’t know what they do. Automatically deleting people from the voting rolls has the potential of disenfranchising someone who didn’t know they were deleted. That’s a big problem. But having a person be simultaneously in Urbana, Libertyville, and Champaign and Chicago is a huge potential problem especially if it happens a lot and some group figures out how to take advantage of it.
Carrick,
Gerrymandering by race is required by the Voting Rights Act, according to the Supreme Court. By requiring that some districts have a minority majority, one cannot possibly make districts compact. Republicans, of course, are using this to dilute the influence of minority voters by concentrating them in as few districts as possible. Democrats would do the opposite, but it’s still gerrymandering and it’s still required by law.
SteveF,
It’s not a joke. The person quoted (incorrectly) was Pauline Kael, movie critic for the New Yorker magazine, and the President in question was Nixon. She was, in fact, commenting on how isolated she and her friends and acquaintances were from the rest of the country. Here’s the actual quote:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/10/The-Fraudulent-Factoid-That-Refuses-to-Die
DeWitt, now do you know the truth or untruth behind the other classic story I heard, about the little old lady in New Hampshire who said she was going to vote for the first time in her life…against Goldwater?
“Because,” she says, “if he’s elected, he would take away my TV.”
“No, no,” says her neighbor, “that’s the TVA he wants to get rid of.”
“That’s all very comforting,” she replies, “but I’m not taking any chances.”
Joseph W.,
I can’t find that with a quick search, unlike the Pauline Kael quote. My guess would be that it’s just a joke. I can see it being told by Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show, for example. Hmm. Maybe that’s how I should search.
Nope. Still can’t find it.
DeWitt:
Yes, there are requirements on districts associated with the VRA. But that doesn’t explain why some states have very tortuous congressional distractions, whereas neighboring states don’t.
North Carolina
Tennessee.
I’ve mentioned this study before. Some states with very poor historical records on race relations (e.g., Mississippi & Alabama) have relatively compact districts, whereas others obviously don’t.
But the fact there geographical constraints as well as legal ones is part of why I think you need national standards for how districts should be drawn up. I realize these would probably have to be voluntarily enforced, but it would certainly provide ammunition for people trying to end this abuse of power.
make that “very tortuous congressional districts.” Auto spell miscorrection strikes again.
Carrick,
District 12 in NC is infamous. It tracks Interstate 85 almost perfectly. There was a federal district court ruling in 2016 that both Districts 12 and 1 had to be redrawn. I’m not sure what the status of that is currently.
Carrick,
I actually know someone in the NC state House. If I remember, I’ll ask him what, if anything, is going on when I seem him at the end of the month.
One way to determine the percentage of illegal voting is for Trump to announce jut before the midterms (2 yrs from now) that voter fraud is a felony and that would qualify for a circumstance for deportation or cancellation of permanent residency then watch for a statistical shift in the fingerprint of the vote.
Ohio purged tens of thousands from the voter registration roles.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/inside-purge-tens-thousands-ohio-voters/story?id=39586417
All they did was remove dead people and those that had not voted in 8 years after no response from a mailed notice of removal.
.
I have not done a statistical comparison of before and after the voter rolls cleanup but Ohio made a huge move to the right from 2012 to 2016.
Ron Graf,
I don’t think watching for a statistical shift in votes after an announcement would work. Too much data noise among other things.
It would be better than tree rings though. 🙂
Ron,
As usual, disparate impact is claimed to prove that what was done was discriminatory. Now if they went into the district and found a significant fraction of people who still lived there but were removed from the rolls, I would have more sympathy. But I doubt that anyone will actually do that.
Not voting in the last eight years won’t solve the phantom voter problem. Phantom voters cast votes, just not by the person whose identity is being used.
Which reminds me, considering identity theft seems to be a significant problem, why is it that vote fraud by identity theft is considered to be insignificant? Admittedly, there’s probably no money involved, but there’s also not much chance of either getting caught or being punished if caught. Maybe everyone thinks that voting early and often went out with the demise of the major political machine politicians like Daley in Chicago.
Special Agent Claude Arnold of ICE said tonight on the O’Reilly Factor:
“I ‘Routinely’ Arrested Illegal Immigrants with Voter Registrations.
He clarified:
DeWitt, I agree that cleaning the registration rolls is the very least that can be done. Obviously it gets rid of the deceased voters and moved voters that could potentially be impersonated using simple public records database searches.
.
The actively used phantom registrations will remain untouched through the Ohio-like cleaning process. But a credible threat of punishment would have a major impact in my opinion. If the ICE special agent is telling the truth then approximately 10% of illegals vote. That would be over a million votes. This does not count legal resident non-citizens who might also be voting illegally, or duplicate voting by citizens registered in multiple localities.
Donald Trump pounced on the Veritas video of Hillary’s minion trying to stoke violence at his rallies, but he didn’t mention the same guy’s claiming to cast illegal votes. Even described how they think about how they could be caught and plan around that.
Couldn’t ICE just crosscheck the voting rolls with the driver’s license database, and their records, problem solved?
ICE, another government bureau which has no agents, only ‘Special Agents’ Like the FBI.
Ron Graf: “for Trump to announce jut before the midterms (2 yrs from now) that voter fraud is a felony “.
.
Trump can not make it a felony by fiat. Anyway, it already is a felony and people are prosecuted when caught. The problem is that it is hard to catch. I don’t know that Trump can or should do anything since the states handle voting.
.
What is needed is proof of citizenship to register and proper ID to vote.
Voter fraud by illegal aliens: But it’s something _that can be checked easily_ – by the states. List of registered voters and addresses, list of people who filed state and federal income taxes with SSNs and addresses. Why is this hard? We don’t need to track down if people really voted and if they’re dead and such, which sounds a lot harder.
Can I float a tentative conspiracy theory that California would have done this and trumpeted it if the results were negative?
‘Course a big chunk of Americans don’t file taxes…
MikeR: “List of registered voters and addresses, list of people who filed state and federal income taxes with SSNs and addresses. Why is this hard? ”
.
Because tax info is confidential, because paying taxes is not a requirement to vote (and, I think, can not be made a requirement), because many illegal do pay taxes using phony ID, and because giving the government more and more power is not a good idea.
MikeM, good points. What is this about illegals paying taxes with phony ID? What sense does that make? You mean they have an employer who insists that they be legal and that’s what they’re pretending?
MikeR: “You mean they have an employer who insists that they be legal and that’s what they’re pretending?”
Yes.
The feds should sponsor random spot checks on elections that have no sanctions associated with them. Until someone can put a number on the amount of illegal voting it isn’t a very interesting discussion. I suspect there aren’t a lot of illegals voting (they are already paranoid), and I doubt people who wouldn’t have enough energy to get an ID actually care about voting.
MikeR,
What phony ID? It doesn’t have to be phony. Anyone, including an illegal immigrant, can apply for an ITIN (tax ID#). Because of the legal confidentiality of income tax returns, they can’t be used for any other purpose.
“We didn’t “ratify†anything. The “country†didn’t pledge anything. Obama as executive, took a unilateral action which is not the same as the US ratifying anything because under our constitution, [b]the president does not have the power to formally bind us to this sort of stuff.”[/b]
That’s incorrect. Here’s a little reading you might find illuminating:
http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/The-Constitution-Executive-agreements.html
Robert,
The problem with executive agreements, as opposed to treaties, is that they are just that and the next executive can nullify them with the stroke of a pen as easily as the previous executive made them. Just like no Congress can pass a law that the next Congress can’t repeal in spite of some of the language in the ACA.
DeWitt,
Some people find reality hard to accept.
Robert,
I note you merely post a link. The information at the link does not contradict what I wrote. Yes, I know it was an “executive agreement”. And “executive agreements” do work for some things. Just not the sort of thing the Paris agreement is. If you want to “rebut” perhaps you can actually make a real attempt instead of just ignorantly linking to something that is irrelevant and which clearly– based on the thread–everyone here is already aware of.
SteveF,
I just saw in today’s WSJ a line attributed to Teddy Roosevelt:
“If you want to anger a conservative, lie to him. If you want to anger a liberal, tell him the truth.”
I should look that up to see who actually said it, but I probably won’t.
Speaking of the WSJ, there’s an op-ed today by Roger Pielke, Jr. about the trials and tribulations of telling inconvenient truths about climate change. sarc But I was told that only Republicans were anti-science. /sarc
As I expected, there is no evidence that TR said that. The snopes.com article is funny. They have a picture of Abraham Lincoln with a supposed quote:
I always thought the Lincoln quote incomplete about being able to fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time but not all the people all the time.
–
Fooling most of the people most of the time seems to get the job done, at least in contemporary politics.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #156387)
DeWitt, I read that piece also and it brought back memories of when Roger Jr. and Judy Curry would go at it over hurricane and tropical storms. I suspect that Roger Jr. and Roger Sr. would be more in agreement with Curry these days. Seems Curry is remaining in the battle while Roger Jr. has gotten out of that field.
I was also wondering how the forest fires in Tennessee are affecting you. Many years ago I was offered a job with Union Carbide working in that area – which I did not take. I remember being in Gatlinburg on a Saturday and a football day when a parade of cars with lots of orange came passing through. I also remember being in a private club bar in Knoxville and I think on the University campus where one could legally purchase and drink an alcoholic beverage.
Kenneth,
“DeWitt, I read that piece also and it brought back memories of when Roger Jr. and Judy Curry would go at it over hurricane and tropical storms. I suspect that Roger Jr. and Roger Sr. would be more in agreement with Curry these days. Seems Curry is remaining in the battle while Roger Jr. has gotten out of that field.”
.
Ya well. It is a litle sad that Pielke Jr figured it was better to walk away from the field than try to continue. Suppressing voices you disagree with is what the ‘progressive green left’ is all about. Sad indeed.
Lucia,
You are correct and the “Idiot Tracker’s” own links confirm it.
Kenneth,
We had smoke in the area. It wasn’t too bad, but I heard that it was recommended to not engage in exercise or spend a lot of time outdoors. Driving to Knoxville for Thanksgiving south on I-81 and then west on I-40 past the exit to Gatlinburg, it was very obvious. It looked like LA on a really bad smog day, and the fires were still not at their peak. Needless to say, it’s been really dry and warm here. We did get a fair amount of rain in the middle of last week, which helped a lot with the fires, and temperatures are closer to normal, but we’re still at least 10 inches behind on rainfall.
Liquor laws in TN have changed a lot since you were here. It’s pretty much normal now. We can buy wine in the grocery stores starting late this year. Before it was just beer. When I moved here, it was still private clubs and brown-bagging. That also kept a lot of the chain restaurants out.
DeWitt Total sea ice staging a mini recovery, Any idea on PIOMAS?
For a stage there I was starting to believe in AGW.
angech,
Have to admit a little surprise at that comment. The question has never really been about ‘belief’; more infrared absorbing gases in the atmosphere (CO2, methane, N2O, CFC’s, HFC’s, SF6) pretty much have to cause surface warming. There is no real technical question about that. The real question is how much warming, and over how long. Even more important, and less certain, are the consequences of that warming versus the cost of reducing it. Gradually lower average sea ice is neither surprising nor very ‘alarming’.
SteveF,
It’s a bit less gradual this year as it looks like the Southern Hemisphere may be starting to participate. Antarctic Ocean ice extent is at record lows by a significant margin, 1Mm² or so. The trend had been for slightly increasing Antarctic ice extent. Arctic sea ice extent is also at record lows, but is closer to the next lowest year, 2006. How much of this is due to the current La Nina Midoki is not clear. There was a big drop in Antarctic extent in September, though, when it should have been still increasing.
DeWitt,
‘Gradual’ is in the eye of the beholder. 😉
.
Yes, the Antarctic extent is lower than usual, and that may be a consequence of ENSO… only time will tell.
angech,
PIOMAS Arctic ice volume was at an all time low for November by a lot. I don’t see any signs of recovery, mini- or otherwise.
Since the PC issue has arisen on this blog, I think it is appropriate to mention the comments of an Ohio State Administrator who sympathized with, and partly excused, the actions of the Ohio State Terrorist and stated: ”
….
“Abdul Razak AN Artan was a BUCKEYE, a member of our family. … I pray you find compassion for his life, as troubled as it clearly was. Think of the pain he must have been in to feel that his actions were the only solution. We must come together in this time of tragedy. SBuckeyeStrong #BlackLivesMatter #SayHisName” See http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/12/ohio_state_administrator_faces.html
….
As a purely First Amendment matter, I have no problem with her stupid and offensive comment. However, if the Left-wing thought police are going to continue to be catered to on campus, she should face substantial discipline for her remarks. Punishment for offensive, stupid remarks, if it is to be permitted, should go both ways. Compare to the incidents cited here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
….
JD
Piomas not as bad as I thought it would be, lowest in November but not the lowest anomaly [yet]. At least it got Neven out of hibernation. Lots going on otherwise. BBD educating me on ocean heat transfer elsewhere. Everyone hot under the collar on Pielke and temperature drops. Well only 2 months till the Trump has his 4 x 365 + 1 days of excitement.
If things change in the various temperature records, that is drop, which is to be expected, will this mean that politics has to be incorporated into the climate models overtly in future? along with the ECS, clouds etc.
Will Zeke have to do a new TOBS adjustment for announcements from the White House?
It is not even comedy but it is hilarious.
This might be old news but I just saw VP candidate Tim Kaine’s tweet on the Ohio State attack.
https://twitter.com/timkaine/status/803280422155104257
But the only gun used at the scene was that of the heroic policeman that stopped the automobile and machete violence. Talk about the best VP we never had. His misque seems almost Biden-like. That reminds me that Joe said he is likely going to run for 2020.
Ron Graf (Comment #156401)
Would that be considered “fake news” or a knee jerk reaction?
More interesting with these incidents is how the MSM shows their biases in what they choose to publicize or ignore.
Re: “fake news”
I assume this means a news story is subject to falsification, otherwise, it’s a meaningless term.
I’m wondering if this falsification thing can be applied to Global Warming stories, now.
Andrew
Compassion that wouldn’t be found for a Trump voter:
“I pray you find compassion for his life, as troubled as it clearly was. Think of the pain he must have been in to feel that his actions were the only solution. We must come together in this time of tragedy.”
MikeR-
😀
[Edit: It doesn’t show up on my Firefox, but that was a big-grin smiley.]
Michelle Malkin goes downtown on fake news and Van Jones:
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/michelle-malkin/messy-truth-about-van-jones
.
Andrew KY: “I’m wondering if this falsification thing can be applied to Global Warming stories, now.”
.
Sorry, even if the GMST were to fall 1C for a year it would be a “fluke of little significance.” If it continued for 10 years it would call for extensive study to find the missing heat; 20 years and the man-caused cooling alarm goes out especially if the AMOC slows.
Ron, Tamino has posted charts denying a slowdown in global warming, that essentially argue there is no slowdown unless temperatures return to the long term average. They can stay flat for 50 years, and still no slowdown, since you are above levels of 1980-2000.
I don’t think our environmental friends are going to like the new head of the EPA. Looks like the meeting with Al Gore wasn’t productive.
Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Interesting link, Tom. Although the article calls Pruitt a “denialist” it provides no evidence for that claim. I suppose they think that Pruitt’s opposition to the overreach of the EPA climate rules qualifies as evidence.
They quote him as saying “Scientists continue to disagree” and “That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.â€
The horror!
Mike M,
The NYT is still in “label and shame” mode. I’m not even sure what a word like denialist is supposed to mean, a polite form of denier?
Their new favorite words are white nationalist and white supremacist (having read the tarot cards that racist is no longer as effective). It has gotten pretty tiresome as they continuously throw words like spears, then write hand wringing articles about a polarized country.
The career with the highest prospects for the next 4 years will be environmental lawyers. I’m sure the strategy will be to tie everything up in the courts and run out the clock, which is why they might sidestep this and go nuclear by directing the EPA to not regulate greenhouse gases by law.
“directing the EPA to not regulate greenhouse gases by law”
I would like to see the Clean Air Act amended to explicitly exclude greenhouse gases. I interpret the original purpose of the Act as regulation of emissions which have direct, local and fairly immediate adverse health effects. As opposed to the diffuse, indirect and long-term effects of GHGs, which will in any case be affected more by global emissions than local. Unless one can show a direct health effect from CO2, methane, CFCs, HFCs, etc. — and I don’t believe there are, at likely concentrations — those should not be subject to the Clean Air Act.
The rather broad definition of pollutant in the CAA caused the courts to agree that GHGs are included. And that definition can be amended.
If Roger Pielke, Jr. and Judith Curry can be called ‘climate change d3ni3rs’, the term no longer has meaning. IMO, the term ‘climate change’ is a tautology. That would make the term ‘stable climate’ an oxymoron.
Left Wing PC Now attacking Christmas Songs,
….
The “Song It’s Cold Outside” is now deemed to imply tolerance of rape and lack of consent by the Left. The snowflakes don’t realize that it was socially unacceptable for a woman to express her desires in the 1940s and that the song is written so that the woman is dealing with her own desires as opposed to social explanations. Well explained in the comments to the link dealing with the PC criticisms of this song. http://people.com/music/minnesota-couple-rewrites-christmas-classic-emphasize-consent/
….
This is what drives me crazy with the tolerance for the stupid comments of people like the Ohio State Administrator mentioned above ( #156399) as compared to people just looking for an excuse to be offended with in this instance, a Christmas song.
JD
A confirmation nobody needed:
Donald Trump was right. He got incredibly negative press coverage.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/07/donald-trump-was-right-he-got-incredibly-negative-press-coverage/?utm_term=.f2852deeef60
A different interpretation from liberal naval gazers:
Study: negative media coverage of Clinton soared in the last two weeks of the campaign
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/7/13872580/media-coverage-presidential-election
Watching CNN I didn’t see this soaring negative coverage of Clinton, but nonstop attacks on Trump.
SNL has gotten even worse now, with jokes that have the characters breakig the 4th wall and saying ‘This is real!’.
MikeN,
I suspect it depends on your definition of negative. My guess would be that anything that wasn’t completely fawning over her was probably considered negative.
And anything about Trump that wasn’t an all-out attack would be considered positive coverage.
MikeN: “Watching CNN I didn’t see this soaring negative coverage of Clinton..”
.
Did anyone catch the CNN glowing documentary on the amazing life of HRC from cradle to present? I aired at least twice in the last two weeks on the weekend prime-time and ran over and hour. It was completely fluff. HRC was made to be the dominant force of success in the Clinton pair, making Bill look like a bumpkin. There was absolutely no mention of any scandals that I saw. I am not sure if it was a paid infomercial but it could have been.
It must be noted that Trump deserved a bit of his negative coverage and actively courted it sometimes it seemed. They also had a whole life of Trump to dig out and expose, where HRC had been regurgitated many times already.
Just noticed this paper: “US-proofing the Paris Climate Agreement”.
Ron, they’ve had that for months. Hillary’s is ‘Unfinished Business’, Trump is ‘Strictly Business’, and more critical. Probably higher rating than their regular lineup, which looks to be the same 4 shows repeated over and over.
Fox has two separate Trump hour long shows that they are running on weekends and any other gaps in their lineup.
Here it dawns on a gay Democrat that he couldn’t stomach voting for HRC because he was sick of identity politics. I guess it doesn’t work when people suspect you are just playing them. In other news, HRC denounces “fake news,” making the issue her own. No irony there. 😉
I wonder how many votes Hillary lost with the Deplorables remark. Before that it was “everyday Americans’ and just yesterday back to “ordinary Americans.”
I really marvel that no-one on her team recognized what was wrong with the idea of ‘everyday Americans’ or now ‘ordinary Americans.’ Maybe she means the folks who don’t fit into one of her identity baskets.’
Her contempt, which may not even be conscious, for the rest of us seems pretty obvious. In retrospect, it’s surprising how little comment her ‘getting the sense of the great unwashed’ travels into fly-over country got at the time. There was a lot of sharing of experience by the people who knew her about what a great listener she is. I bet it isn’t true.
j ferguson,
I’m guessing she’s probably not a great listener. Anyway, either (a) she’s not a great listener or (b) she’s not a quick thinker because she’s not adept at ‘comeback’ type responses in debates. As much as I think she looked much more informed than Donald at debates, she didn’t the sort of on the fly-tailored to what was said sort of thing we’ve seen in other politicians. ( Reagan, actually was good at that.) Her responses were “canned”. Throw them out when something expected is said.
Mind you– there is nothing wrong with being a more reflective thinker. The “quick-not-quick” distinction is not the same as “intelligent or not intelligent”. Quick can be important in emergencies that do require immediate response. (Over reliance on “quick” can be terrible in some sorts of emergencies that require creating a plan that ultimately involves waiting.)
Ron Graf,
Yes. Loads of people realize the irony of HRC going on about “fake news”. I think it is a problem– but she was the one to pin problems on a youtube video– and do so falsely.
More about fake news in the news
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/
Title:
Author: Glenn Greenwald.
Is his story true news? Or fake news someone making fake news? Dunno! 🙂
Until the public can get by partisanship on these issues of lying, spinning, and now fake news, I think we are going to hear examples of these prevarications from both sides of the aisle without every making the more general connection between politicians and political issues and being less than truthful.
It should have become clear to many observers when Trump went a few bridges further than most politicians in his pronouncements that on the spot were obviously false and greatly exaggerated. It should have brought to mind, for example, the less obvious but not less important fabrications of Obama on Obama care. That unfortunately does not appear to be the case but rather what we see is partisans excusing their side’s politicians as a matter of smart politics or, without admitting it to themselves, that the ends justify the means. The MSM is notorious in the excusing those politicians who favor bigger government while clearly seeing these problems with opposition politicians.
It is only fake news when someone else does it.
Trump’s team sent a memo to the Department of Energy asking for all employee published works, a list of attendees of climate summits or meetings about the social cost of carbon, etc., leading to accusation they are creating a house cleaning list.
There is no word about similar such memos to EPA, NASA, NOAA and NSF.
.
Dems are firing shots over the bow.
.
Roy Spencer commented similarly on his blog after the election, “It’s pretty hard to fire a government employee, unless they are a political appointment. Or unless they kill a polar bear.”
.
This could be interesting to see what the legal and political boundaries really are. I did not follow climate during the Bush years but it does not seem like they intervened in the green fiefdoms ensconced in their administration.
Speaking of fake news, what’s the pizzagate/climategate overlap? I’m guessing pretty significant.
I’ll spare you all the stories of my adventures ridding a quasi-government activity of dead-wood. I was somewhat successful although was still pursued five years later by two of the miscreants in their efforts to regain their situations (not to be confused with jobs) via various labor board actions.
After I left, a RIF (Reduction in Force) was needed to make the budget and expense align more closely. What really worked, beyond everyone’s wildest expectations was a universal resume check. the applications of everyone in the place were scrupulously checked, schools, degrees, positions claimed to have been held, salaries, (it was ok then) the whole thing.
The 10% RIF was achieved by the sudden termination of the misrepresenters of their pasts. Amazingly, some of the people who had been thought to be engineers weren’t. I would have thought that picking a profession where you actually have to know something would have been imprudent, but his departure did confirm my suspicion about one of the department heads – structural engineering – whose comprehension of the influence of stress concentrations on failures had always seemed a bit off.
I wouldn’t doubt for a second that EPA is full of his cousins.
Never give up, never surrender!
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/12/10/electors-just-filed-lawsuit-allow-electoral-college-vote-trump/
Wasn’t just ObamaCare lies, but his claims of balancing the budget if he is reelected was clearly false at the time.
Lucia, the first hint was when Hillary presented ‘meeting the folks’ photoops in Iowa, and the folks she was meeting were campaign workers. Watching the debates again, you can pretty much tell which lines are prepared. The preparation probably hurt her. At the end of the first debate, she brings up Alicia Machado, and Trump replied with a warning about how he could say something about Bill but he is too nice to do so.
In the second debate, the Access Hollywood video has hit, and Trump’s campaign is dying. Before the debate he holds a press conference with four Clinton accusers and brings them to the debate. First question is an opening to unleash his attack, but he does nothing. Anderson Cooper asks him about the video, with a condescending tone, ‘Do you understand that?’ Again Trump stays away, talking about ISIS. Anderson follows up three times asking has he ever done what he said in the video(tipoff?), and all three times Trump says nothing about Bill. At that point Hillary is asked to respond. In my opinion if she says nothing at that point she wins the election. Instead she starts with her well prepared answer,’shows how he treats women, what he thinks about women, what he does to women, …shows exactly who he is.’ I’m sure they thought it was great in planning, but really people don’t need to have that told to them. The damage is the same either way. Before going to the next question, Trump interrupts, “Am I allowed to respond to that?’ and here it comes. Surprisingly, he STILL says away. Only when Raddatz asks about it again, on his seventh response, does Trump unleash the eight minutes that flipped the election.
MikeN, I just watched the 2nd debate segment you referred to and I see Cooper and Radditz continually pressed the Access Hollywood clip, Cooper calling it sexual assault and asking Trump again for a relpy. Then Radditz reads a question from the public asking Trump if the campaign has changed him and she twists it for her own purpose be asking if he is the same person as the one in the video 11 years ago or has he suddenly changed with respect to women. That is when he finally talks about Bill and HRC laughing at the fact she defended a child rapist who she knew was guilty and got him acquitted and that child was now in the audience. Trump seemed to gain the upper hand by pointing out the three against one and jumping to her emails and litany of unethical and illegal acts, Hillary smiling and laughing at each fact. The question is still open as to whether HRC will be investigated by a special prosecutor as promised. I know that Trump as said he will won’t pardon now but that might be to avoid a preemptive Obama pardon.
.
I would like to see an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. I think that taking consulting fees, speaking fees or foundation donations (including to spouse) needs to disqualify one from seeking high public office unless it was before anyone could reasonably have contemplate the run for office.
MikeN, what you suggest about HRC keeping her observations to herself on the Access Hollywood business is very subtle. And i think you are spot on. The thing did speak for itself. No-one needed to have it explained to them, I suppose except (in her mind) the folks she calls everyday Americans, or more recently ordinary Americans.
Maybe there still is someone in the Dem party who understands this and can help ease her off to her bale of hay.
Ron Graf,
Department of Energy labs? Most — possibly all– DOE labs are run by contractors. The staff are not civil servants.
Lucia, I like practically everything Glenn Greenwald writes. It seems that progressive information control is twisting everything upside down. I could not have imagined back in the 1970s that in the 2010s that information labeled “from Russians” would have a better brand for truth than ABC, NBC or CBS, not that the information is from the Russians just that good honest information is more prone to to be needing to be smeared by the left.
.
Only 14% of conservatives have trust in the MSM. This means the party in control of the US government are mostly conspiracy theorists. This must be very alarming to the true believers.
.
Lucia, if they are not civil servants then I am confused about the article and Sen. Markey’s warning.
JFerguson, I think the Bush family helped Trump twice. Having Jeb run and serve as a contrast, then by leaking the video, rumored via Dan Senor. RedState has an article about Billy for Press Secretary that I assume is a joke.
Consider the alternative, which I think was Team Hillary’s plan: Have Anderson ask in a debate, Trump denies, bring out the accusers, Trump denies angrily, then around Nov 1, the tape comes out.
MikeN, I try to keep and open mind but I don’t see how one can prove if one of more of the bush accusers are telling the truth, some fraction of it or boldly lying. However if your hypothesis is correct that they were organized then there is a small vulnerability to that revelation. And, if indeed it did get revealed they should create a Nixon Award and present it to HRC for surpassing him.
Ron Graf,
The DOE does have some employees who are civil servants. However DOE labs are owned by the government. But running them is contracted out. The people who work for the labs work for the contractor not the government. Jim works at Argonne national laboratory– a DOE lab. Officially, he is an employee of the University of Chicago. Most ( and possibly all) DOE labs are organized this way. I’m only not saying all because if I say all it will turn out there is some lab somewhere that has employees who are civil servants… but really, I think it’s none.
In contrast, NASA, NOAA and a number of agencies are operated by the government and their employees are employed by the government.
The Department of Energy does oversee the DOE labs and does have rules about what and how money can be spent. As for understanding the recent event– I haven’t read enough about it to know what exactly anyone said.
Ron
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/10/trump-team-memo-on-climate-change-alarms-energy-department-staff.html
Ok..
“Employees” would be people who worked for DOE itself– at headquarters or field offices. Contractors would presumably mean people who work at DOE labs– for example someone like Ben Santer. He’s at Livermore.
The employees referred to above are employed by the contractor who runs the DOE labs. They are definitely not civil servants.
WRT to Markey’s statement: only those who at DOE itself are civil servants carrying out the governments previous policy. Lots of what Trump is asking for seems likely to affect people who are not civil servants and not “policy” types. Those people would be better characterized as working on funded projects.
Possibly Markey himself doesn’t know the distinction. Or even if he does he finds it more useful not to make any sort of nuanced statement.
— Added
The cnn article itself seems to blur the distinction:
The overwhelming majority of these people do not work for the energy department. They work at DOE labs and are officially employees of contractors who operate the labs for the DOE.
Lucia, so thanks to your personal familiarity with the workings we know one reported fact is incorrect. One now asks is it because of lack of knowledge on the part of the Trump staffers or the news was embellished. In all cases it will be interesting to see what becomes of Gavin and others. This is on a lot of minds, including certainly Gavin’s. Sen Markey and Sen Whitehouse, the climate RICO gang, will likely converse with him often in the weeks ahead.
Ron,
The cnn paraphrasing of of what Trump asked for does not suggest lack of knowledge on the Trump staff part. DOE Headquarters and field offices can make requests of DOE labs and do so all the time. Trump seems to have asked them to do so. I’m not entirely sure why he can do so yet, but I guess they are conveying his requests.
It’s the Markey response that’s a bit … well.. not quite right. In the cnn report, Markey uses the term “civil servants”– not Trump. The vast majority of people who might have written papers or done all the various things Trumps letter seems to ask for are not civil servants.
The list of 74 questions Trump sent is here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/questions-posed-by-president-elect-trumps-transition-team-to-energy-department-officials/2143/?rtef&tid=a_inl
Q6 is “The Department recently announced the issuance of $4.5 billion in loan guaratees for electric vehicles (and perhaps associated infracstructure.) Can you provide a status on this effort?
Q 29 is “Are there any statutory restrictions to restarting Yucca Mountain”?
30: Which programs within DOE are essential to meeting the goals of Pres. Obamas Climate Action Plan?
34: Can you provide a list of current open job postings and the status for those positions?
37 Does the DOE have a plan to resume the Yucca Mountain license proceedings?
47 How can the DOE support existing reactors to continue operating as a part of the nations infracstructure?
69 Is the question on the top 20 salaried employees. It also asks for portion of remuneration funded by DOE. (I assume it will generally be 100%. But you never know. DOE labs can do work for others.)
70. I’m sure they will be able to provide a list of all peer reviewed publications. 🙂
73: That’s the one that askes for the web sites maintained or contributed to by lab staff during working hours.
74: That’s going to be a big list– all other positions held by lab staff– paid or unpaid including faculty, boards and consultancies. Yow! (Jim’s got a friend whose on the board of his church. Out at PNNL, there were a fair number of guys who were Later Day Saints, some were bishops. And so on.)
Surely it is obvious that outsiders like Trump’s team need to find out a lot of things about _what-all are you guys doing_.
Of course, they are going to want some changes… I wish someone could explain to me in simple terms exactly what powers the president has over regulatory agencies.
MikeR, I’m not sure that it is clear what the legal boundaries are. I noticed yesterday, checking on Real Climate, that they are circling the wagons using The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) and 10 points of resistance to “harassment.” This includes numbers 4, 5 and 6 regarding not making embarrassing admissions in emails or personal documents but to save that for face-to-face communications. Also:
MikeR:
I don’t think there is any way to do it in simple terms, but in case there’s confusion, the DOE isn’t a “regulatory agency”. It’s an “executive department” of the Federal Government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_executive_departments
Regulatory agencies are referred to as “independent agencies”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government
Even within the executive departments, I understand there is a sharing of power with congress, so I guess one could view those as a hybrid of a true executive branch and independent agency.
I believe the purely executive portions of the executive departments start with “Office of the Secretary of ______” (insert department). I think that’s where most of the political appointees and their personal hirees reside.
I believe the structure has evolved to limit the ability of the president to unduly influence the departments, as happened with Nixon’s abuse of power (e.g., Saturday Night Massacre).
Gavin works for NASA in GISS, IIRC. That’s also an independent agency. They’ll probably get a similar list of questions eventually, assuming the Trump team understands NASA’s role in climate science.
Lucia, can Jim use both Main and Cass?
That’s a pretty good list of questions. I certainly don’t see it as the prelude to a witch hunt, more just trying to find out what’s going on and how the place works, and it appears to have been compiled by someone who has some grasp of the thing.
If I worked directly for the government doing climate science, I would be very worried, more worried than I was last week. It looks like they are doing (given the appearance of…) due diligence before they stick the knife in good and deep. Of course Trump is anything but predictable.
They are going to scream “witch hunt” at the top of their lungs, it is unlikely anyone will listen because they have been screaming constantly for 10 years.
I can remember when Bush moved to squash climate science orthodoxy and I thought it was a bad move. It was some guy I didn’t know named Hansen, ha ha. If I knew then what I know now I probably would have supported it.
Trump has an uncanny ability of making the left shoot themselves in the foot constantly. He will tweet out “Climate science spends (insert incredibly wrong number) going to posh conferences!!!” The climate science guys will almost certainly overreact to budget cuts and show themselves to be supremely entitled government employees wasting taxpayer revenue. This will go over poorly to people who are working for minimum wage.
The mistake the left constantly makes is assuming Trump is stupid. He isn’t and he plays on their arrogance.
Here is an interesting idea from vox.com (yes, you read that right).
Let’s relocate a bunch of government agencies to the Midwest
http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/12/9/13881712/move-government-to-midwest
Glenn Greenwald’s comments on the Russia hacks for Trump story is spot on. Summary: Beware anonymous sources pedaling conclusions without evidence.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/
I wouldn’t find it surprising the Ruskies preferred one candidate over the other, this does not equate to “Putin wants Trump because he is incompetent and will tear down the country”. Russia has many different agendas and Trump may be more compatible for a lot of reasons. The whole Trump is a secret Russian agent vibe is unhinged.
Russia knows they can get away with this because…Obama is in office and he will never take an aggressive retaliation.
“Let’s relocate a bunch of government agencies to the Midwest.”
.
Hey the Browns can only get better from here. Seriously, its a good idea. It’s funny how easy it is to have a much better idea than the government’s. It’s almost as if nobody has been minding the store and caring about efficiency. I’m heartened to see left wingers being so sensible. I just wonder why they forgot Buffalo.
Yet another unhinged idea: a petition for a do-over vote.
https://www.change.org/p/barack-obama-we-the-people-demand-a-new-vote
40k signatures so far.
Unlike George Bush, I think Trump would win the popular vote in a revote.
Here I was thinking a heading that says “Climate Nonsense” would be about Trump being a global warming denier.
“”I’m still open-minded. Nobody really knows. Look, I’m somebody that gets it, and nobody really knows. It’s not something that’s so hard and fast.””
He’s someone who gets what? Not science.
MikeN
Do you mean to get Argonne?
MikeN,
I don’t think there is any reason to think Trump would gain in the popular vote in a revote done now.
Bill Gates is stepping in to fund energy innovation.
.
I think he and Elon are correct that the time is ripe and consumers are ready to buy into efficiency, even at a modest cost premium. The question is if fossil fuel price is going to drop with ease on demand from alternatives coupled with the increase in supply with better drilling technology.
Ron,
I have no evidence for this, yet for some time I’ve suspected that when people are surprised as Gates is allegedly surprised here:
I believe the surprise stems from some errors in assumptions. I think that a goodly chunk of the people who care enough about climate change to be involved in discussions about ‘solving’ it are not much inclined to care what the economic trade off’s are. Put directly, I think these people tend more towards the socialistic end of the ideology spectrum than the capitalist end. And the results so far appear to be consistent with this idea, at least in my view:
I mean, who cares if the clean energy technology actually works. It doesn’t have to work. Energy production can suffer, costs can skyrocket, VC firms can lose their butts; that’s probably icing on the cake for these guys. Dirty venture capitalist millionaires are part of the income inequality problem anyway, and probably thought to part of lots of other problems. A bunch of rich old white men, heterosexual Judeo-Christians I shouldn’t wonder. Hillary had a famous basket for people like that. Who cares if these guys go broke, who cares if energy isn’t produced. It’s like the cartoon says. But the trouble lies in understanding what the vision these people have for a better world actually looks like.
[Edit: It looks like Venezuela and Cuba and North Korea to me. I don’t see that as a ‘better world’. But what can you expect from a counter-revolutionary deplorable denier like myself. :)]
Ron,
Oh. I never actually made the original point I wanted to make, which was this. When you say
My response is, I doubt it.
mark bofill,
If you want direct evidence that a lot of consumers aren’t ready to buy into efficiency, look at the number of mini-vans, SUV’s and humongous ( yuge ) pickup trucks on the road. That’s not to say that these vehicles don’t get better gas mileage than the equivalent from a relatively few years ago, but that’s not their selling point.
Thanks DeWitt.
Mark/Ron,
I think investors should always be leary about the idea that consumers will be interested in paying “modest premium cost” for something that is … well … nothing. People will buy something better at a “modest premium cost” — facelift, nicer coffee maker and so on. But it’s not at all clear that people will simply be willing to pay more for … well… what amounts to nothing.
The attractive thing about energy efficiency is that it saves you money because you use less energy. Energy costs something, so you save money. That’s not a “modest premium cost“; it’s a cost savings.
But people in general don’t show great signs of being willing to voluntarily for efficiency per se. People pick SUV’s. People pick big houses (often not well insulated ones.) Heck, many people won’t even install extra insulation even though it would save them money. ( We’ve put extra insulation in the attic of every house we’ve bought the within the first 6 months of moving in– usually at a cost of less than $200 for batts and a weekend of scratch work hauling the bats up to the attic. Our energy bills reflect that. Obviously, the fact we put it in means the previous owners did not.)
Sure some people will pay more for an electric vehicle even knowing they won’t save money. But some of these people are willing to pay a premium cost for virtue signalling. Like dog-whistling, virtue signaling only works with people who have the finely tuned senses see or hear the signal/whistle. If a particular method of virtue signaling is too costly in real $$ terms, it’s never going to adopted by most people. Mostly people either need or want the money for something else.
Politically the emphasis is “punish the climate sinners”. As noted by DeWitt though, the last thing they want is someone looking in their garage. You can see this emphasis over and over and over. Punitive taxes. Outlaw coal. Criminalize dissent.
I have always been perplexed that energy technology is so de-prioritized in climate propaganda. Part of this is the first item that comes up is improved nuclear and that is the technology not to be named in green circles. That is one super sacred cow that will never be slain less they take responsibility for killing nuclear in the first place. The “science says” nuclear is the safest energy technology out there as is. Making nuclear cheaper seems to be the most achievable long range plan.
Lucia,
I’ve composed [and discarded] a couple of responses that both agree with your response and elaborate on my original point. Unfortunately (fortunately? mmm. Yes. Fortunately.) in doing so I have come to realize that I do not really believe my original idea is valid. 🙂
.
so thank you, I guess!
.
I’m not sure yet that my idea was invalid so much as poorly articulated. What I was trying to get at was a notion that – 1. assuming there is some correlation between people being ideologically opposed to capitalism / economic growth (or people being ideologically supportive of socialism) and people being overly concerned about climate change impacts, that then 2. somehow there is some detrimental impact on the economic success rate on the VC funded clean energy businesses that these people ‘are involved in’ somehow (‘involved in’ is sort of hazy. I need to figure out what I think I mean there.)
.
I don’t know if I buy this or not. Having tried to articulate this makes me realize it sounds pretty dubious to my own ears. The big flaw I’m seeing is that I’ve personally known a number of progressive / socialist leaning people. The funny thing is that without exception, all of them want personally to be wealthy. None of them seem to want to embrace poverty for the greater good personally.
.
Anyway. Just rambling here.
🙂
IDK. I’m still toying with it. I’ll argue it privately with myself for awhile and get back to you on it when and if I make up my mind.
mark bofill: “without exception, all of them want personally to be wealthy. None of them seem to want to embrace poverty for the greater good personally.”
.
That is not my experience. It seems to me that such people want to be affluent and that they think of that as “middle class” not “wealthy”. They also think that everybody can be middle class if only those greedy rich people did not hog more than their share. Pie in the sky. They don’t get that the policies they advocate will result in poverty for all.
Mike M,
.
Interesting distinction.
.
I’m foundering on my generalizations, maybe. The questions I think I need to answer and support are:
.
1. Are there in fact socialists who understand real world socialism and who advocate for the equality of outcome that socialism imposes, even knowing that this equality means a low standard of living for everyone (except the political elite, of course)? Are there a significant number? Most, some? A good chunk? Or not worth talking about.
2. Or do most socialists think that everybody will end up being affluent if their policies are realized?
.
Among those I’ve known, some do realize full well that living and working in the U.S. in our more or less free market system they enjoy far more actual wealth than they would living in Cuba. I’m not sure others I’ve known do. mmm.
.
Thanks MikeM.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/the-doe-vs-ugly-reality/
Willis parses these questions.
The US spent decades undermining the USSR in every way possible. I don’t think ex-KGB Putin is going to cry any tears of being accused of anything.
It is a bit ludicrous for the media to be selling a story that Russia releasing emails written by Democrats somehow reflects badly on Trump. They need to do better than this.
As best as I can tell the main evidence (not) offered is the RNC was allegedly broken into but emails not released. It’s possible there wasn’t anything worthy of releasing. It’s possible they were trying to undermine who they believe would win the election, HRC. Lots of things are possible but what seems to be missing is any evidence of intent one way or the other.
Lucia, I found myself looking at a map and concluding this was my shortest route, and then when I drove it I had to turn around because it was gated at Argonne for employees only.
I think Trump does better because his approval rating is up and some of the ‘he’s a liberal’ Republicans are satisfied by his cabinet picks and general demeanor.
MikeN,
Jim enters through the main gate because it’s more convenient. That must be the westgate on “main”. I thought it was on Lemont.
I always to to the main gate.
Wrt increasing efficiency, there’s also Jevons’s Paradox, which the greens almost always ignore. If you make something cheaper, by lowering the energy cost for example, consumption will rise.
If you increase the insulation in your house, you’ll probably keep the house warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer.
DeWitt,
I’m pretty sure the Paradox is an “overall” thing.
I suspect if building codes required it, or if someone in an apartment had better insulation, Jevon’s Paradox would hold for them.
But the situation is a bit different with being the couple who almost immediately adds insulation to a newly purchased home if there is an inadequate amount when purchased– which there usually is. We actually keep the house medium-coolish in winter and barely run the a/c in summer. The latter is because I actually like things a bit warm. But we wouldn’t be able to do it without the insulation– plus we have a huge locust tree shading a major portion of the south facing side of the house, so that helps too.
For winter: I own lots of fleece tops, warm slippers and so on for winter. I’ve always figured sitting under an afghan when watching tv in winter was normal. So, I don’t really bump the heat up much. But it’s true I don’t consider the cost of heat too much when deciding. We did consider that when installing the insulation batts.
I forgot it’s called Lemont there. It is Main further north.
lucia,
I agree that Jevons’s Paradox would apply to averages, not so much individuals. So ‘you’ would be the generic everyman rather than you specifically. de gustibus non est disputandum
I’m not in favor of being cold. I still remember that we had to use hot water bottles in the beds in my Grandmother’s house in San Francisco in the winter in the late 1940’s. She cooked on a wood stove and some rooms were ‘heated’ by coal grates in fireplaces. She was there for the great earthquake.
We put new windows in the house a couple of years ago with low-e glass and argon filled sealed double panes. It was more a matter of the old windows starting to fall apart then for energy efficiency. But it sure made the west end of the house, which is at the far end of the HVAC system, a lot more comfortable during summer afternoons and winter nights.
Santos apparently believes the Trump death squads are going to come in and erase all the climate data. Hilariously they are making sure and posting it to public sites. Reality is a parity.
Santos – “Something that seemed a little paranoid to me before all of a sudden seems potentially realistic, or at least something you’d want to hedge against,â€
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/?utm_term=.fe9193276c88
Re #156482 –
Has someone copyrighted Pre-Trump Stress Disorder (PTSD) yet?
I hope they back up the original unaltered data also – and not just the “processed data”.
The original data is the stuff Phil Jones lost – so obviously is in greater need of back-up.
Tom,
Thanks for that link. I needed a chuckle today.
So apparently the government and federal programs are ‘the castle’ – a medieval stronghold where a group would defend against their enemies.
You know, if a denier took this tone I think there would be those who would dismiss that denier as some sort of conspiracy theorist. I mean, the very notion. Scientists defending their data against some enemy… Hah. This guy must think there’s still a Team and a Cause and all that.
Oh wait. Never mind. My bad.
More martial metaphors!
“Guerrilla archiving” at John Carlos Baez’s blog.
Yeah. For a group of people who seem fond of scoffing at the conspiracy theory that climate scientists are motivated or influenced by political concerns, these guys certainly seem to be urging climate scientists to scramble around on the basis of political concerns.
It will be interesting to see if data that McIntyre, for one, has been requesting for years finally gets publicly archived. I’m betting not.
Reading Steve Mc’s CA posts last summer it was amazing how patient he is, writing a polite followup request for data about once a year (for over a decade). He seems to eventually get it either when it appears archived unannounced or it’s used in another study and he is able to see it indirectly.
.
It certainly is a dilemma for “real scientists” at Real Climate now whether to advise public archiving “to preserve the evidence” or whether they should continue advising to ignore FOIA (and otherwise) requests from “non-scientists” as harassment and keep data concealed (and protected from being used by deniers). Obviously there is some data that is preferred lost, especially if it can be blamed now on “fossil fuel interests.”
Was there this much complaining when Obama was rewriting the presidential biographies to include himself? Every president since Coolidge has a ‘did you know’ feature added, except for Ike and Ford (Did you know Ford pardoned Nixon, and Obama pardoned Hillary)
Well… it’s probably a good thing if some private group backs up the government data. If Trump being elected motivated them to do it, ok.
I saw a news article that claimed that 20 Trump electors had contacted some organization that said they would defend faithless electors, at least Trump electors anyway. This does raise the possibility, I think, of adding an additional candidate if the election goes to the House. Say 37 Trump electors voted for Jeb Bush. I’m pretty sure that means the House could vote to make him President instead of being restricted to HRC and DJT. I don’t think it will happen, though.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/12/the-faithless-elector-fantasy-is-fun-but-it-s-just-a-fantasy.html
29 states currently have laws that force electors to vote according to the states election. My guess is by 2020 that number will be higher.
There appear to be quite a few people who believe they are entitled to decide the election anyway after their favorite candidate didn’t win, this is a pretty amusing display of sour grapes. These are very serious people, very serious! Hamilton! It’s pretty much political theater of the absurd.
I’ll respect anyone of these clown’s position on this subject if they can show me they held this position on Nov 7th. I imagine this filter will result in the null set.
DeWitt
Or Romney. Or… whomever.
The difficulty is that if a bunch go faithless and their states submit those votes (which they may not) and they don’t all switch to Hillary (which my impression is they won’t) then the election is going to the house. The house must pick between the top 3. (At least I’m pretty sure.)
I can’t help but wonder if the electors toying with being faithless are phoning each other to decide who they want to make #3.
UToronto is the headquarters of this operation, looking for volunteers. Perhaps Steve can put on a mustache and beard and join in, and uncover some long hidden data in the archives.
Here’s a video of celebrities trying to get GOP electors to go faithless.
You know…. if they got 37 GOP electors and all the Hillary electors to pick a Republican they liked and vote for them, they might be able to boot Trump aside. But they would need the 233(?) Hillary electors to agree to vote for that GOP person. And it needs to happen Dec 19.
So if they really want something to happen here, they need to get all those electors on a conference call to pick which GOP person they are going to pick. ‘Cuz I really don’t think they are going to get 37 faithless republicans to vote Hillary or any non-GOP person.
(And lets face it: this ain’t happening. The Hillary electors and Hillary supporters might think Trump electors being faithless is just dandy. And they might think those people should fall on their swords “for the sake of the country”. But I think those Democrats would choke at the idea of falling on their own swords and not voting for Hillary “for the sake of the country”.)
I wonder which side the military will take in the civil war after Trump is denied the Presidency through electoral chicanery? My guess would be the right. The cities would then be laid siege to and food and Internet would be denied. The cities will probably last about 12 minutes before surrendering, but not before queuing up some really harsh tweets and calling the other side racist in peer reviewed literature. A benevolent dictator Trump will then lead the citizens to the promised land and everyone will live happily ever after in a kind and just world.
My understanding is Team Trump reviewed all the electors and the count of defectors is 1, the crazy guy in Texas.
Tom,
A lot of people would be pretty pissed off if the electoral college doesn’t elect Trump.
Chicago could last more than 12 minutes before surrendering to an Army. I watched Transfomers 3 and Chicagoans can take on anything!
I noticed that Mosher defined Lukewarmer as being 51% confident that warming is between 1.2 and 3C. Isn’t that pretty close to the IPCC position?
Is Thomas Fuller writing at Upshot for NYT the same guy?
MikeN, I would say the IPCC position is 90% chance of ECS between 1.5 and 4.5C, though 3 is the mean the shape of the curve is not well defined. I would say a lukewarmer puts ECS 90% between 1.2 and 3C, with 1.8C as the mean.
.
Lucia, your tussle with Tom Scharf over how long Chicagoan’s would hold out reminds me of the generals in Dr. Strangelove. “I think our army guys can brush aside those airbase guards with little trouble.”
“I noticed that Mosher defined Lukewarmer as being 51% confident that warming is between 1.2 and 3C. Isn’t that pretty close to the IPCC position?”
No, I said If you gave me an over/under bet at 3C, I would take the under.
think hard.
“Given an over/under on sensitivity of 3C, lukewarmers will take the under.â€
I believe the sensitivity is likely less than 0.5, maybe 0, and may not be a simple function, turning negative above some concentration. Am I a lukewarmer?
Steven Mosher | November 5, 2015 at 10:46 am |
No.
There is a second component and that is that sensitivity is above 1.2C for doubling.. roughly the response given no net feedbacks.
Steven – I’m trying to make sure I understand this and would appreciate your take here. If someone thought that the net effect was a small “negative feedback†would that require a sensitivity below 1.2C? Is it unreasonable based on the available evidence to suspect that there might be a small negative feedback? Is the case for positive feedback superior to negative, such that entertaining the possibility of a negative feedback, puts one in the denier camp?
Steven Mosher | November 5, 2015 at 11:56 am |
I guess since I did the first definition of Lukewarmer as it relates to ECS let me tell you my thought process at the time.
1. The no feedback number is the grounding point.
From that grounding point call it 1C or 1.2 C now comes the question
where does the evidence take us? And at the time I judged that the evidence for positive feedbacks was much stronger than evidence for net negative. So, that provided the direction. 1.2C is the bare response.
The vast majority of the evidence is for positive feedbacks…
Next question is what is the median value. For that I looked at AR4.
Given the uncertainty I’d just say I’m 51% confident it lies between
1.2C and 3C.. what is the shape of the PDF in between those two?
beats me.
Steven Mosher | November 5, 2015 at 12:00 pm |
Mosher writes
With a 51-49% probability in your mind of it being under-over, you’re basically saying you think sensitivity is 3C
As far as I’m concerned, the only argument about sensitivity that can be made is one based on entropy. You simply cant intuit feedbacks in any other way and models are useless in that regard…and since that ~1.1C warming effect believed to be resultant by CO2 alone has reduced entropy by increasing the temperature gradient in the atmosphere, the argument that feedbacks further decrease entropy by further increasing that temperature gradient is flawed.
The only sensible argument is that feedbacks will be negative even if the spike in temperatures we’re seeing right now makes it seem positive (ie it cant last)
And that in turn means that ECS is likely lower than TCS. You wont see that argument made in many places either. But the argument again makes sense imo.
It makes sense if SST for example is getting too warm as a result of a spike in temperatures and that heading toward equilibrium means a lowering of SSTs at some point. Obviously any energy at depth below the thermocline cant/wont impact on air temperature so arguments that warming to the depths may continue for a long time dont necessarily mean the air temperature must follow by continuing to warm.
Of course as we’re still emitting CO2 then on that basis timeframes would be impossible to judge but imo at some point we’ll start cooling and we may even overshoot into another LIA or worse.
MikeN,
Don’t know if Mosher will return, but the evidence for feedbacks is that they are likely on net somewhat positive. Warmer ocean surfaces (and to a lesser extent, warmer land surfaces) pretty much have to increase atmospheric water vapor, and we know that water vapor is a strong infrared absorber. If there were no other feedbacks beyond water vapor, then a reasonable worst-case figure for the combined influence of CO2 and water vapor is a bit less than double the CO2 only effect… so a little over 2C per doubling. Any negative feed-backs (eg, higher albedo from more clouds) would reduce that sensitivity. Any other positive feed-backs would increase it. The crazy-high IPCC sensitivity values come from cloud feed-backs, which models treat (parameterized) as strongly positive on net. This is where I think we will ultimately find the models(ers) went off the rails. My personal view is that only empirical estimates can give reasonable bounds for sensitivity. What limits the certainty in empirical estimates is uncertainty in aerosol effects; were that uncertainty greatly reduced, the empirical estimates would be by far the most credible estimates, and so a good basis for sensible public policy. The biggest failing of climate science is, IMO, a glaring lack of effort to reduce uncertainty in aerosol effects.
.
BTW, it is the uncertainty in aerosol effects which gives the models a fig leaf to hide their… shall we say.. inadequacies. Since nobody really knows the magnitude of aerosol effects, this is a free variable which allows the models to simulate modest past warming reasonably well, while still projecting crazy-high future warming. The GISS models essentially off-set 50% of all GHG effects starting before 1900 until present…. making those models reasonably consistent with past warming, while still quite high in sensitivity. I note that the GISS (and other) models have aerosol off-sets which are on average considerably higher than the IPCC’s best estimate, which can only be fairly characterized as bizarre. Climate models are as intellectually corrupt an exercise as I have ever encountered in 40+ years of science and engineering. The models are, IMO, worthless for determining climate sensitivity.
SteveF, shouldn’t the cloud feedback be part of the water vapor feedback?
I’m not bothered by the claim, I just stumbled upon this definition and it seems pretty close to the IPCC one.
Lucia,
“A lot of people would be pretty pissed off if the electoral college doesn’t elect Trump. ”
.
Of course, but it ‘taint happenin’.
.
I think it is best to take the rants of wild-eyed leftists literally, but not seriously. After Trump is sworn into office, living in the White House, issuing executive orders, and signing legislation, count on the crazy left to never accept he is “their President”. For the country, I suspect this is a good thing, since the crazy left will marginalize themselves enough to be pretty much ignored outside of places like California, Chicago, and New York City.
Willis Eschenbach explains how the DOE is being taken over. Looks like a Trump move.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/14/how-a-department-resists-a-businessman/
MikeN,
No, the water vapor feed-back is independent of could effects. Higher atmospheric water vapor will almost certainly increase clouds, but the question of net cloud effect remains. The beauty of empirical estimates is that there is no need to know what the individual short term feed-backs are… the estimate takes all into account. The only remaining uncertainty is in very long-term feedbacks (eg lower albedo on exposed land after a glacier melts). These are mostly multi-century effects, and atmospheric CO2 will be falling long before these become important.
MikeN, you probably are aware of this but since SteveF did not mention that cloud’s have positive feedback by trapping night time boundary layer (ground) IR outgoing radiation. So clouds can be modeled very flexibly just like aerosols.
SteveF
Well… no.
Of course the same things goes for rants by right-wingers. But right now they aren’t the camp ranting. In the highly unlikely event those ranting trying to get electors to switched managed to do it, we’d most certainly be hearing the rants on the other side.
Unlike Tom Scharf, I don’t anticipate it would lead to civil war especially if a republican ended up president. I know I wouldn’t go to war over it. I think many people were holding their nose voting for Trump– and I think the vast majority of them wouldn’t be remotely motivated to go to war over it.
There would certainly be a lot of ranting by many unhappy people though. Likely more than we currently have and with greater justification.
The greater justification is not because Trump is good– he’s not. But because we do have a system and it’s not at all clear whether the electors may or may not be faithless. There would be lots of court cases. Strum. Drang. So on.
(FWIW: I’ve always leaned for the notion that the electors can be faithless and should be under certain circumstances. But realistically, I knew the social, political of being a faithless elector are ‘yuge’; the legal costs could be also. I also don’t know think those circumstances where they should turn faithless have occurred. As far as I can tell, these particular electors knew precisely who Trump is/was and what he was and still is like when they signed on to vote for him. The circumstances where where they should turn ought not to include situations where they ought not to have step forward to vote in his favor in the first place and then just changed their mind when he turned out to be precisely who he seemed to be when they put their names forward on the ballot. That said: my view was I always thought it ought to be legal for them to change votes. )
Ron,
Clouds don’t trap heat. They slow heat transfer because the cloud tops are colder than the ground. But the don’t stop heat transfer. They also increase albedo. IMO, the albedo increase during the day will more than compensate for the lower heat loss at night.
Yes, there are some types of clouds, cirrus for example, that do have a net positive feedback, but I seriously doubt that in the real world, as opposed to the simulated world of climate models, that those types of clouds would dominate.
I’ve been thinking about how models could have a higher ECS than TCR without weird cloud feedback. The only way I can see that happening is for the average temperature to increase while the emission to space changes less and less over time. But how could that happen? Things like water vapor and cloud feedbacks should be quite rapid, relatively speaking. The only thing I can think of is that the latitudinal temperature distribution flattens.
An isothermal sphere has the highest average temperature of any temperature distribution with the same total emission to space. But in spite of the fairly large temperature gradient from the poles to the equator, the planet is only a couple of degrees average temperature less than the isothermal temperature. That would mean there’s an upper limit to this sort of feedback.
It’s not so much that it would “only” be Trump that was getting deposed which isn’t the end of the world, it is “who” is doing the deposing. This would be a coordinated effort with the media and the left overturning an election result that the right fairly won, all while the political establishment stood by and let it happen. This election can fairly be called a backlash against these very same people (which is why they are having this temper tantrum in the first place). There would be civil upheaval on an unprecedented scale and it would turn violent. I’ve never been to a protest in my life, but I would go to that one.
It should be noted that none of the editorial boards are taking any official positions on this effort, and no officials on the left are being hounded to “disavow” this effort by the media. This could be implicit approval or they may just think this whole thing is silly.
If I was Putin and wanted to really cause chaos in the US, simply manufacture some murky evidence that Russia/Trump coordinated during the campaign.
I think this is an example of what this crazy election may have brought about by way of partisan groups having to rethink their stands on certain issues. Those normally all in for bigger and more intrusive government when it is doing their bidding might have suddenly realized that big and intrusive government can also do others bidding. It probably matters not whether the motivation is based on any correct interpretation of what might happen in any given instance but just that it could happen.
On the other hand we have had some glimmers of those on the right realizing that like all government agencies their seeming pet organizations like the CIA and FBI may be politicized and get things wrong just like other government agencies. Whether the CIA in the Russian hacking case is right or wrong on wherever they may come down it is rather interesting that CIA information has been leaked for apparently political reasons and that the CIA and FBI have not agreed to brief congress on the matter. If other parties are fabricating the CIA information out of whole cloth than there should be a denial from the CIA.
Never discussed enough is the CIA’s greatly over estimated account of how well the Soviet economy was doing back in the cold war days while others were (correctly as in turns out) estimating that the economy was falling apart. There were those calling for the elimination of the CIA over this fiasco and showing that hundreds of billions of dollars were needlessly spent on a cold war against a failing regime.
Kenneth,
The Soviet Union failed because we kept pressure on it. Without that pressure, a lot more damage could potentially have been done. Low oil prices were also a major factor, as they are now.
Anyone on the right or the left who thinks either the FBI or the CIA are competent, apolitical organizations is living in a dream world. They are neither. I seriously doubt that ‘the right’ has any consensus opinion on either of those organizations, much less consider them pets. They are, however, necessary evils. But you can’t trust them.
Trust but verify…
SteveF (Comment #156524)
December 15th, 2016 at 5:08 am
SteveF, I was recently reading the briefing by Nic Lewis at this link: https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/briefing-note-on-climate-sensitivity-etc_nic-lewis_mar2016.pdf which is titled as though it is exclusively about ECS and TCR but which also includes a listing of the problems of models when compared to observations that are not directly related to ECS and TCR. I think Nic does a very good job in describing the basic physics involved and what he sees as problems with the models and some others, methodology in estimating ECS and TCR values and probability distributions. You may already have read this briefing but I link to it here for others who might be looking for an easy read about the current status of ECS and TCR estimations.
I am not certain whether Nic has made his comparisons between observed and modeling global temperature changes using the SST model values for ocean temperatures and not SAT values which are commonly used. Since the model SAT warms faster than the model SST, this would involve an apples to oranges comparison. For observed global temperature changes it is always the ocean SST and land SAT that are combined to obtain global values. The dearth of observed Ocean SAT temperatures over time makes the ocean observed SST to ocean observed SAT comparison very uncertain.
Not sure I agree with all of this article on the fall of the Soviet Union, but I agree that the major cause of the fall came from within and was related to the command economy.
http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/soviet.htm
Regardless of the causes one might attribute here to the fall of the Soviet Union, the CIA had it all wrong in its estimates of how well the Soviet economy was doing. I also should note here the CIA’s involvement in the failed and embarrassing Bay of Pigs action in Cuba.
There was a very prominent American economist who had it all wrong on the success of the Soviet Union economy and that was Paul Samuelson. He kept telling us that the Soviet Union would be passing the American economy in the near future. He probably was drawing on his Keynesian theory directly from Keynes when Keynes commented that the Keynesian approach to economics would work equally well in a mixed or command economy.
DeWitt: “Clouds don’t trap heat.”
.
They don’t reflect the ground IR but they emit their own IR from their BB temperature profile, keeping the ground and boundary layer warmer on cloudy nights. So in effect by substituting the ground IR emission for their own clouds do trap heat. And for a thick cloud layer the top side is a much lower temperature than the bottom. All this said I agree that clouds are generally a negative climate feedback due to their strong contribution to albedo.
.
Kenneth: “If other parties are fabricating the CIA information out of whole cloth than there should be a denial from the CIA.”
.
The intelligence agencies have a long tradition of not confirming or denying allegations. But they should be briefing congress.
.
DeWitt: “They are, however, necessary evils. But you can’t trust them.”
.
Tom: “Trust, but verify”
.
There is no easy way to verify what an intelligence agencies data is or how expert their analysis. The chief executive simply gets advice that could be good or could be bad. The executive then weighs it against other factors in making policy. How much should be revealed to the public to justify the executives decision making is a tough question. If too much is revealed then sources and methods are compromised, too little and the executive may not be able to muster the domestic political backing to implement policy or to gain needed international support. This greatly diminishes the value of intelligence agencies in a open republic.
.
IMO, this coupled with the suspicion and ill will derived internationally for nefarious meddling, intelligence agencies that engage in the CIA’s particular mission should be abolished. Homeland security can be maintained through counter-intelligence charged to the FBI and NSA and others. Black ops and droning give us a black eye.
Overstating Soviet capability was self serving for the military industrial complex, there was literally no downside to doing this for them. Somewhat similar to environmentalists overstating the effects of climate change, no downside for them.
The problem is there isn’t any push back from credible sources to these things, so they push forward with FUD and win. There will never be a price to pay for overstating capability after winning the Cold War. Winning absolves all sins and these are footnotes in history.
When (if) climate change proves to be inconsequential, nobody will be thrown under the bus for overstating the issue. They will assert their preventative actions saved the world regardless. The only skeptic win scenario here is doing nothing and having minimal effects of warming. This is part of the reason there is a desperate need to “do something” because it results in an environmentalist win either way.
If you want to be seen to be on a winning team later, the skeptic side is a bad choice.
The CIA has value.
Things such as Stuxnet were successful, and who knows how many others that weren’t uncovered by the media worked. The CIA eventually found Bin Laden, huge win. They defeated the Taliban in a matter of months with just cash payments. Not uncovering 9/11, huge fail. They have been very successful in finding drone targets. Al Qaeda was decimated (arguable) by the CIA. Taking out high profile ISIS targets is likely the work of the CIA.
They can go too far and gauging the ill will, which is real, is pretty hard. My view is they are a necessity in the world we live in. When their work intersects with domestic politics it gets really messy.
If electors staged a revolt, a state legislature could send an alternate set of results, like in 1876.
SteveF, my thinking is CO2 produces high temperatures that leads to more water vapor, that produces more clouds, and thus cloud effects are part of the water vapor feedback.
I did not mention waterboarding in my CIA list but the fact that it could be done nefariously by the CIA through administration approval says something negatively about the secretive nature of the CIA .
In general there is an obvious correlation between those government agencies that most people agree can only be handeled by a government agency and lack of unaccountability by that agency. Their failures and indescretions are excused by all sides with a simple: but they are needed – with the implication that we have no better ways of handling these matters.
Tom: “Things such as Stuxnet were successful…”
.
The CIA bragged about the 1953 Shah of Iran coup as a huge success too. If we are miffed at the CIA for interfering with our domestic politics, (as they seem to be doing now with Russia-Trump,) imagine how pissed off other countries are if they sense the CIA presence. Let’s look at the Stuxnet.
.
Benefits: We knocked the Iranian nuclear program back 3 years.
.
Costs: Besides the lives endangered conducting the physical sabotage, the anti-US propaganda in Iran can truly label the US (even with a Nobel Peace Prize winning president) as evil saboteurs.
.
Internationally the US was the first to use cyber-sabotage to bring down a piece of infrastructure. Sometimes its not good to be first. This will certainly be thrown back in our faces when one of our allies or the USA is attacked in the same manner.
.
Did I applaud when I first learned about the Stuxnet operation? Yes, I like winning. Do I think it was beneficial in the long view looking back now? No. We have an agreement now that largely relies on Iranian honor. I find the Stuxnet indecent gives me less confidence that they would not rationalize cheating a saboteur.
.
Remember a US president perhaps approved of the CIA as an assassination tool of foreign heads of state. Then the US head of state got assassinated and then after enough distance passed the congress quietly passed a law forbidding the CIA to assassinate heads of state. This was a band-aide not a cure. If we want to use drones to take out ISIS leaders then let the military do it. Special forces know how to do targeting.
.
The best plausible deniability for being suspected of foreign meddling is not having a foreign espionage/covert agency to begin with.
Kenneth,
I had seen that summary some time ago. It is a nice summary.
.
Lucia,
I agree that faithless electors electing a Republican would probably not provoke armed rebellion. Were they to elect Hillary, I think the possibility of armed rebellion would be significant. Based on state laws (most states legally bind electors), the whole mess would end up involving both state and Federal courts and possible ongoing armed rebellion vs National Guard troops and marshal law. I doubt anyone could provide personal safety for faithless electors were they to support Hillary.
.
Fortunately, it is just not going to happen; Trump will get >270 votes, will take office in January, and that will be the beginning of the end of Obama’s lawless ‘legacy’.
SteveF, DeWitt, did you see that entropic gravity is gaining steam? I think dark matter’s days are numbered. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116446-first-test-of-rival-to-einsteins-gravity-kills-off-dark-matter
.
Lubos Motl gets a mention near the conclusion. He was a critic of the theory.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #156531
Clouds don’t trap heat. They slow heat transfer because the cloud tops are colder than the ground.
Yes but the effect is that the atmosphere below the cloud is perceived as being warmer than it otherwise would be, in effect an impression of trapped heat.
Your view on the serious fall and rise in global sea ice area?
If it can be so great in such short spaces of times should the standard deviations be broadened or what?
MikeN, I think its quite unlikely that ECS is less than the 1.2C figure. Even if you discount Hansen’s work as being due to his self-confessed motivation to prevent a Venus like fate for Earth, its a long stretch to get below 1.5 I think based on the last 150 years of observations.
David Young writes
Can you make an argument for positive feedback based on entropy?
David Young: “its a long stretch to get below 1.5”
I agree. I am puzzled by claims of ECS below 1.5 K. The observational estimates generally give a best estimate of ECS between 1.5 and 2.0 K (corresponding to near zero cloud feedback) and a best estimate of TCR between 1.0 and 1.5 K.
Ron,
There was only one sentence on galactic clusters with no mention of results. A new theory of gravity has to explain all observations. If it fails to explain the behavior of galactic clusters, it’s wrong no matter how well it does for individual galaxies.
There’s also the problem of the critical density of the universe as a whole. I’m betting that variable gravity has a problem with that as well.
TimTheToolMan: “As far as I’m concerned, the only argument about sensitivity that can be made is one based on entropy.”
.
I am very knowledgeable about thermodynamics and I don’t see how entropy can tell us anything about feedbacks. Warming increases entropy, cooling decreases entropy. How do you get feedbacks from that?
TimTheToolMan: “You simply cant intuit feedbacks in any other way and models are useless in that regard”
.
You most certainly can qualitatively intuit some feedbacks (water vapor, lapse rate, albedo). Models are indeed not much use for calculating those, except perhaps for the sum of the first two.
.
TimTheToolMan: “…and since that ~1.1C warming effect believed to be resultant by CO2 alone has reduced entropy by increasing the temperature gradient in the atmosphere,”
.
Huh? CO2 alone does not change the vertical temperature gradient, neither does the Planck feedback (often treated as no feedback). The lapse rate feedback reduces the vertical temperature gradient. You can’t get entropy from the gradient. In some situations, you could deduce the rate of entropy production from a temperature gradient, but I would be skeptical about any simple conclusion for a system as complex as the atmosphere, with horizontal gradients, large scale convection, and latent heat transfer.
.
TimTheToolMan: “the argument that feedbacks further decrease entropy by further increasing that temperature gradient is flawed.”
.
Not all feedbacks change the temperature gradient, and the modeled change is to decrease the temperature gradient (e.g., the “tropical hot spot”). I think your argument is flawed.
David Young, MikeM, Nic Lewis published 1.64C as a best estimate ECS. Then with updated numbers, he produced lower results, 1.45 and 1.36.
“teven – I’m trying to make sure I understand this and would appreciate your take here. If someone thought that the net effect was a small “negative feedback†would that require a sensitivity below 1.2C? Is it unreasonable based on the available evidence to suspect that there might be a small negative feedback? Is the case for positive feedback superior to negative, such that entertaining the possibility of a negative feedback, puts one in the denier camp?
##############################
I reason thusly.
1. we know from bare, but incomplete physics, that the repsonse to doubling will be on the order of 1.2C. That’s assuming
no feedbacks. Then comes the questions, well what’s the evidence on feedbacks? The evidence is this : the feedbacks are net positive. This puts a floor to my beliefs.. All the evidence suggests > 1.2C. Could there be unknown negative feedbacks to make it net negative? yes, unicorns could exist.. BUT with Unicorns we at least know what to look for.. with hitherto unknown negative feedbacks that will render the system net negative we only have the bare logical possibility and no course of action directing us what to look for ( its white, 4 legs looks like a horse and has a horn, poops ice cream )
Steven Mosher | November 5, 2015 at 11:56 am |
I guess since I did the first definition of Lukewarmer as it relates to ECS let me tell you my thought process at the time.
1. The no feedback number is the grounding point.
From that grounding point call it 1C or 1.2 C now comes the question
where does the evidence take us? And at the time I judged that the evidence for positive feedbacks was much stronger than evidence for net negative. So, that provided the direction. 1.2C is the bare response.
The vast majority of the evidence is for positive feedbacks…
Next question is what is the median value. For that I looked at AR4.
Given the uncertainty I’d just say I’m 51% confident it lies between
1.2C and 3C.. what is the shape of the PDF in between those two?
beats me.
2. We gather from a variety of different types of evidence that postive feedbacks are limited such that 4.5 C is a good ceiling for our beliefs.. could be higher, but not much evidence of that.
3.A vareity of work shows central measures (means and medians) around 3C. I think there is a better than 50/50 chance the value is less than 3.. therefore I am willing to take the underbet..
I expect to make money on that bet.. Please note the subtle difference. If rolled a single die I would take this bet
the value will be less than or equal to 4. I would not take the bet that the value would be less than or equal to 3, because that is a break even bet.
belief that it is less than 1.2C… denier camp?
It is logically possible.
all the evidence suggests otherwise..
denier or ignorer camp.. you have to ignore a bunch of evidence to hold out that hope
Ive never understood why skeptics just dont say this.
C02 is a GHG
Doubling will lead to warming
The best science says between 1.2C and 4.5C
BUT
narrowing that range or specifying a single central value, or describing the PDF.. is Highly unncertain science and I refuse to
make a judgement. its just too uncertain.. it could be anything with in that range.
Instead folks make definitive statements ( it has to be low)
( paper X is the best) about the most uncertain thing in climate science.
The benefit of withholding judgement is that you can actually entertain arguments, collect data and modify you belief.
You are not wrong to withhold judgement, just conservative.
Mosher,
Models are not evidence.
MikeM writes
“I am very knowledgeable about thermodynamics and I don’t see how entropy can tell us anything about feedbacks. Warming increases entropy, cooling decreases entropy.”
Straight away we have a problem. Or perhaps I do. Warming what increases entropy?
Consider a ball in a room. Warm the ball up and entropy of the room and ball has decreased. The ball cools and slightly warms the room and entropy increases.
How is a warmer/warming ball any different to the earth in space?
I think we need to start here before moving on.
TimTheToolMan: “Warm the ball up and entropy of the room and ball has decreased.”
I can not see any way to parse that sentence to make it make sense.
Uniformly increasing the temperature of any object increases its entropy. That follows directly from the definition of entropy.
MikeN: “Nic Lewis published 1.64C as a best estimate ECS. Then with updated numbers, he produced lower results, 1.45 and 1.36.”
.
I guess the earlier paper would be Lewis and Curry (2014). I had forgotten about the update, probably because I was not impressed by the original. As I recall, they did a fit with a so many parameters that it is not clear just what the parameters really mean.
MikeM writes
Q/T
Hardly “directly”. If T increases the entropy decreases. So for the earth warming due to CO2, whats the argument about Q.
Steve Mosher, can you succinctly give your definition of “consensus” vs. “lukewarmer” vs “skeptic” vs “denier?” I there is anyone that should be an authority on this topic I think it would be yourself since you have occupied the preponderance of those labels and perhaps positions since 2009. The definitions I believe should be relative to the following questions:
1) TCR/ ECS range and mean probability
2) Accuracy of land station record vs satellites for the last 37 years.
3) Existence of LIA, MWP and earlier warming periods, MBH98/99, etc.
4) Need to mitigate with carbon taxes, carbon capture and reparation payments vs. no regrets policy and private enterprise driven transition to fossil fuel replacement.
5) Reliability of CMIP5 model mean as a valid projection.
TimTheToolMan: “Q/T”
.
You force me to guess at what you are trying to say. I suppose that what you are thinking of is the definition of entropy, S:
dS = dQ_rev/T
where dQ_rev is the heat transfer in a reversible process and T is absolute temperature. If we add heat reversibly, then
dQ_rev = C*dT
where C is heat capacity. So
dS = C*dT/T.
C > 0, always. T > 0 for any achievable temperature. So if dT > 0, then dS > 0. Increasing temperature increases entropy.
Ron Graf,
I think your 1, 2, 3, and 5 miss the key issues. Alarmists think that if we alter the environment, the result can only be bad; and that if we are “good stewards”, we will be rewarded. Lukewarmers recognize that the climate changes naturally and that warming is as likely to be good as bad, maybe even more likely to be good. Deniers (who often like to call themselves skeptics) refuse to accept even the basics of climate science, although many alarmists insist on applying that label to anyone who is not alarmed.
.
Quantitative issues are secondary. Many lukewarmers, like me, would be a lot more worried if we believed the extreme projections of temperature change. But I think that the key issue is outlook. Failure to recognize that is a big part of why the debate is so fruitless.
MikeM:
And I presume the assumption that heat capacity is positive?
Stars and nano clusters are examples of systems with a negative heat capacity. There’s an analysis of the entropy here.
The link to entropy calculation had an extra letter at the end. It should be:
http://www.physicspages.com/2016/05/05/entropy-of-a-star/
Carrick,
Heat capacity is always positive. It can be proven that negative heat capacity violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The link you provide appears to be silly; it looks to be so sloppy that it is not even wrong.
Mike M:
Actually I gave you two well known examples where it is negative.
It doesn’t.
I realize you are using “it is not even wrong” as a haphazard insult, but you are still using it incorrectly.
“Not even wrong”refers to arguments that can’t be falsified.
If an argument is made sloppily, certainly that argument can be falsified.
If you think there are problems with the argument, why not point them out, instead of just acting pompous?
For reference, here is a collection of papers on negative heat capacity.
Here is a good paper discussing the negative heat content paradox:
On the negative specific heat paradox (D. Lynden-Bell & R. M. Lynden-Bell, 1977).
From the abstract:
Carrick,
OK, I was overly dismissive. But that is irrelevant since the systems with “negative heat capacity” have nothing to do with the issue in question. The application of thermodynamics to astronomical systems is debatable. For instance, there would seem to be no such thing as heat in such systems.
.
Edit: To clarify, applying macroscopic thermodynamics to such systems is questionable. You can apply statistical mechanics, but when you do that it is no longer clear if macroscopic quantities like entropy and temperature have the same physical meanings as in macroscopic thermodynamics.
Mike M.,
That’s why using the term ‘heat’, which can mean different things in different contexts, is not a good idea, IMO. There is always energy and entropy, however.
MikeM:
Stars are a good example of a system with a negative heat capacity, yet thermodynamic concepts & quantities (T, U, S, etc) are applied there without any difficulties.
The basic issue as I see it is people learn statistical mechanics as applied to the Gibbs canonical ensemble. There are a few definitions (which have evolved over time, namely entropy), then there are a lot of equivalent expressions (e.g., for entropy, or the 2nd law) that get derived.
What I think gets lost sight of is that these “equivalent expressions” are derived under assumptions of the canonical ensemble. People sometimes mistake the equivalent expressions for the original definitions. Equality under a set of assumptions is not identity: The definitions (e.g., Boltzman’s entropy relationship is probably the most “pure”, $latex S = k_B \log W$) should work with any thermodynamic system, regardless of the type of ensemble you assume, but “equivalent expressions” may not.
Anyway, as I understand it, there are three different classical ensembles that are identified in modern thermodynamics:
Gibbs canonical ensemble—this deals with systems in thermal equilibrium and leads to “ordinary” thermodynamics. Because it can exchange energy with e.g. a heat bath, the energy of this system is not fixed. However, the particle number of the system is generally assumed constant.
microcannonical ensemble—this deals with an isolated system with a constant energy and fixed number of particles and leads to the thermodynamics for stars, self-gravitating gas & dust clouds, nano-clusters and so forth.
grand canonical ensemble—this deals with a system where neither the energy nor the number of particles is constant over time, however, the system can be assumed to be in both thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium.
I think as long as you apply the principles of statistical mechanics self-consistently, you’ll get well-defined thermodynamic expressions for each of these ensembles.
Mike M.
” But I think that the key issue is outlook. Failure to recognize that is a big part of why the debate is so fruitless.”
.
Of course; the debate is fruitless because the starting assumptions are utterly contradictory. The ‘alarmist’ climate position is but an extension of the Malthusian argument of 1798, where Malthus said human food consumption will expand to the limit of natural capacity, leading to inevitable shortage. Malthus focused on food (famine followed by population decline), but the argument is applicable to any consumable, and further, to ‘use’ of Earth by humans in any way.
.
The silly and infantile thinking of Malthus is similar in its shallowness to the silly infantile thinking of Marx; both reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of human economy and material wealth. Sadly, both these foolish theories have done humanity terrible damage.
.
Malthusian idiocy will never go away (nor for that matter will Marxist idiocy… consider the politics of many Ivy League professors). All one can hope is that both these silly POV’s will continue to be ignored by most.
SteveF: “The ‘alarmist’ climate position is but an extension of the Malthusian argument of 1798, where Malthus said human food consumption will expand to the limit of natural capacity, leading to inevitable shortage.”
.
Obviously you have put some thought into this topic to have nailed it so accurately. Kudos. And, of course The Population Bomb, by Paul R. Ehrlich, is literal Malthus’s theory. The key is whether one feels humanity as a whole needs a 55 mph speed limit imposed or the 15mph school zone where child has been seen walking for 20 years or whether on the whole we will be responsible and recognize genuine hazards.
“Mosher,
Models are not evidence.”
They most certainly are evidence.
If I have a model of an aircraft and the model indicate the craft will fall out of the sky, no test pilot will argue that is is not evidence.
If I have a model of a human body and the model suggests that ejecting at 800KEAS will cause broken arms and legs, no engineer designing crew systems will suggest the model isnt evidence.
WRT ECS.. there are basically two types of evidence.
A) evidence from Paleo
B) Evidence from recent observations.
Model ECS doesnt constrain the problem very much, except to suggest that if ECS is below certain values, you cant get out of snowball conditions.
So.. Models dont help you constrain ECS in any Unique way ( there is other better evidence) AND models do in fact count as evidence depending on the circumstances.
you need to think harder.
Example, we have no evidence what the effect an asteroid the size of los angelses will have if it crashes into the earth. No real hard core, lab evidence. None.
BUT every incomplete, unverified, physics model of this kind of impact tells us (give us knowledge) that it will cause a bunch of damage. That evidence from models of shit colliding is supported by a few bits of paleo data. they are both evidence. Understandings we point to to justify our belief that such a collision will not be pretty.
Mosher, it sounds like you are back around to saying a 51% chance of 1.2-3C. Looks pretty close to an IPCC number.
“Models are not evidence.”
.
This statement is correct the same way courtrooms are not evidence; they are both places were evidence is revealed. Actual evidence comes from truth and accurate recording of witnessed observations and variables. Value of evidence hinges on the value of the method of recording not the ornate columns and marble steps (or fancy graphs).
Steve Mosher, can you succinctly give your definition of “consensus†vs. “lukewarmer†vs “skeptic†vs “denier?†I there is anyone that should be an authority on this topic I think it would be yourself since you have occupied the preponderance of those labels and perhaps positions since 2009. The definitions I believe should be relative to the following questions:
‘can you succinctly give?”
No.
I can do what I have done. propose a definition of lukewarmer that Avoids the charge of denier.
Denier and skeptic are difficult because they are not coherent positions. They are stances folks take because they dont understand that they can accept 100% of climate science and still
have a meaningful ( in policy terms) debate.
So, no I cannot make simple sense of varieties of crack pottery.
Once upon a time I had a heuristic tool for doing this, but I soon realized that any attempt to bring common sense to the online debate was just an exercise in futility. Much more fun to just troll people
Ron Graf:
Actually, models are used to connect measured to derived quantities (e.g., amount of thermal expansion to temperature). They are almost always part of “physical evidence”, whether it be a court room, or in e.g. a physics publication.
On the other hand, theories are typically not evidence (unless they relate to motive). Maybe you’re conflating theory with model?
Nobody say anything about ornate columns or marble steps… but the method of analysis (how you convert measurable into derived quantities) is of interest in a court room as well as in e.g. a physics publications.
For example, the process by which a hair sample or fingerprint is determined to match or not match a suspect’s hair sample or fingerprint certainly affects its evidentiary quality.
Mosher,
Climate models are not evidence. The existence of thoroughly validated models for other things does not change that. You are correct that either way, they don’t really constrain ECS. Neither does paleo data since we don’t really know the values of either the dependent or independent variables and don’t really understand the system. The only useful evidence that we have are the estimates from observational data.
Models can never be evidence because they are always representations. The thing they represent contains the evidence.
Andrew
Carrick: “For example, the process by which a hair sample or fingerprint is determined to match or not match a suspect’s hair sample or fingerprint certainly affects its evidentiary quality.”
.
Carrick, the degree of evidence a fingerprint presents is directly related to the statistical correlation of past fingerprint analysis, for a given degree observable references, with successful findings of identity. In other words the evidence derives for the degree of observable times the validity of the model and theory. An un-validated model with an un-provable theory adds no evidence or confidence to the observables.
Steve M: “Much more fun to just troll people.”
.
I’m still waiting for the links to the unpublished analysis of Karl(1986). You better hurry, there is a scare that the science could get lost to the indiscriminate ax of denier administrator infidels.
“I’m still waiting for the links to the unpublished analysis of Karl(1986). You better hurry, there is a scare that the science could get lost to the indiscriminate ax of denier administrator infidels.”
You never answered the questions.
and the analysis is published.
its right under your nose.
“Mosher,
Climate models are not evidence.”
The output of climate models, like the output of Any model Are evidence.
And Paleo is better than observational.
When you have an interesting argument on either one of these, bother someone else.
“Mosher, it sounds like you are back around to saying a 51% chance of 1.2-3C. Looks pretty close to an IPCC number.”
Nope.
Definately not 51%
Think harder
“Models can never be evidence because they are always representations. ”
That’s too funny.
I left my house today at noon.
I walked 500 miles to LA and arrived 1 minute later at 1201
what evidence do you have that I am lying..
walk me through your reasoning.
You lips are moving. 🙂
d= rate*time is a model that’s validated. CMIP5 GCMs are models therefore they must be valid too. Explain how I am lying.
“the analysis is published.” Of course our deal was for the unpublished ones, (if they ever existed).
By the way Steve, I am sorry for your illness that you had to go through last summer and I hope you are fully recovered, [not that I’m looking to get back to any ninja duels].
-Ron
Mike M writes
dQ_rev = C*dT
where C is heat capacity.
Ah but Q_rev is the amount of heat transferred and that hasn’t changed as far as I can see. Joules supplied to the earth is the same. If you look at it from the point of view of C then you miss this point.
What has changed is the amount of heat that is being lost.
From the point of view of a person in space watching the earth, they see it cooler. And from the point of view of a person on earth they see Q the same but T increasing.
What am I missing?
Oh joy, another meaningless lecture from Steve “Mach 39” Mosher. *yawn*
Bender, Bender, Bender…
Mosher, who employs you now?
And are you still in the same apartment w/ Charles?
Who’s your pool boy?
sue,
Maybe bender realized the futility of the ‘global warming debate’; it is mainly about a difference in moral perspective, values and goals, and those are not things you can easily change via debate. The technical aspects are not the real issue, no matter how many times you see ‘the science demands’; substitute ‘my politics demand’ when you see that expression, and that is real argument being made.
BTW, I also suspect few care about where Mosher lives or where he works.
SteveF/sue,
I’m pretty sure bender’s visits to climate blogs became less and finally he vanished shortly after he and his wife had a baby. That would suggest he developed other priorities.
Mosher, Ron,
An accurate model of a conplex system can yield ‘evidence’ of behaviors not yet observed. (Or if you prefer, make predictions of behavior not already seen.) But that only is the case when a model rigouously captures both all relevant inputs and how those inputs interact physically. I think it is easy to argue there are too many uncertain inputs (eg. aerosol effects) for climate models to meaningfully constrain ECS and TCR, so from a public policy POV, the models are pretty much useless. The wide range of modeled sensitivies, on average far above obervationally based estimates, is strong evidence that the models are not rigorous.
.
WRT paleo based estimates of ECS: I have read a few of these estimates, and I is difficult for me to understand how anyone can consider these more convincing than instrument basted empirical estimates. There are many assumptions which go into these estimates, most of which seem to me little more than wild speculation. I will appreciate if Steve Mosher explains the basis for suggesting paleo based estimates are meaningful. Just pointing to a few studies you consider convincing would help.
Lucia,
I was not aware of bender having a baby…. which certainly meant less time available for blog comnents. Old farts like me have more time, at least in the short term….
TimTheToolMan: “What am I missing?”
I don’t know, since I can not tell what your point is.
SteveF: “that only is the case when a model rigouously captures both all relevant inputs and how those inputs interact physically. I think it is easy to argue there are too many uncertain inputs (eg. aerosol effects) for climate models to meaningfully constrain ECS and TCR”
.
The uncertain inputs is a problem with observational estimates and with validating models. The GCM’s try to calculate sensitivity rather than fitting it to data. The big problem there seems to be clouds. The cloud feedbacks are essentially predicted changes in cloud radiative properties. Those are based on parameterizations rather than physics. The parameterizations are not remotely well validated. Evidence for that are the fact that the GCM’s do a terrible job of matching observed cloud radiative properties, there are large variations between the models as to those properties, and there are wide variations between models as to the cloud feedbacks.
.
You are correct that the real debate is about values.
SteveF,
I exchanged a few private email with bender. That seems to be what I recall– I could mis-remember. But I don’t think there was any sort of announcement.
For that matter, I’ve exchanged private email with Mosher. So I know the answers to at least some of sue’s questions– but I figure he’s here and will answer if he wishes to do so.
alt-Mosher,
It’s really not that funny. It’s pretty plain.
Perhaps we can try again.
Models mimic. They are mimics of evidence. They are not the thing they mimic. Perhaps that’s more understandable.
Andrew
SteveF, the above link I gave to the Nic Lewis briefing on ECS and TCR has a comment by Nic inferring that he and most climate scientist involved in this field judge that using the paleo-temperature series (the studies nearly all use pre-industrial(PI) – Last Glacier Maximum(LGM) temperatures) are difficult to translate to the climate conditions post pre-industrial. The obvious advantages in using this period are that the changes LGM-PI are large and thus less subject to small errors and the PI period gives an lengthy equilibrating period. The disadvantages are that the forcings have to be even less certain than those used for the instrumental period and the temperatures used have to be much less certain than those used in the instrumental period.
As an aside I have been attempting to separate and estimate the deterministic trends and noise in the instrumental period work and in turn attempt to determine the best fit with the forcing data available in the instrumental period. If a decent fit were found I would next attempt to separate the natural and anthropogenic forcing effects on temperature. The limitation of working with the observed data is that we have only one realization. With models with multiple runs we have the opportunity to look at more than one realization but then we have to decide how well the model represents the observed for at least the parameters of interest. An example I can give is obtaining breakpoints from an observed temperature series and pondering how well the breakpoints would repeat in another realization. When I look a models with multiple runs I see that the breakpoints are reproduced within a fairly narrow range of break dates in the multiple runs. When I model the observed series using the residuals from the breakpoint analysis and the trends and do simulations I see much the same range of break dates. There is more work to be done in this analysis. I want to be sure that I have included all the uncertainties at each stage of the analysis.
As a further aside in my researching of the separation of trends and noise in a temperature series I ran across a Real Climate discussion linked below where this separation was being discussed and the consequences of including the trend as noise and noise as trend depending on how the noise was eliminated and leaving a trend or finding a trend and obtaining the residuals by subtraction. I thought it was a good discussion that covered well the problems involved and some methodologies that can be used in these separations – even though it was far from comprehensive. Lucia participated in the discussion and noted the discussion she had with Cohen and Lins on their paper “Naturally Trendy?” where they assumed a linear relationship of temperature and time and were proposing an ARFIMA (LTP) fit to the data. The link to that discussion here is: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/un-naturally-trendy/ . I found the points that Lucia made in that thread and the discussion generally helped me think more deeply on the whole question of separation of trend and signal. It has made me concentrate on finding either independent empirical or theoretical evidence to back-up my current conjectures on the matter of trends and noise in the instrumental temperature series. I also was not satisfied with the Cohen response to Lucia’s analysis and critique of their papers supposition and in the end I was in agreement with Lucia’s reasoning – although I did not state it in that particular thread.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/what-is-signal-and-what-is-noise/
Steve, I always thought that Bender was mainly interested in the technical part of the AGW discussions and that he was a relatively young academician. I can speak only for myself here but as a retired person who continues to want to understand as much as I can about the science and statistics involved in this matter I have time to devote to doing just that. I also have had a long term interest in political philosophies and how those philosophies can be and are applied to the real world. Those interests are what keep me involved in these discussions. If, on the other hand, I were young and raising a family and had other technical matters to interest me that were directly related to my career, I can see where those interests would take priority over my current ones.
While we are reminiscing about past posters I have always wondered what happened to Ryan O’Donnell. I always thought he was very articulate and thoughtful in his posts and much like Nic Lewis.
Kenneth, I saw your link to Nic Lewis’ writeup on climate sensitivity and did read it. It’s an excellent summary. For Mosher and SteveF, it also summarizes some evidence that GCM’s are poor for climate modeling. Some of the points Nic makes, I’ve made before. Convection, an ill posed problem, dominates the tropics. This may explain why GCM’s seem to do poorly on the “hot spot.” This troubles me because it seems to call into question the lapse rate theory that seems to underpin a lot of climate science thinking. Nic also talks about GCM’s simulations with prescribed SST values and how those simulations seem to match measurements more closely. It’s well worth a read.
I do not want to be lecturing here, but I have found the somewhat contentious discussions here and at other like-minded blogs between Steven Mosher and those replying to him a bit of a waste of time in that we learn little form the bent of those discussions which come from posters, including Mosher, from whom we could potentially learn a lot more and do it more efficiently if the discussion stuck more to facts and evidence on specific issue.
It is very apparent to me that Mosher wants it known that some luke warmers, skeptics and deniers are less than well informed on the matters that they discuss and particularly when they make blanket statements and pronouncements. While I agree that in some (and probably too many) instances this is true, I feel it is too easy to start generalizing too much in order to make a case for the uninformed skeptic. I think Mosher feels this way about the some of the warmists members of the consensus on AGW but does not discuss that as much here and perhaps to avoid group thinking. To me and I think a number of others posting on these blogs it is evident that none of us in the entire spectrum of AGW positions have all the correct answers and that there are those who reach conclusions based on faulty evidence or non existing evidence and therefore we should move on to presenting evidence, facts and analysis the best we can without getting into personalities and further be able to admit when we have made incorrect or weak conclusions.
My preference is to have a discussion where evidence and facts are presented for an argument or analysis and then let others critique what has been presented and by consciously avoiding conflicts of personalities.
Case in point are the topics of climate models and temperature reconstructions, where rather than dismissing these efforts out of hand, I would prefer to point to the need for better models and reconstructions. In order to get better models and reconstructions we need first to acknowledge where the underlying methodologies and statistics applied are lacking. I think that predicting future climate and its effects require a better understanding of past climate in order to test climate models on how well we expect those models to predict the future climate. Right now the only test we have is the instrumental period which has only 35 to 40 years of the effects AGW. I do not think that constantly defending these methodologies and applied statistics in these two areas is helpful. Rather the weaknesses should be put front and center with suggestions how to overcome them. Estimating or finding ways to estimate the ultimate limitations of these methods should also be a priority. It is not that these areas are totally ignored but rather a matter of lack of emphasis at least in view. I think that, unfortunately, the mix of science and advocacy is what leads to the continuing defense of presently applied methodologies and statistics in these two fields. I am less familiar with modeling but I know in temperature reconstructions that much more could be done in determining physically based criteria in choosing temperature proxies and/or in determining whether valid proxies can be found.
My pet peeve with models is running individual climate models without a reasonable number of multiple runs and particularly so because the advantage of models over the observed is that more than a single realization can be derived. We know that models can have widely different realizations and that some models have more variations than others and therefore a single run never reveals where the middle of the distribution may be or what its variations might be.
“d= rate*time is a model that’s validated. ”
We might quibble about that, but yes, you get the point that
Models ( or representations, as Andrew calls them) do count as evidence.
In fact evidence only counts as evidence because we have a theory about how to use evidence.
As for Validation of GCMs.
I would specify that the model should get absolute temperature correct on a global basis within a 20% margin of error.
Presto, they are valid per this requirement.
Validity is always validy as tested against a users specification.
Given what GCMs were created for, I’d say they meet their specification.
Sue… Thanks for your interest, I’m emotionally unavailable.
“Presto, they are valid per this requirement.
Validity is always validity as tested against a users specification.”
.
In science models are validation is achieved by showing predictive skill, (that is skill beyond the statistically expected without the model). In this definition GCMs have yet to be validated.
.
Hindcasting cannot validate, but unsuccessful hindcast will invalidate.
Following up on Kenneth’s suggestions, I would suggest that those who want to specifically comment on GCM skill should read Nic Lewis’ writeup and then respond point by point. It is very well written and I think points to some very specific issues for GCM climate simulations.
Mosher writes
You might want to choose your words more carefully. 20% of our absolute temperature is is about 57C. Still that seems to be an appropriately low bar to set…
Here is Judith Curry’s final draft describing GCMs for lawyers last month.
Ron graf.
Gcms. Have.. skill.
Peroid.
Ron graf. Gcms. Have.. skill. Peroid.
.
Hmmm…
.
Manabe’s 1D radiative models gave a pretty good explanation of global warming, but convection is important, and convection depends on the atmospheric fluid flow in 3D, prompting the application of 4D(time) GCMS.
.
Problem: prediction of atmospheric fluid flow has NO skill past a week or so ( and given the reality of the multi-quasi-stable state numerical solutions, perhaps never will ).
.
So, in reality, the GCMS have ZERO skill at the one aspect they were supposed to solve: “how will convection change the radiative effects understood by the 1D models for a 2xCO2 world?”
.
There is some skill, but it came from the radiative models, not the GCMS. In fact, you can say the GCMs have even reduced skill compared to 1D models by getting convection wrong.
.
Evidence of this?
.
GCMs create too much precipitation, precipitation which is the result of convection. That’s why there’s no Hot Spot – because the precipitation error means the models are wrong about how much energy is transferred by convection.
.
And for the area which creates the false “double-ITCZ”, the models have even gotten worse, not better: “The biases of excessive precipitation and overestimated SST in southeastern Pacific are in fact even worse in the CMIP5 models.”
Now, that doesn’t mean no global warming, of course.
.
Manabe 1D concluded about 1.2C for 2xCO2 w/o water vapor feedback, and about 2.3C with WV, consistent with obs.
.
Particularly since convection becomes very much less significant above the tropopause, an increase in GMT appears likely and borne out by obs to date.
.
But unpredictable fluid flow is important, even for temperature, as indicated by the decrease of hot days over the US even in the midst of global and local annual warming.
Ron, TE, Mosher,
Define skill. Let’s be sure we’re talking about the same thing.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0DZJiLXUAQLWXE.jpg
Homework
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/projects/verification/#Links_to_other_verification_sites
De Wiit,
More important is to specify which variables are most critical.
and that will require a User to specify a use.
You simply cannot ask the validation question in a vacuum.
Hey Look, GCMs do not get the size of hailstones predicted corrrectly.. therefore..
Hey Look, GCMs do not get the size of hailstones predicted corrrectly.. therefore..
.
Given the wide range of GMT projections, it doesn’t appear that the GCMs are skill-full at global temperature anomaly, using 1D models as a baseline.
.
Certainly, because they lack the capacity for predicting wave patterns, GCMS are not skillfull at predicting whether precipitation, hot days, storms, cloudiness, will be lesser or greater for a given location on earth.
In paragraph 1 of Nic Lewis’ briefing he brings to bear the importance of knowing the skill level in not only determining the median value but distribution of probable values in any parameter using model and instrumental results to estimate climate parameters. Whatever is the skill level of a climate model to meet specified intended use (and whatever that use and level may be) would not tell us whether it would have the desired skill level to answer some of the important questions concerning future climate.
I would further require a model of the complexity of CMIP5 AOGCMs to not only get the parameter of interest reasonably correct, like the global mean temperature, in comparison with the observed values but to make that estimate with other parameters like red and white noise and Northern versus Southern Hemisphere warming reasonably in line with the observed. In fact there are number of parameters that can be applied in comparing AOGCM skill with other models and the single realization of the observed.
With only a single observed realization we can only look at where that realizations lies within the distribution of multiple runs of a climate model. Simulations of the climate model with a single run, if we are confident that we have a noise model that allows those simulations to be validly made, could be used, at least, to estimate the distribution of model results but would still have to account for the uncertainty of how close that single run result is to the center of the distribution.
https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/briefing-note-on-climate-sensitivity-etc_nic-lewis_mar2016.pdf
I should have added to my post above that I would greatly favor comparing individual model results to the observed results and get away from the idea of comparing the observed result to a range of individual model results. Until one can say something definitive about the skill levels of the individual models why would we consider that the range of these model results has any statistical or even practical comparison value.
The Republic remains intact: Electoral College votes for Trump.
Mosher, are you considering higher than 51% for 1.2-3C?
Steven,
IMO, for models, the variable of interest is part of the definition of skill.
You don’t need an AOGCM to get the absolute temperature within 20%. You can do that with a superconducting sphere with unit absorptivity, the solar constant and the Stefan-Boltzman equation. IIRC, part of the definition of skill is also the ability to do better than a naïve model.
DeWitt,
“part of the definition of skill is also the ability to do better than a naïve model.’
.
Ya well, there is naive, and then there is climate science. Of course the models are crap from a science POV: they are political tools, not scientific tools. They will soon be ignored in terms of policy, and that will be a well deserved outcome. Intellectually corrupt enterprises should not be rewarded, even if they have wasted much public money.
When I looked into the null model a few years ago, the guys over at Real Climate where using one that was “the temperature will remain unchanged” and therefore predicting an increase in temperatures was skill. Alternately one could use a model “the temperature will keep increasing at the same rate” in which case the skill was much less clear. The null model is the key to determining skill and it is somewhat arbitrary.
I could lay down a ruler on the temperature trend for free and have a model with the same amount of “skill”. If/when the temperatures show acceleration that is predicted by the model then that would probably be skill.
There are other internal parameters in the models (regional predictions, etc.) one could also use for skill, but as far as I can tell nobody is willing to commit to this in forward mode, although the usual suspects will will point backwards and show where the models worked. There are some things such as predicting the poles will have higher changes that seem to work.
Tom,
“predicting an increase in temperatures was skill”.
.
Therefore, even id!ots have skill. If predicting some increase in surface temperature due to higher GHG concentration represents skill, then my wife’s cat is much smarter… she at least can catch an occasional lizard, even while ignoring CO2 concentration.
.
“Skill” is predicting an increase in temperature that is accurate and in proportion to forcing. The models have, on average, failed miserably.
Kenneth and SteveF, It is disappointing that Mosher has not engaged this technical content. It would still be helpful if he would address Nic Lewis’ points about GCM skill and sensitivity to parameters.
Steven: “Ron Graf. Gcms. Have.. skill. Peroid [sic].”
.
Steven, studying the link you provided as evidence here I notice that the plot of the mean of 109 runs of 38 models running RCP4.5 had skill in predicting El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991) but its a smooth line after that. The only problem is that these items were only predicted after the fact.
.
But even feeding the aerosols as they please the 1982 bump goes 180 degrees the wrong way in the observed record, which means we had a super El Nino simultaneously with El Chichon or the aerosols were over exaggerated in order to pull the plot line back to a better fit. But is still is terrible compared to the image supplied in your second link page where they give an example of an eyeball verification plot here.
.
Bottom line: AOGCMs show no better skill (when adjusted after the fact) than a naive model that continues a gradual straight line trend. They therefore remain un-validated scientifically.
David,
” It is disappointing that Mosher has not engaged this technical content.”
.
I completely agree. Mosher is no dummy. He could (and IMO, should) make more technical contributions to the discussion. I don’t doubt he finds ‘trolling’ the skydragon types entertaining, in the same way some find circus ‘freaks’ entertaining, but that does not contribute much of substance.
SteveF: “the models are crap from a science POV: they are political tools, not scientific tools.”
The models are scientific tools. But they are being used for political purposes as well as scientific ones, and the politics have taken over.
Ron Graf: “AOGCMs show no better skill (when adjusted after the fact) than a naive model that continues a gradual straight line trend. They therefore remain un-validated scientifically.”
.
Spot on. The models also fail to demonstrate significant skill at climatically important aspects of the system such as cloud distributions, natural variability, and the tropical water cycle.
The models get a pass for not being able to predict El Nino / La Nina cycles. They know they can’t do this so they discount here. Whether this should be counted against them is arguable. An argument could be made that predicting these cycles would definitely show your model has skill. In the long term they claim these average out so that it “doesn’t matter ™”.
Any claim of skill at this point is BS my opinion, if you want to claim hindcasting skill be my guest, but knowing the answer and being allowed to tune using aerosols, etc. makes me quite skeptical ™ of this claim. Hindcasting shows some pretty obvious signs of overfitting, they match too closely.
The only thing that will show skill is 25 years of more observations. Tick. Tock.
The models cannot predict external forcings such as volcanoes, actual emissions, etc. so they should get an opportunity to be rerun with actual observed forcings in order to judge skill.
What I imagine will happen is the models will be continuously updated over the next few decades so that even if Model v2000 shows problems with actual observations, a claim will be made that the new Model v2020 will have “fixed” those problems (and the v2020 shows lots of projected warming in 2040…ha ha). The moving of the goalposts and ignoring past failed predictions is present now and I wouldn’t expect it to change.
When evaluating skill levels of CMIP5 climate models as to how well those models emulate the observed climate it is important to do it on an individual model basis and do it with probabilities of emulating the observed. In this manner those models that perform poorly even on an in-sample basis can be readily sorted out. It is also better when criticizing the models skills to point to individual models as it avoids the appearance of condemning all models and modeling out of hand. There are models that after all can get the modern warming trend wrong on the low side.
Without some rather extended out-of-sample evaluation even those models performing reasonably well in-sample cannot be properly evaluated without a comprehensive understanding of the parameterization that might have been used to fit the model output to the observed climate. If we want and need to get more immediate estimates of the skill levels of climate models the extended out-of-sample testing would be precluded and then the knowledge of model fitting becomes critically important.
In my CMIP5 model evaluations using a few climate parameters and all related to temperature which I posted at Climate Etc recently, I found overall all of the individual models lacking with some lacking more than others.
Kenneth raises an important point: Models must be evaluated individually. Only by ruthlessly weeding out error is there any hope of getting models that can do the desired job (and even the, the hope is faint). IPCC insists on treating all models equally, even ones that fail the most basic tests, such as conserving energy. I imagine that they do that for political reasons. Weeding out the worst models would lead to disunity among the modellers; that would be unacceptable. Politicized “science” in thrall to political masters seeking a political objective.
“and is based on simulations with the U. of Victoria climate/carbon model tuned to yield the mid-range IPCC climate sensitivity. ”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/keystone-xl-game-over/
> I think Mosher feels this way about the some of the warmists members of the consensus on AGW but does not discuss that as much here and perhaps to avoid group thinking.
I support that. I was once told by the aforementioned Bender to go away for doing something similar, I think defending Hide the Decline.
Can someone explain what this has to do with global warming? The article discusses a radiation research program.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/
MikeN,
The article states that the Obama administration wanted to not spend any DOE funds on the low level radiation research, only climate change related research. It is kind of strange…. there may be more to the story than that. Studying the effects of low dosage radiation looks suspiciously like it could be related to nuclear power… and the adinistration was clearly hostile to nuclear power. That seems to me a more plausible explanation.
The point here is as mentioned by a couple of commenters above. GCM’s are only valuable if they can predict the details of local climate. Simple models do fine with GMST. Mosher is just wrong about this and his focus on GMST is misplaced.
“The point here is as mentioned by a couple of commenters above. GCM’s are only valuable if they can predict the details of local climate. Simple models do fine with GMST. Mosher is just wrong about this and his focus on GMST is misplaced.”
Wrong.
The actual USERS of GCMs decide what they are useful for.
The actual users decide what they are valuable for.
Internet commenters have zero standing to make any judgements.
For my own uses continental scale temperature was useful and valuable.
What’s that mean.
I had a question. The question concerned Likely increases in specific types of events in the US.
There were three basic Options.
1. Say Nothing about the future.
2. Use the past to statistically make predictions about the future
3. use physics based models.
What you will find is that in most cases #3 outperforms #2.
is #3 perfect? hell no.
is it better than #2.. hell ya.
So now you have to predict the future. Pretty effin simple
You use method 2, you use method 3. you note the differences.
You note that #3 outperforms #2 in other tests.
Its utterly trivial to see that using #3 is helpful, useful and valuable. It is not always clear that #3 is superior.
However, both #2 and #3 beat the pants off #1.
Useful and valuable are relative to a purpose. To a specific purpose defined by the user.. not defined in a vacuum by random
blokes on blogs
“Bottom line: AOGCMs show no better skill (when adjusted after the fact) than a naive model that continues a gradual straight line trend. They therefore remain un-validated scientifically.”
Wrong.
Just keep making stuff up.
Also, in the world of model validation, there is just validation.
un validated scientifically is a meaningless mismash
You validate models against a spec
the spec is written by the users
for a specific purpose.
“Mosher, are you considering higher than 51% for 1.2-3C?”
Of course Why would I make an even money bet?
to amuse myself?
“By the way Steve, I am sorry for your illness that you had to go through last summer and I hope you are fully recovered, [not that I’m looking to get back to any ninja duels].
-Ron”
Not recovered. Do not ever catch a super bug in a hospital,
Steven,
Is this published? If so, where?
“You don’t need an AOGCM to get the absolute temperature within 20%. You can do that with a superconducting sphere with unit absorptivity, the solar constant and the Stefan-Boltzman equation. IIRC, part of the definition of skill is also the ability to do better than a naïve model.”
here is the problem.
1. Every one, me included, is making up specifications by pulling numbers out of their ass. And worse, some are demanding perfection in every possible parameter.
So I would challenge people to try to write a REAL SPEC for real USE of a GCM. Just try.
The other problem ( relative to Nic Lewis’ little bit of notes )
Is that very few people actually know how to mask GCM data properly before comparing to observations.
or ( as Nic does) they reference work ( Pat Frank) that can’t be reproduced.
But fist things first
Which metrics are important and why.. and for what purpose.
Start with that list
Defend every item
Steven,
Sorry to hear that.
Super bugs live in hospitals. That’s why you avoid them if at all possible and get out as soon as possible if you can’t. I think doctors and hospital staff have been spoiled by antibiotics and aren’t as careful as they used to be about hygiene.
Steven,
OK, I’ll bite: TCR and ECS. They’re the figures of merit for the average person who’s paying any attention (most aren’t, as near as I can tell). A lot of money could be riding on those numbers and there seems to have been little progress in improving the estimates or even the PDF in the estimated range. At the moment, excepting the El Nino spike, most models appear to be significantly overestimating TCR, much less ECS.
Given that TCR is a ratio
Delta T/ Delta Forcing
Given that Delta Forcing is an INPUT
you are basically just specifying that Delta T be correct.
Within what range of values would you say it is correct?
Mosher, I didn’t say 50%, I said 51%. So 51% for 1.2-3C is better than even money bet.
You said this is wrong, and I should think harder. Looks to me like this is exactly what you posted before, so I ask do you consider me wrong because you think it is HIGHER than 51%?
Trick question. You can falsify, but not prove. I would say that any model where the measured ΔT is outside the 95% confidence window of the model is not useful for calculating ΔT. If there is no error estimate for the model ΔT, then it’s not even wrong. I.e. one run won’t cut it. Models with very wide confidence intervals are suspect. If a model is not useful, then combining its results with those of other models is also not useful. You can’t make things look better using ensembles.
Mosher sure write a lot without saying much.
Mosher: “2. Use the past to statistically make predictions about the future
3. use physics based models.
What you will find is that in most cases #3 outperforms #2.”
.
OK, but nobody here has been talking about 2. The issue is observational methods vs. GCM’s. So
3a. Physics based models with well understood physics and a small number of adjustable parameters.
3b. Models with lots of poorly understood physics and a huge number of poorly constrained adjsutable parameters.
One should always expect 3a to be much better than 3b at predicting the future. So the observational estimates of sensitivity are much to be preferred to those from GCM’s
.
Elsewhere Mosher seems to claim that the models must be good since the modellers say so. Right
51% is effectively an even odds bet for the purposes of my discussion and decision, especially given that we’d only make one bet.
put another way, I’d want better odds than even or even a slight advantage.
This discussion was had here long long ago..
“OK, but nobody here has been talking about 2. The issue is observational methods vs. GCM’s. So
3a. Physics based models with well understood physics and a small number of adjustable parameters.
3b. Models with lots of poorly understood physics and a huge number of poorly constrained adjsutable parameters.
One should always expect 3a to be much better than 3b at predicting the future. So the observational estimates of sensitivity are much to be preferred to those from GCM’s
.
Elsewhere Mosher seems to claim that the models must be good since the modellers say so. Right
######################
You seem to have lost the thread of the argument.
David’ Youngs claim was that models had NO VALUE if they could not predict local climates.
You guys really do need to tighten up your arguments.
Here is a hint. Even a bad model has value.
Nobody wants to do the hard work of defining the use cases.
My problem here is that defining “useful” subjectively by the “users” expectations is not a good idea when public health and safety are issues. The public generally expects better say with regard to drug effectiveness and airplane safety to name just two. A drug is approved for sale in the US only if it shows actual effectiveness based on a very extensive double blind test protocol. That a few people might find it “useful” (or fun to use) is and should be irrelevant.
I agree with you on the odds for making bets. My original question was how does your position differ from IPCC? Sounds like you are giving slightly higher odds to under 3, and have about the same lower bound.
Mosher writes
People (notably Pat Frank recently) have constructed non-physics models of the models based on the forcings alone and they quite accurately reflect the model ensembles’ results.
dT(K) = 0.42 x 33K x [(Fo + Sum dF)/Fo)]
where dT is the change in temperature, 0.42 is the fraction of greenhouse warming due to CO2, 33K is the unperterbed surface GH temperature in 1900 and the last term is the fractional change in GHG forcing.
Models have no skill due to any approximations to “physics” they might use.
SM thanks for helping others while down yourself. Get better soon please. No advice. medically things go wrong that shouldn’t from time to time but when you survive you should slowly but surely get better.
Mosher: “You guys really do need to tighten up your arguments.”
.
Apparantly Mosher thinks that various commenters here are having secret discussions to coordinate our comments for the purpose of ganging up on him. Either that, or he thinks that if two people who disagree with him happen to disagree with each other, that proves he is right. Either way, he is mistaken.
Mike M,
What’s even better is that Mosher spends more time making hit-and-run assertions than he does engaging anyone in an argument.
Andrew
Snort. I doubt that and don’t remotely see that implied in Steven’s response. Getting a little silly in my view.
I want to illustrate how dangerous and un-scientific Mosher’s subjective “users find it useful” criteria is.
Consider vertebraeplasty. The procedure was performed thousands of times per year a decade ago and many patients seemed to get better and physicians made a lot of money off it. However, there was no convincing mechanism. Finally two double blind studies were done where the control group got everything the procedure group got, including a trip to the operating room, an incision, and followup drugs, etc. The result was that the procedure had no statistically significant benefit. It was a very costly placebo. Not too surprising when you consider that most back pain patients will get better without intervention and the problem is notoriously subjective.
One can go on with other examples, for example Vitamin C as a cure for cancer. A Nobel Prize winning chemist was absolutely convinced and convinced many to forgo effective treatment for a worthless treatment.
Subjective statements such as the Mosher criterion are notoriously subject to bias and are unreliable. “I used (fill in the blank with your favorite nutritional supplement) and felt 1000% percent better” has no scientific value even though its a marketing ploy as old as snake oil.
The problem here is that there need to be rigorous methodologies for validation and testing. GCM’s are just starting to undergo that process as the modelers confess their tuning sins. Nic Lewis’ little writeup has a number of interesting results that an intelligent user should take caution from. The one I found worrying was the large change in result for the MET office model when historical SST’s were prescribed.
David,
I don’t find the MET model results surprising. If there’s anything in models worse than clouds, it’s the ocean part of the AOGCM. The time constants in the ocean models are orders of magnitude larger than for the atmosphere. That means that a one hundred model year spinup would be many times the atmosphere time constant while only being a fraction of the ocean time constant.
Also, massive double blind trials for efficacy as well as safety make sense for small molecule drugs. It’s not at all clear that the same protocols should be used for the new biologics that target pathways that may be present in a minority of individuals. A drug that cures, say a particular cancer, in ten percent of the population but has no effect on the rest would probably not pass a Stage III trial. But it would still be useful.
2. Use the past to statistically make predictions about the future
3. use physics based models.
What you will find is that in most cases #3 outperforms #2.
is #3 perfect? hell no.
is it better than #2.. hell ya.
.
Here’s the distinction:
.
the physics of Radiative Forcing: predictable(+/-)
the physics of Dynamic Fluid Flow: unpredictable, though constrained
.
RF is mostly predictable because it’s considered at the TROP or TOA where fluid flow doesn’t change RF so much.
.
So, Radiative Models(RM) predict increasing GMT with increasing RF.
.
General Circulation Models include radiative physics, but also all the intricate processes including the unpredictable fluid flow.
.
So I think GCMs necessarily have less predictive capacity than RMs. And that shows up in your graphic. The dark grey is weather uncertainty which may never improve. Of course, the model spread may be even more troubling. After decades of development and the same physics in all, the models seem to spread to infinite uncertainty over time. That also stand to reason – slight differences fed into unstable formulations lead to even larger differences.
I can’t get too worked up about the models any more. I do think they are essently useless for evaluating climate sensitivity, but since nothing is going to meaningfully change the trajectory of global CO2 emissions over the next couple of decades, there will be plenty of time for their projections to be compared to reality before difficult (and very expensive) draconian emissions policy could be put in place. Their utility, or more likely, lack thereof, will be clear.
Do high sensitivity models and low sensitivity models have different short term(10-20yr) behavior?
I would guess and hope that complex climate models are built and tested to fit the observed climate results as closely as measurably possible and with the fewest easily adjustable parameters used to fit the observed results. Unlike a specification for a model applied in an engineering field with time restraints for a given project or job, I would think that climate models (or I at least hope this is the case) have something like the general “specification” I noted above and the building and improving is on a continuous basis. Additionally knowing the current limitations of the modeling and what would be required for improving that situation would be very much a part of the continuing effort for complex climate models. I doubt very much that anyone is writing specifications for these models that if and when reached, the modelers all go out for beer and start another project.
I could be wrong about this specification thing, it is just that I have seen no evidence here about published specifications for complex climate models. Perhaps Judith Curry is more knowledgeable about writing specs for some of the more long term weather oriented modeling her company does under contract and she might be the one to ask how that would or should be applied to the most complex climate models.
We talk about the spread of individual climate model results which is real and demonstrable, yet Nic Lewis in his briefing as have others in the field noted that the various individual models use basic modeling that is not all that independent and particularly for ocean modeling and furthermore uses that observation as an argument against using ensembles of individual models for statistical comparisons.
I think I have a definition for a lukewarmer: one who believes that CO2 is a radiative gas and is a mild warming influence but who is not alarmed simply because one source of the CO2 is human activity. At the same time a lukewarmer is alarmed by the use of models whose only qualification to be called validated “scientific proof” is that they have a national sponsor and they didn’t crack up before completing at least one run.
.
I think using the above we all know who the lukewarmers are and who are warmists.
A four year old has skill…period. So you are going to let four year old drive mom’s mini van?
Interesting group dynamics going on here.
.
Ron, my observation seems pretty nutty to me. I want to make that clear before offering it. Still, I either don’t understand what you’re saying or why you are saying it.
.
It appears to me that you are attempting to redefine lukewarmer in such a way that it excludes Steven Mosher. Is this merely a social exercise, or is there some other point that I’m missing? Real question.
Oh. Was it a joke, I missed the joke? That happens. 🙂
Mark: “It appears to me that you are attempting to redefine lukewarmer in such a way that it excludes Steven Mosher.”
.
I like Steven and I welcome his comments. I just don’t believe that he expresses a viewpoint on any of the climate issues that could substantially separate him from Nick Stokes or Ken Rice. I fully understand that he was a lukewarmer and also that Caitlin Jenner used to be called Bruce.
.
Edit: I like Nick Stokes and Ken Rice and welcome their comments as well. I don’t hear them calling themselves lukewarmers.
Thanks Ron, this is interesting to me.
.
From my perspective, the essential attribute of a lukewarmer is how much warming we expect from increasing CO2. Similarity in viewpoints to Nick Stokes or Ken Rice or a … (I don’t want to characterize Steven’s viewpoint on climate modeling for him. I think I don’t exactly understand, I know I don’t particularly care.) an unusual viewpoint on the utility of AOGCMs compared to other lukewarmers [doesn’t seem to me to be an essential part of the recipe.]
.
I don’t really know (again, or much care) if Steven’s estimate of the likelihood of higher sensitivity has gone up, but I think the ownership and usage of the term lukewarmer is interesting.
.
I appreciate your thoughts sir.
Ron,
“I like Nick Stokes and Ken Rice and welcome their comments as well. I don’t hear them calling themselves lukewarmers.”
.
‘Firebrands’ might be closer. 😉
Thanks Ron.
.
Steven Mosher, are you (in your opinion) a lukewarmer these days? Seems like a simple matter to clear up with a direct question.
I think Steve Mosher will be a contrarian at whatever blog he is posting. So RealClimate will call consider him a ‘denier’, and a blog full of lukewarmers will likely consider him a warmist.
“Steven Mosher, are you (in your opinion) a lukewarmer these days? Seems like a simple matter to clear up with a direct question.”
Yes per my definition.
Back long ago Boris asked me to define what I meant by lukewarmer before the term was popularized.
Given a over under bet at 3C I choose the under.
That means I think there is at least a 50 (say 51)% chance the value will be less than that ( a greater chance actually because I want a good return on the bet )
I’ve never been shy about saying that this view Looks like it is the IPCC view.
There is a point to that.
1. Stating you will take the Under bet.. means you could beleive
there is a 100% chance it is less than 3C.
2. Refusing to be more precise than “I will take the under bet,”
is I think consistent with the reliability of PDF shape.
3. Putting it in these terms means you can change your mind as new data comes in.
4. Putting it in these terms illustrates the tendency to alarmism
on some peoples part ( they focus on > 3C )
5. Being consistent with IPCC positions but emphasizing the
EXISTENCE of values from 1.5 to 3C highlights the artificial
construction of the consensus. In other words I put a different
emphasis on the consensus… the lower end of ECS WITHOUT
over committing to a single value ( like 1.65).
So when I defined lukewarmer I did it in a way that accepted all the science ( not a denier) but Highlighted the lower end of ECS
1.5- 3C WITHOUT making the mistake of committing the sin of being over certain about low values ( say 1.65).
Since then people have bastardized my clever definition and made lukewarmer mean a CERTAINTY that the warming will be low.
As I defined it the position could not be rejected as outside of the science.. as you guys define it, it looks to assign more certainty than is justified.
So I leave it as simply this.
Given an over under bet at 3C.. I take the under. Note, you can believe that it is 1.65C, and still express your view as ‘you take the under bet at 3C.. you might be personally convinced it is 1.65C but skeptical of your ability to convince others.. and therefore only speak to what you are more certain of… given a over under bet at 3C.. you take the under.
Do I think there is at least a 60% chance its least than 3C?
I dunno.. I take the under bet at 3c and I like bets that are better than 50/50..
Thanks Steven.
Steven, yes, thanks for replying. But as you could have guessed I have some issues:
.
1) An exact ECS can never be defined even if we solve most of the current unknowns since it needs to assume definitions for fast feedbacks which are in flux. So a bet is useless. (see Popper)
.
2) Even if the consensus narrows the 90% probable range for ECS this does nothing to place a value on the perceived risk of an improbable, but possible, catastrophe.
.
3) In case you hadn’t noticed there is a political component to the climate debate. I would say a lukewarmer would have to express disapproval for the exaggerated results and reporting slanted to propagate alarm, regret and pessimism. The most central issue in my opinion for the divide between Spencer/Curry/Lewis view versus the Karl/Hansen/Schmidt view. It’s hard to see it absent from the definition.
.
4) I used the models in my definition because it dawned on me that the perversion of science that they allow, is palpable and recognizable to all but warmists and uniformed greens. Then I realized the your position of defending them as performing science defied credulity of your plausibly calling yourself a lukewarmer.
.
Steven, your definition of lukewarmer is the definition of the consensus. Admit it.
Ron Graf,
Your point 3 and 4 got to the heart of the issue. Thank you for calmly calling out Mosher for his nonsensical definition of a lukewarmer as being 1% different from the consensus.
“2) Even if the consensus narrows the 90% probable range for ECS this does nothing to place a value on the perceived risk of an improbable, but possible, catastrophe.”
That’s absurd. Finding a decent range for ECS is _one essential piece_ of a risk assessment. There are other pieces and it is a difficult problem, but a low ECS makes everything else lighter.
I believe that even under the IPCC’s current assumptions for risk assessment, an ECS of 1.7 (say), would pretty much not justify any mitigation. Others will correct me if I’m mistaken.
MikeR: “That’s absurd. Finding a decent range for ECS is _one essential piece_ of a risk assessment.”
I agree with both you and Ron. A low, tightly constrained value of ECS would have no effect on most alarmists, as Ron says. That is indeed absurd. Most alarmists believe that any human induced change in global climate must be catastrophic.
I largely agree with Ron that Mosher’s long winded definition/justification is hard to distinguish from the “consensus.” However, with the climate debate stalemated, the next 20 to 30 years of data will shed more light on the issue and overtake the currently hopelessly dishonest debate. I doubt however, if the Green version of paganism will go away. Neglecting pseudo-scientific communicators who don’t have clean hands either, (and neglecting the “evil fossil fuel industry” that really has little effect on anything) the green NGO’s are very bad about “fake news” showing usually that catastrophe is at hand. To the extent that scientists enter this world, they will lose credibility. Science needs to clean its own house first and there is plenty of manure to shovel out.
Mike M: ” Most alarmists believe that any human induced change in global climate must be catastrophic.”
.
I saw one professor on a Youtube who was angry at the possible human crime of delaying the natural end of the Holocene. There is no doubt that the focus on the anthropgenic aspect reveals the political aspect of the debate. Of course, the legitimate scientific view is that nature does not care who caused the current variation in CO2ppm. Conversely, if nature has an quasi-extinction causing asteroid on our path I am not OK with accepting that just because its natural.
.
If the climate scare facilitates an acceleration to controlled fusion energy I would liken it to the Soviet-US space race hastening computer chips and other technologies. Sometimes it’s good to get a kick in the pants. But we need to be careful that we do not allow science to be politicized and be discredited (for example, how journalism is now).
Back to SM, I really don’t get why he does not help more in that task rather than playing the troll or trying to belittle anyone who may misquote the IPCC or consensus view. He wrote a book on Climategate for crying out loud.
Upon a few days of reflection, and in spirit of Christmas, I am vowing to assume the best of people on all points. It is heartening to remember that a hundred years ago, in one of the bloodiest wars of human history the soldier go out of their trenches and walked across no-man’s land carrying white flags and shook hands. The even exchanged rations and hats with their hours earlier enemy.
.
Human nature is a funny and weird at a distance. On blogs it’s sometimes like the wild west saloon where somebody throws a drink in somebody’s face, then the offended person swings but the perpetrator ducks and the swing lands on the guy behind him. Then within seconds the whole town is brawling, scrums falling out the swinging doors.
.
Many times our differences are very small. It seems the original insult predictably lies on mis-interpreting somebody’s assumption of honesty or sincerity. Actual sophistry is likely a 1/100th of the perceived and assumed. Merry Christmas to all.
“A low, tightly constrained value of ECS would have no effect on most alarmists, as Ron says.” I’m less concerned with “most alarmists” than with the bulk of serious students of the subject. A low, tightly constrained value of ECS would have a heck of a big effect on them.
I was just rereading Steve McIntyre’s post on “Gavin Schmidt and Reference Period Trickery.” It is amazing how GCM’s overestimate the historical temperature record especially in the tropics. It is also amazing to what lengths the alarmed go to hide that fact by fiddling with base periods and other “communication” methods. Climate science does not have clean hands with so many of its practitioners having a strongly held alarmist position.
1) An exact ECS can never be defined even if we solve most of the current unknowns since it needs to assume definitions for fast feedbacks which are in flux. So a bet is useless. (see Popper)
A) I see Popper. he has nothing of use to say on the matter.
B) we dont need an exact ECS.
.
2) Even if the consensus narrows the 90% probable range for ECS this does nothing to place a value on the perceived risk of an improbable, but possible, catastrophe.
A) Who said it did? not me
B) who said catastrophe was improbable? not me
.
3) In case you hadn’t noticed there is a political component to the climate debate. I would say a lukewarmer would have to express disapproval for the exaggerated results and reporting slanted to propagate alarm, regret and pessimism. The most central issue in my opinion for the divide between Spencer/Curry/Lewis view versus the Karl/Hansen/Schmidt view. It’s hard to see it absent from the definition.
A) yes, the point of the definition was to highlight that
.
4) I used the models in my definition because it dawned on me that the perversion of science that they allow, is palpable and recognizable to all but warmists and uniformed greens. Then I realized the your position of defending them as performing science defied credulity of your plausibly calling yourself a lukewarmer.
A) there is no escaping models, even in measuring the most
basic thing.
B) You havent seen me defend models, in fact I say they dont
constrain ECS.
C) you have seen me object to STUPID criticisms of models
there are smart criticisms.. you guys havent made them
and I refuse to do your homework for you.
.
Steven, your definition of lukewarmer is the definition of the consensus. Admit it
A) Ask yourself why so many in the consensus object to my
definition?
I won’t try to interfere with this discussion that apparently people find interesting. I guess it’s all good clean fun. It disturbs me that, at least on the surface of the discussion, it looks as if someone is being asked to defend the … how to put it… purity? of their lukewarmerism? Seems mildly offensive to me. But whatever floats y’alls boat I guess. And not being a progressive, I realize that merely because I find something offensive doesn’t mean there ought to be a law against it or anything like that.
But FWIW, this may be part of the reason I identify as a denier instead of a lukewarmer.
Whatever.
mark bofill: I find it kind of weird that you find somebody identifing with a particular, rather standard, label as offensive.
My only comment is there isn’t just a single dimension here.
For example, well the fundamental science is understood, how predictive is the modeling, what is the likily range of warming, how environmentally damaging that warming is, and what is the human cost of that warming?
These variables tend to correlate with each other, but how good the models are depends on other issues (such as how good the numericists are, how fast modern computers are—it’s a tough problem, many of us agree the models aren’t reliable) besides how good the fundamental science is (generally very solid). So the correlation is often less strong that people may perceive it to be on the surface.
But anyway, what makes a person an “alarmist” isn’t where they sit on these various scales, but the extent to which that person agrees that it is appropriate (regardless of internal reason) to intentionally overstate the level of threat in order to evoke particular political and economic responses to that perceived threat.
That doesn’t seem to be a belief about the science, but an adherence to a set of political and economic “reforms” that many of these people find to be independently desirable.
There are probably many “deniers” who primarily are against those same political and economic changes regardless of what they actually known and understand about the more fundamental questions, too.
Carrick,
That would indeed be weird. I don’t think I’m doing that.
.
Ron seems to dispute whether or not Steven is a legitimate lukewarmer. Personally, were I Steven I’d tell him to stick it. Possibly my impression is incorrect (it happens), but in my view Ron is acting as if he has some authority to decide what constitutes a legitimate lukewarmer position. I think this is presumptuous, and I find self appointed inquisitors offensive, yes.
.
I see nothing I disagree with in the rest of your words. Hope this clarifies.
Thanks Carrick.
mark,
I find it ironic (I find lots of things ironic) that someone could claim that the inventor of the term ‘lukewarmer’ to describe his own position could be accused of not being a lukewarmer.
DeWitt,
That too. 🙂
Thanks for the clarification Mark. That makes a lot more sense.
The problem is those who have hijacked the term want to claim with certainty than ecs is low and that catastrophe is impossible.
I constructed the definition to show that ecs may be low and that catastrophe is possible.
>I’ve never been shy about saying that this view Looks like it is the IPCC view.
You were in this thread. That was the point of my original question.
I constructed the definition to show that ecs may be low and that catastrophe is possible.
Space aliens and the Tooth Fairy are possible, but I’m not dedicating any time or resources to their possibility.
Space aliens … are possible, but I’m not dedicating any time or resources to their possibility.
.
Errr…
.
I guess there are still government transfers to SETI, so through taxes, we are all dedicating time and resources.
.
And we’ll probably keep savin’ the planet until the social security funds get tight.
.
C’est La Guerre
I think ECS could be high, but the more the years pass the more I doubt it. Catastrophe is possible, catastrophe is always possible. I think it’s more likely we will face an economic catastrophe or a nuclear war than catastrophic global warming, personally.
.
It’s silly of me that I think this disclaimer necessary. Still, I give it. Do not misconstrue my disapproval of Ron’s position to imply support for Steven’s.
Mosher writes
Pat Frank has done so here…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA&t=865s
If GMT increased at a long-term rate averaging 0.1 C per decade for a period of two hundred years — some decades more, some decades less — would our descendants be all that concerned about it in the year 2216?
Tim, I’m not sure what Mosher means here except that he likes to insult people. One needs only look at Nic Lewis’ short writeup cited above for some really good objections. In any case, the question for Mosher is not whether people measure up to his standards, but whether the evidence is convincing.
David Young: ” I’m not sure what Mosher means here except that he likes to insult people. One needs only look at Nic Lewis’ short writeup cited above for some really good objections.”
.
Correct. And others here, DeWitt and myself included, have raised those objections. But Mosher does not care. Someone here accused him of trolling. Let’s see … it was Mosher.
no pat frank is one of the stupid ones
“Correct. And others here, DeWitt and myself included, have raised those objections. But Mosher does not care. Someone here accused him of trolling. Let’s see … it was Mosher.”
I found nothing compelling in his write up.
1. The models give you no information about ECS, and even if they could, it would be ancillary.
2. For Policy, you dont need a GCM, simple equations will do.
3. For attribution, probably the only tool in town for this problem.. not an interesting problem.
I’ve yet to see a single skeptic or non consensus type actually show their work when it comes to comparing models and observations. not a single one. So, miss me with any thing that doesnt have a full set of data and code.
1) Did Steven Mosher really coin the term lukewarmer or did he invent it like Al Gore invented the internet? (Real question.)
.
2) Mark says: “But FWIW, this may be part of the reason I identify as a denier instead of a lukewarmer.”
.
Mark, I consider myself a lukewarmer but from my understanding of the definition it does not jibe with Steven Mosher’s (current) positions. I’m genuinely curious if he has always held the same basic positions that define the term or that he has moved squarely to the consensus. I think the evidence is strong for the later. I am not sure if you are offended about. I don’t think you need to label yourself a denier unless you believe that. You seem rational enough to me.
.
I realize nomenclature is a continuum but there has to be some objective meaning to terms or they have no use.
.
3) SM says: “who said catastrophe was improbable? not me”
.
I do not understand your reply. Are you disputing my assertion that the consensus is sounding an alarm for action? I don’t think you can. Are you not calling for strong regulation, both national and international to curb CO2 emission? Do you support COP21? What percentage of lukewarmers support COP21 in your estimation?
.
4) I wrote: “The most central issue in my opinion for the divide between Spencer/Curry/Lewis view versus the Karl/Hansen/Schmidt view. It’s hard to see it absent from the definition.”
.
SM wrote: ” yes, the point of the definition was to highlight that”
.
So Steve, do you support the views of Spencer/Curry and Lewis over those of Karl/Hansen and Schmidt, generally speaking?
.
SM: “Ask yourself why so many in the consensus object to my
definition?”
.
Your definition that there is a better chance of ECS being under 3 squarely overlaps the estimations of those like Gavin Schmidt who place ECS most likely between 2.5 and 3.0. I suppose they would not want to be called lukewarmers or say that those values pose no need for action. If others are objecting to your definition perhaps you should re-assess it.
.
5) TE: “Space aliens and the Tooth Fairy are possible, but I’m not dedicating any time or resources to their possibility.”
.
I think risk is a central point. How severe and how probable are very germane issues. I think lukewarmers take the Hayek position of accepting that there are two many variables to hope that central control for specific action is more wise that creating economic and technological strength to deal with whatever materializes.
.
Also ET not the same as tooth fairies. But I’ll debate that another day.
Ron,
Well, when asked he says he’s a lukewarmer. Good ’nuff for me.
Don’t worry about too much about it, like I said- it’s not like I think a law should be passed to stop this sort of thing. We could talk about it but I don’t think most would find it all that interesting, including myself.
It saves me the hassle of arguing with people about what bucket I belong in. Nobody challenges me on it, which makes me happy. Also, it establishes early on that I’m not afraid of the label – spares discussion participants [from having to go] wading through a lot of preliminary nonsense.
Anyway.
Ron Graf
As far as I can tell Mosher holds the same views he always did.
Lukewarmer was always nestled inside the consensus. Just that the low end of the consensus is more likely than the high end. That’s still the consensus.
Some people who are outside the consensus want to call themselves “lukewarmers”. Also, some alarmists want to insist that lukewarmer is outside the consensus and on the low side. That is to say: alarmists want to give the impression that lukewarmers are no different from the group alarmists call “deniers”.
The term was coined precisely to distinguish between those who are inside the consensus on the low side and those who insist that the effects of greenhouse gasses are to small for ECS to make it into the consensus range.
I realize that I do not own English and can’t control what happens to the meaning of a word. But the term becomes useless if it doesn’t have a distinct meaning. And the original meaning was precisely to distinguish between people inside the consensus– but on the low side– and those outside the consensus– who might better be called “coolers” or “no-effecters” of some sort. (I can’t think of a good word for “no-effecters”. )
My view is if you are a “cooler” or “no-effecters”, that’s fine. But I really don’t think it’s quite fair to complain that “lukewarmer” happens to be difficult to distinguish from the consensus. It was designed to be on the low side of the consensus: so yes, it’s difficult to distinguish “from” it. It’s part if it.
Lucia:
I use the term “consensus” for the view I disagree with on the warm side for the same reason Mark calls himself a denier, to avoid the impression I am using a term to belittle. I just don’t go as far as Mark’s humility by saying, “I may be crazy” but I think such and such.
.
If you are defining “consensus” as 90% change of ECS >1.2 then I am in the consensus. But I also think there is a 90% chance of being below 3.0 and that throws me out. This is a real issue since the 97% figure, which includes lukewarmers, is thrown around by the media and the left to claim all skeptics are way radical.
I am not sure even Mosher claims that. I just read his old comments on CA. I could give some examples but he doesn’t like it and I’m not trying to embarrass. Just looking for rational discussion.
Ron
I didn’t think you were using the term to belittle. I am only pointing out that the “lukewarmer” position has always be inside the consensus. If you are trying to “use” the term consensus to mean “somethign that doesn’t include lukewarmers” you are changing the definition of lukewarmer. And that is regardless of your motives for using the term “consensus”.
How does this throw you “out”? (Real Q.)
I ask because as far as I can tell, it’s possible to think the probability distribution function is 90% between 1.2C and 3.0C with tails evenly split. That would mean you think 90% above 1.2, 90% below 3.0 C. You don’t need have your entire pdf match the one in the report to be ‘in’ the consensus. If you did, almost NO ONE would be “consensus” — likely even few of the authors of the IPCC reports each of whom has their own “best range”. Heck, each individual report on which the IPCC range is based has a different range!
Now: if what you mean is you think there’s a 90% chance the ECS is below 1.2C, then… well you may not be a lukewarmer and aren’t by original usage. This isn’t a value judgement, nor a statement that you can’t be correct and so on. It’s just an observation that certain beliefs start falling outside the bounds of what “lukewarmer” was coined to mean.
No matter what your terms are, the terms must describe a general range of beliefs. Someone might be on the “cooler” side of lukewarmer, some on the “warmer” side. But arguments that people who are in the consensus are not lukewarmers would mean the definition of lukewarmer has changed drastically since coining.
It may well be that you are on the “cooler” edge or lukewarmer– or not. But suggesting that lukewarmers are not in the consensus… Well, they are in the consensus– the lower range of the consensus. That is the term means what it means “warmers” means they are a type of warmer; “luke” means they are on the lower end of warmer.
Ron,
No, it doesn’t. Only if you believe that there is no chance of ECS being greater than 3.0 (most people wouldn’t consider 10% as no chance) or that you would take the over 3.0 side of the bet are you not a lukewarmer.
Interesting discussion about categories of position on ECS.
The first thing I’d like to say is that “consensus” is a useless label if it is as broad as IPCC’s 1.5-4.5 degrees for ECS. I self-identify as human but it does not help to filter me from everyone else. If this is consensus, then the consensus is that we are as ignorant of ECS as we were three decades ago.
When someone asks me of my opinion on climate change (not very often; normally I’m the one to bring up the subject, and my left-leaning liberal mates begin to edge away slowly) I say: “CO2 increases will cause some warming, but it isn’t dangerous.” That to me is the lukewarmer’s position.
The consensus demands action. I do not. But my estimate of most likely value of ECS is within the consensus pdf.
This thread was providing me with some interest when we were talking about climate models and what would be considered a proper capability specification for the models going forward. Unfortunately before getting into any details on that topic, the discussion turned to applying a warming classification to individuals and into generalizations of who knows what about models. Are those changed-subject topics really more interesting to some of the posters here and do they add anything to our knowledge bases? Those are real questions that maybe someone here can explain for me.
Kenneth, I for one have learned from your comments and references here particularly the Nic Lewis article which I have book marked for future reference. For me, the first requirement I have for modelers is what are the sensitivity of your modeled results to all the parameters in the models. I realize its a very demanding question for such complex models, but to understand the uncertainty in the predictions, its the first thing to look at. My belief is that the uncertainty is badly understated by the IPCC CMIP results.
Ken, I didn’t mean for the topic of climate models to stop when it occurred to me that after reading climate blog comments for 2 1/2 years I had never seen anyone identifying themselves as a lukewarmer defend the CMIP5 models as a legitimate scientific enterprise for assessing ECS. I know the claim is that ECS is an emergent property of the models and that it’s not input, blah blah. That’s simply a ruse. Just because something is an output does not make it scientifically derived.
.
My understanding of lukewarmer is one who remains scientifically skeptical, one who disapproves of false or misleading claims in abstracts that are unsupported by the paper and misleading news reporting about the significance of papers that are not supported by the abstracts, embellishment at every retelling. CMIP5 derived ECS consensus range is just an example of the divide, it’s not the basis.
.
Lucia, my term for consensus is those who label themselves as the consensus and would claim there is no debate about the science, that 97% agree and the science is settled (and with implication agreed on policy action). The lukewarmer term from my understanding was coined to differentiate those who agreed with much of the IPCC body report but not the summary or the use of the summary to mislead public and policy makers about what the writers of the body believe.
Ron Graf
I don’t think that’s the “consensus” position. The “consensus” is not defined by Cook and Lewindowsky. That claim is also not part of “climate science” and it is not a claim in the IPCC documents and so on. Lots of people– including AR5 authors think the Cook Lewindowsky stuff is silly.
I realize that Cook, Lewandowsky and SKS people would like others to believe they define the consensus, but they don’t. And I don’t know why anyone would want to suggest that their claims define “the consensus”.
It is true taht most lukewarmers don’t think the summary of the IPCC body report should be used to mislead the public or policy makers. But historically, that is not why it was coined and it was not “the” definition. The definition was based on how much warming people expected. That’s it.
There are strong correlations between people’s expectation about ECS, their belief in strength of using models as evidence, their views on people being willing to try to focus the public on the high side of the ECS range in the document and so on. And it’s natural that be so– since those who think ECS is likely on the low side are generally going to be dubious about the wisdom or ethics about people focusing on the high end. And fact that much of the “high” end “evidence” comes from models means that many who are less confident in models will tend to be relying on other evidence which has been lower. But lukewarmer definition wasn’t based on those things. It was based on the ECS one anticipates.
This isn’t a normative statement about values saying what is “ethical”, “just”, “scientifically correct”. It’s just a historical observation about what the word originally meant back when it was coined. Which was about the time I started blogging.
Kenneth
Both subjects are interesting for different reasons. So both are taking place in parallel. I don’t see that as a problem nor as a subject change.
>> If you are defining “consensus†as 90% change of ECS >1.2 then I am in the consensus. >> But I also think there is a 90% chance of being below 3.0 and that throws me out.
>How does this throw you “out� (Real Q.)
IPCC gave best estimate of 3C in AR4, tho left out of AR5. As of AR4, that would have made 90% 1.2-3.0 as out of the consensus. Most alarmists would declare this as ‘out’, but are you thinking the consensus has changed since then?
Ron, I started this argument with Steve’s quote. I don’t remember how old it is but it was from Judith Curry’s blog, and I don’t think it was that recent.
I suspect “alarmist” is best described as someone who insists public action to drastically reduce CO2 emissions is required, quite independent of actual ECS or economic cost. A lukewarmer wants to know the real ECS (to a reasonable accuracy…. say +/- 15%) and wants to know and balance the cost for future warming against current economic cost for mitigation. A ‘den!er’ either declares back-radiation from GHG’s violates thermo, or at most thinks any GHG driven warming can’t possibly be harmful.
.
Exact ECS values are pretty much irrelevant in this discussion. Of course, alarmists always shade any estimate of ECS toward catastrophe, just as den!ers refuse to acknowledge any possibility of warming more than a degree or two, or any negative consequences from CO2 emissions.
.
I actually think the strongest predictor of views on climate is who someone voted for in their most recent election. It is 90% political…. science, indeed physical reality itself, is pretty much orthogonal to opinions on ‘climate’…. except perhaps for some of the lukewarmers. With everyone else, it’s just a waste of time even having a discussion…… factual reality is irrelevant.
Carrick (Comment #156882
“there isn’t just a single dimension here.
For example, well the fundamental science is understood, how predictive is the modeling, what is the likily range of warming, how environmentally damaging that warming is, and what is the human cost of that warming?
These variables tend to correlate with each other”
–
I see most of the list as variables that would very likely tend to correlate with each other.
But modelling in this instance is outside of the variables.
It is true that you could model the variability of the predictions of the models themselves but the models are part of the observance not the occurence”
–
as you say
“how good the models are depends on other issues (such as how good the numericists are, how fast modern computers are—it’s a tough problem, many of us agree the models aren’t reliable)”
–
” how good the fundamental science is (generally very solid).”
The knowledge of how to apply the science is a problem.Hence
“So the correlation is often less strong that people may perceive it to be on the surface.”
Agree with the rest of your summary, just discussing things.
Lucia, SM circa June 2011 on CE verifies yours and his claim of the original definition lukewarmer.
.
Steve writes:
.
Judith’s post quoting an article by Lord Turnbull is very good and is as relevant today as it was in 2011. The bottom line is that the IPCC was set up to find the dangers or anthropogenic CO2, and surprise — they found them.
.
BTW, I think the definition of lukewarmer had evolved even by 2011 to include a “no regrets policy” and narrowing ECS with better science. I also think SM’s pronounced views may have shifted just a little. 😉
lucia (Comment #156909)
Lucia, It is probably just me and my preferences getting in the way and my failure to have any effect on the direction of the discussion.
Mosher brought up the issue of climate models performing to a specification and being judged on that basis.
Steven Mosher (Comment #156717)
Then we have a post that indicates that maybe we do not have written specifications for climate modelers by the users and that Mosher is merely challenging posters here to attempt to write one. There are a few implications here from these posts about models and modelers and model users, but not sufficient details to get a handle on any definitive meaning.
I put forth as did others what they thought was a proper specification for climate models in more general terms. I was curious whether there are be written specifications for climates models on which the model skill can be judged or whether that specifications for the most complex climate models would be a useful exercise. Writing detailed model specifications appears to me to be more appropriate for engineering projects that have contracts involved for a specific project with a relatively short timeline.
At that point the discussion goes back and forth about whether Mosher is a luke warmer and then into definitions of a luke warmer, who invented the term and how is the consensus on AGW defined. Since that part of the discussion has been given official status, I’ll add my 2 cents here.
I would suppose that for efficiency purposes categorizing opinions and judgments is useful in polling and other such activities, but at the expense of covering over important distinctions in individual positions and the range of positions. In a setting such as a blog with a smallish number of posters it would appear to me to be more informative for interested parties to present their own individual views and not force those views into a pre-defined category.
I would think that anyone familiar with these predictions of climate warming and change and the results of that change would have to commit to a probably distribution about the probable outcomes and certainly not deal with some number and an over/under. Even that probability distribution has to come from some methodology and empirical and/or modeled data and there one could even have to put some meta probability on the distribution being properly derived. One could even judge that the tools and evidence are not currently available to make predictions that useful in reasonable detail – which is where I find myself. Those observers finding themselves in that category would favor a path to better methodologies and evidence. A lack of effort in that area by those observers would tend to create a distrust by those in that category about the true scientific seriousness of finding answers whether those remedies be political or more by adaption.
All this reasoning leads to the critical aspect of this issue of climate change predictions which when all is said and done becomes a political issue and simply put in the most general terms comes down to those who see government mitigation as a given and prediction of detrimental climate effects becomes only a means to push what for the most part this group sees as a legitimate function of government and without much unintended bad consequences and something that should be done regardless of how valid the prediction of detrimental effects. On the other hand there are those who judge that there can be bad unintended consequences of government mitigation that could possibly outweigh the good effects of mitigation and those people will want much more certainty for the predictions of detrimental outcomes before conceding to mitigation in the form that will occur given the current intellectual appeal for big government attempts at solutions.
My category would probably be best categorized as suspicious.
Kenneth, I am in compete agreement that we need better science to narrow the uncertainties. I personally can contribute to that goal only indirectly in my current circumstances. Suspicion is indeed justified by the high level of polarization of scientists and thus the science. I also believe that Nic Lewis is an invaluable resource who seems to have the expertise and the time to wade through some of the immensely complex details.
Ron, Saying ECS is between 1.5 and 3.0 is far different than saying that if you had to bet you would take the under 3.0 bet. Mosher is so prolific and verbose that expecting consistency is probably hopeless. Mosher functions much like a Voltaire or a Bertand Russell, provoking those who happen to be the most irritating at any time. He could do us a great service by resolving to reduce his word count by a factor of 10. There would be no loss of actual content.
Actually Carrick, I’m not sure how solid the science of climate really is. Convection is an ill posed problem and it seems to me the whole lapse rate theory depends on it. humidity and precipitation are likewise notoriously difficult problems. We keep seeing aerosol forcing estimates changing. If you look beneath the surface of a turbulence model for example you see something based on simple 2D mostly attached boundary layers. Applying it to complex 3D flows is really an act of faith.
You have hit on one of my pet peeves. “Understanding” in science brings to my mind theological explanations and seems to me to be a way of saying we can’t estimate quantitatively the important effects. Yes we can predict radiative effects of various gases. That’s a very idealized situation though.
SteveF:
I agree with this of course.
The point I was making (which we also seem to agree on) is that people are framing this as a discussion about the magnitude range of ECS, when for most people it seems to be mostly about the direction they want to move society, independently to the question of “what is ECS.”
The “alarmist community” uses various code words and phrases for this, such as “precautionary principle” and the “conservative” approach. But really it seems that they actually mean “this is the course I’d like to see society move, regardless of the question of the impact of AGW.”
We can see this most clearly in that most of the proposed policies for CO2 remediation would actually be very ineffective at reducing future CO2 emissions, but very effective at addressing “global justice” including their much loved “income redistribution”.
angech: I guess my point is that the correlation with the basic science is in many cases less strong that it might seem at first blush. Much of the fuzziness and “uncertainty in the uncertainty” has to do with resource allocation and current limitations of the computers and the number of personnel allowed to these numerical tasks themselves.
David,
You’re leaving out an important qualifier and hence misquoted Mosher. Mosher didn’t say that ECS is between 1.5 and 3. He said he believed that ECS is between 1.5 and 3. He isn’t certain, nor should you or anyone else be certain because we don’t and can’t know with the data that are available now.
David Young,
Maybe a year ago I complained to Mosher of an insufficiency of words. I often couldn’t grasp what he was getting at because there just weren’t enough words and the ones which were there tended toward cute. I still prefer more to fewer – from him, maybe not everyone.
Ken, I agree that there needs to be criteria for model validation benchmarks. In searching I found reference to model testing against RSS Santor (2011) and it’s discussion on CE here. And, Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs (2015)discussion here on “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model”
“there need to be criteria for model validation”
.
Remember the AR4?
.
The IPCC did offer falsifiable criteria:
.
the best estimate for the high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0°C
.
the best estimate for the low scenario (B1) is 1.8°C
.
These were century scenarios, but there was (is) a problem.
.
The highest observed rates are around 1.6°C per century – lower than the best estimate for the low scenario. Lower than the low end is not nearly scary enough.
.
So, what did the IPCC do? They did what they do best, they changed the narrative. Instead of explicitly reporting the century rates, which are falsifiable, the IPCC started talking about ECS, implying that warming would accelerate, even though for all but the highest scenario, temperature projections are “convex down” – decelerating, not accelerating.
.
Because ECS is not falsifiable, anyone can claim a number or suggest a range, but never be held to account. Of course, that also makes it scientific pooh-pooh.
.
Sticking to broader principles and observable data, both temperature trends and emissions data indicate lower than the low scenarios.
David Young:
Do you have a reference to your claim that convection is ill-posed?
Even in ordinary weather models, it remains a sub-grid problem (hence a computational limit rather than a limit in physical understanding of the underlying processes), but it’s my understanding that it can be accurately predicted in e.g., large-scale eddy (LES) simulations.
The fundamental problem for turbulence, as I understand it, is the scale for viscous limit is around 1-mm, which is about 6-orders of magnitude smaller than the vertical height of the boundary layer (you’d need 10^18 cells in an atmospheric volume of size 1km3). Thus even LES requires the assumption of an inertial sub-range.
I would agree that cloud formation and precipitation are numerically difficult problems, that’s IMO part of why climate models work so poorly. They don’t have the computational power for more accurate numerical methods, and typically rely on what must be a total hack. But again, numerical algorithms aren’t really fundamental physics, they are more accurately described as applied physics issues.
We keep seeing aerosol foricng estimates change–but that has little to do with fundamental science. This is a largely a mix of measurement uncertainty and politics, e.g. there are a range of proposed scenarios combined with cherry-picking on the part of modelers.
In reading Evaluation of Climate Models, Chapter 9 of AR5, all the models are works in progress, a lot of them clustering in spots away from observation at specific tests. Failure simply leads to modification. Did you all know that ARGO stands for Array for Realtime Geostrophic Oceanography? So ARGO is correct, rather than Argo (Jason’s ship).
.
I hope with AR6 somebody re-writes a version of each chapter “For Dummies.”
Lucia
” it’s possible to think the probability distribution function is 90% between 1.2C and 3.0C with tails evenly split. That would mean you think 90% above 1.2, 90% below 3.0 C.”
Should be 95% above and 95% below?
The consensus is a term I am not fully clear on due to at least 2 different usages.
There is an IPCC consensus on ECS range except they did not actually give a figure last time and it keeps changing in the past.
There is a seperate consensensus, often quoted at 97%, on the likelihood that some percentage of some experts/scientists/scientific experts/published scientific experts (% varies) know that mankind has caused some/most/all/more than all of the warming in modern times.
Ignoring the fact that a consensus should be 100% agreement.
The concept of climate models as currently used is fatally flawed because they need to be adaptive and they need to be recognised as always falsifiable.
Once these admissions are recognised they would become infinitely more usable and user friendly.
I see no reason for all current assessments to be done on old models. They should be recalibrated and run every 5-10 years and compared with the older falsified models and given predictability usage scores.
Old models should always have not an error or SD range but a probability rating, if still being used it should have a percentage success rate attached to the probability rating or a current probability rating indicating actual effectiveness.
Ron Graf (Comment #156924)
December 28th, 2016 at 9:27 am
That is my take on the CMIP5 climate models and why a detailed written specification against which to judge skill does not appear to have a lot of meaning or value. The entire enterprise is a work in progress that is tested and then modified where possible.
There must be a general goal of making the models as physically based as possible and/or improving parameters to get that process away from being used as a convenient fitting tool in emulating the observed climate. A parameter that can significantly affect more than a single climate variable comes to mind as as one that can be better tested.
j ferguson (Comment #156920)
December 27th, 2016 at 10:01 pm
I have the same problem in deciphering Mosher as I noted in the example in my previous post about model specifications. I think it results from his apparent obsession to attempt to point to failures and weaknesses in some skeptics arguments whereas in my mind that case is better made by presenting one’s own arguments and evidence and letting readers here make their own conclusions. While pontifications to read more and to think harder are generally good advice for all those discussing AGW issues and including so-called experts, those remarks in the context of these blog discussions tend to be devoid of new information and create an atmosphere for personality clashes.
Carrick,
I too am wondering about David Young’s claim that “Convection is an ill posed problem”. Turbulence is certainly a problem for mathematicians, but there are statistical treatments that are quite good for many applications. So I don’t think that is really a problem for climate models. As you say, clouds and precipitation are among the big problems.
Mike M,
“As you say, clouds and precipitation are among the big problems.”
.
Yes those are big problems, but the biggest problem is aerosol influence, both direct and indirect. Aerosols, clouds, and uncertainty in ocean heat uptake give the models plenty of wiggle room…. almost any ECS below 5C or so can be ‘consistent with’ historical warming. GCM’s can’t meaningfully constrain climate sensitivity; IMO, they should be ignored when choosing public policy.
Carrick and Mike, Isaac Held has a good post on modeling tropical convection that shows very large sensitivity to the size of the computational domain. Convection is a classical vorticity dynamics problem with shear layers giving rise to turbulence. The boundary of a thunderstorm cloud is easily observed and visually shows the classical shear layer breakdown. I just don’t believe that the lapse rate theory said by Lindzen to be a bedrock or tropical climate theory is “settled.”
As to statistical analysis of turbulent simulations, there are some successes and some failures. Beware of positive results and selection biases. Unfortunately the atmosphere is vastly more complex than most of the simple turbulent flows we try to do in aeronautics .
On turbulence, I would just add that for many complex turbulent flows, its not just the statistics of the velocity fluctuations that are wrong, but the pressure field too. Most credible turbulence models are too dissipative and thus shear layers are smeared and dissipate too quickly. Turbulence models are developed from statistical correlations for simple 2D attached and mildly separated mostly wall bounded flows. Applying them outside this set of conditions is an act of faith even though it can be surprisingly effective in practice.
Also bear in mind that GCM’s assume NO eddy viscosity outside the planetary boundary layer. That’s in my view a serious omission. The atmosphere has highly variable levels of turbulence. That level is in storms (or even near the jet stream) sometimes very large, perhaps equal to 50% of the mean velocity. What that means is that the actual effective viscosity is almost entirely numerical viscosity.
Kenneth F:
.
Exactly, the tests should specifically grouped in metrics which all emerge from the least freedoms in parameters, so that their behavior is beyond the control of the operator, which of course is the intended result to prove unique predictive skill and claim validation. If the models use only the operator’s predictive skill they are not providing scientific value.
.
Yet, stepping back, I don’t know if the job the AOGCMs are tasked with with is possible. I think this is what I hear David Young saying. In this case the most productive tests could be towards analyzing the soundness of the exercise. After all, even the best scientists cannot a human behavior model that would give scientific value, except (possibly) in mass economic behavior.
.
With 12 years of ARGO data my prediction is a papers evaluating models will be utilizing it. (I could be wrong.)
Carr5ick writes
For predicting weather this is true enough. But is it accurate enough to preserve the tiny climate signal at each time step?
Nic Lewis in his briefing paper had this comment on climate models handling convection and its affect on ECS.
https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/briefing-note-on-climate-sensitivity-etc_nic-lewis_mar2016.pdf
Kenneth Fritsch quotes
Fitting a simulation to observations is all very well but at the end of the day, there is no reason to believe that the fit will continue to be relevant in the future.
The whole idea that models are based in physics is fundamentally mistaken when components (major ones, even) are not. The output of those components feeds back into the model and destroys any true climate signal that may have been present.
Furthermore, the idea that models can resolve warming over centennial timescales is also mistaken when the warming is not an emergent property but instead a property derived from a number of carefully fitted components. Fitted to observations of warming…
Its little wonder the models are running hot when they’re fitted to observations of warming through the satellite era.
Mosher just likes to insult-
I think he is ridiculing bad arguments. Perhaps people reading this blog are not aware of what the majority of skeptic arguments really are.
‘Just .04% of the atmosphere, no way it could warm the planet.’
‘It’s really cooling’
Charts by Goddard are what ended up in Ted Cruz’s hearing, nothing from The Blackboard.
@ron graf.
All science is a work in progress. If you dont like the models lokk at the current sea ice. The models didnt predict that either. But the actual state of the ice is much worse than predicted, not better.
While everyone is complaining about imperfect models have you ever wondered that things could get worse than predicted in unexpected ways. Judith Curry complains about the Uncertainty Monster as if it will kill us if we try to act on imperfect knowledge while not considering the consequences of doing nothing.
Bugs writes
Alarmists are happy to extrapolate warming and believe there will be negative consequences but are less inclined to extrapolate from the observations the planet is greening and that crop yields are up. Even polar bear numbers are doing ok.
Make no mistake, humans are having many negative impacts on our planet and its ecosystems locally, but global warming isn’t one of them.
Bugs, I agree that science is always a work in progress; never settled. My point however is that the AOGCMs may never get beyond the first step of science or complete the path to validation of hypothesis through reproducible demonstration of skill beyond the operators’s or that of a naive model’s.
.
Observation that both polar sea ice extents are low at the same time for once is an observation but it’s not scientifically meaningful by itself. I think most of the specialists in that area are calling it weather related. But there is no doubt most of the global warming trend has been in the arctic (but not Antarctic). If the models continually need tweeking to match past trends they are serving no scientific purpose, though I do believe in EGHG effect.
bugs,
“Judith Curry complains about the Uncertainty Monster as if it will kill us if we try to act on imperfect knowledge while not considering the consequences of doing nothing.”
.
We (individuals and societies) usually act on imperfect knowledge. The keys are how imperfect, the cost for action, and the potential cost for inaction. There are public policies that probably could garner a fairly broad concensus, such as rapid expansion of nuclear power. But oddly enough, those most concerned about CO2 emissions refuse to support nuclear power, indeed, many actively pursue elimination of nuclear power. Based upon your obvious concern about the use of fossile fuels, I sure hope you are tellng your elected representatives how important it is to expand nuclear power. But I rather doubt you are.
.
People are not going to meaningfully restrict the use of fossil fuels any time in the next couple of decades, in part because fossil fuels currently power civilization, and in part because those most animated in opposition to fossil fuels are simultaneously opposed to most economically practical measures which could reduce fossil fuel use. Perhaps you are unaware that the green movement has a credibility problem.
the actual state of the ice is much worse than predicted
.
It’s true that Arctic sea ice is modeled to decline with an increase of CO2.
.
It’s also true that natural variability, particularly advection of sea ice, can change ice measures.
.
How much of observed change is natural versus anthropogenic? How can one know?
TimTheToolMan (Comment #156935)
December 28th, 2016 at 9:13 pm
Obviously there are weaknesses in climate models that at current time require parameters and parameter adjustments and that are further complicated to the point that the degree that fitting parameters to meet observed results versus using reasonable physical criteria for the parameters can be difficult to determine and separate. As long as modelers are scrupulously open about these weaknesses and those using the model results acknowledge the limitations I have no problem with climate modeling. I do not reject climate modeling out of hand or its future potential value.
I am very aware of in-sample testing and its resultant biases that can readily fail to predict out-of-sample. That is why models need to be based on physical criteria as much as possible. However, failure in in-sample testing makes that testing valuable in an initial evaluation of a model.
SteveF (Comment #156940)
December 29th, 2016 at 6:52 am
SteveF, as a member of the suspicious category on AGW, I have what I call the Jim Hansen test to apply to those who I suspect are into the political part whereby they want immediate government action regardless of the what the science involved has provided as evidence. Although I do not agree with him, Hansen I think sincerely believes in some future disasters resulting from AGW and is not hesitant to point out that measures being taken for government mitigation are totally inadequate to prevent most of the warming and climate change. He is not above suggesting that nuclear energy could be an answer. Hansen is, however, the exception from the warmist side that I see in that there appears little thought there given to notion that we can take government actions that can hurt economically but gives little relief to warming and climate change. Those people seem more interested in getting the government involved for the sake of getting the government involved.
On the other side of the AGW issue we of course have those who deny the science of GHG warming and hearken to a climate that is totally natural. Some of that motivation might originate from doubting the effectiveness of mitigation attempts and unintended bad consequences of such actions, but some of it comes I think from an almost religious believe that nature is god-like and rules over humankinds’ actions and capabilities. I wonder if some of this group would be opposed to geoengineering to head off the next glacial maximum.
Bugs: “have you ever wondered that things could get worse than predicted in unexpected ways”.
.
I have worried about that. For example, maybe the only reason we are not now entering a glacial period is that we have been dumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 8000 years (since the beginning of large scale agriculture). So maybe if we stop emitting CO2, we will trigger a glacial period. That would surely be a climate catastrophe.
.
We can not assume that if we are good stewards of the planet, then we will be rewarded with a beneficial climate. At this point, we can’t know. So rather than a crash program to reduce CO2, it makes sense to me that we adopt ‘no regrets’ policies and seek ways to make human societies less fragile.
MikeN, It’s impossible to act as an enforcer against “bad arguments” on blogs or in politics or even among family members. I simply ignore the silly arguments against the green house effect as it is an opinion that no one of importance believes and its a waste of my time to try to debunk every error I read. Its far more important to try to understand and counter the false arguments used by the powerful scientific “consensus” as this juggernaut has real power to affect our lives and can destroy their enemies or force them into silence.
In any case, the consensus enforcement project is a failure because its an inherently political and anti-scientific activity. I also believe that the “fake news” controversy is inherently political in its origins and enforcement efforts will probably also be futile. A lot of this is about selection bias anyway. The biggest source of bias in news is the choice of what is worth covering and what is ignored. That’s the way mainstream news organizations can maintain the cognitive dissonance between obvious political partisanship and the fiction that they are objective practitioners of a Holy profession called journalism.
Just to clarify. Nothing I have said implies that we shouldn’t develop and use modeling of complex systems. However, it is an argument against the culture belief that a more complex and “accurate” model that resolves all the smallest eddies will be our salvation and will achieve the “right” answer. This pseudo religious faith based statement is always being sold by those who develop and sell more complex models. The roots of this doctrine go very deep in human circumstances and our desire for control. So its worth some profound skepticism.
For many complex systems such as an aircraft, simple models of global integrals informed by past experience and test data are very good within the realm of similar designs. And that is what I would argue with regard to climate as well. We are accumulating a history of pretty good data and we can construct simple energy balance models and low complexity GCM’s. In principle, if we use data to choose the relatively small number of parameters in these models, there is in my view some expectation of “understanding” the system well enough to get some guidance for the future. Its also a fine mechanism for developing hypotheses to test in the real world or with more complex models.
This strategy however, needs vastly better data on things like energy fluxes and also will benefit from theoretical improvements, such as a better theory for the tropics and the lapse rate. It is surprising to me that the existing theory seems to be taken as an article of faith and “settled science” when its main predictions seem to be contradicted by data.
It is also personally painful to reflect on how much of our scientific resources are spent on merely “running” GCM’s and drawing questionable conclusions about most questions in climate science. I understand why that is attractive to scientists (it is guaranteed to produce “results”). Trying to improve theory is an inherently more risky thing. And working on better data is not a career enhancing move either.
Kenneth Fritsch writes
One of the expectations of the GCMs was that they could determine the feed backs and hence sensitivity. But they’re not determining the feed backs, instead the feed backs are determined by their tuning because the whole climate signal is ultimately determined by the tuning.
Sensitivity then comes out as the rate of warming at which they were tuned. Hence the models suggesting greater sensitivity than likely because they have been tuned at a time when warming was greater. Well its slowed down now and GCM sensitivity is looking too high. That’s unsurprising to me.
At every timestep, each and every component of the model must very accurately preserve and evolve that climate signal but they just dont have that capability. Internal errors, approximations and tuning/fitting all feed back through the model at every time step. Millions of times for a 100 year projection.
In terms of projection of climate change of the earth, they’re not excusable with scrupulous setting of parameters, that misses the point (IMO). Parameterised components cant evolve properly with climate change – they’re useless for projection.
Its also not surprising to me that the modelers very early pushed the meme that models may not be able to represent climate in a decade but can do it for 100 years.
The more complex the model that more it can emulate the variables in the phenomenon. But also the more variables in the model multiply the opportunity for error and bias to be introduced. The fewer checkpoints for physical closure on known summarizing relationships (like energy balance) the more a model becomes a “black box.” The fewer trials and statistics to demonstrate predictive skill the more its results will be an article of faith. This situation is perilous enough in science that does not have political implications.
.
As I commented earlier, If you find the protocols of current climate science more alarming than the prospects for AGW you are a lukewarmer, regardless of how Mosher originally coined it, because that is the relevant battle-line in the debate.
.
Ken, am I correct in hearing you looking for more such closure check points?
Ron,
The battleground should be the IPCC WG-2 and WG-3 reports, not WG-1. That’s where they’re weakest, especially WG-3. Whinging about models doesn’t address that at all. It plays to the alarmists and apocalyptics strengths, not their weaknesses. Regardless of the IPCC expected range of ECS, if the consequences of warming have been overstated (IMO they have) and the costs of mitigation, as opposed to adaptation, have been understated (ditto and by a lot), then the basis for immediate drastic action has been gutted.
Why do you think they ran Pielke, Jr. out of town on a rail? It’s because he made these points in careful detail. Decarbonizing an economy is difficult, expensive and slow. Read his The Climate Fix, for example.
David Young, the arguments I stated are not opinions that no one of importance believes. They are used frequently in arguments about global warming, heard and repeated by millions if not tens of millions. Rush Limbaugh has done it. I don’t think it really helps when ‘your side’ makes arguments that are so wrong, tarnishing all.
In order to better understand the components of the observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) and attempt to further separate the trends and periodic components into those caused by GHG and natural changes, I have been analyzing methods such as Singular Spectrum Analysis (SSA) and Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD). From Wikipedia we have: “In practice, SSA is a nonparametric spectral estimation method based on embedding a time series in a vector space of dimension. SSA proceeds by diagonalizing the lag-covariance matrix to obtain spectral information on the time series, assumed to be stationary in the weak sense.” From Wikipedia for EMD we have: The Hilbert–Huang empirical mode decomposition (EMD) process decomposes a signal into intrinsic mode functions combined with the Hilbert spectral analysis known as Hilbert–Huang transform (HHT).
My initial judgment was that SSA would be the more appropriate method for the observed temperature series since the components through heuristic tools could be decomposed and reconstruction directly into trend, periodic and noise components. For at time I assumed that the SSA heuristics were telling me that there were no periodic, or at least separable periodic components, in the observed GMST series. When I recently did some analysis with both SSA and EMD on simulated series with known periodic and trend components and with red and white noise comparable to that found in GMST series I learned that SSA was not able to separate the trends from periodic components in GMST like series (to the satisfaction of the heuristics) whereas EMD did a a good separation. In the tables linked below I show that while I can obtain similar components with SSA and EMD for the case of SSA the separation cannot be verified.
For this work I used the Cowtan-Way HadCRUT4 Infilled GMST series and did so primarily since it has complete data (in filled in some cases) going back to 1850 and the longer time period makes for better separation of longer period cyclical components. The results can be briefly discussed by starting with the plots in the linked table and starting at the upper left moving across and then down on the left and moving across again.
I start with a plot of breakpoint linear regression segments which shows 3 breakpoints and 4 segments that have a somewhat repeating pattern over the series length. The 2 steep nearly linear slopes give a hint that deterministic trends exist as expected in the GHG warming period and perhaps not so expectedly in the early 20th century.
The second plot shows an attempt at separation of the components in the GMST series using SSA with an L=60. While the results are similar to the plot for EMD the next plot shows the heuristic W-Correlation matrix and for there to be good separation of components means that there is little to no correlation outside of a single component box or a grouped 2X2 box, i.e. the boxes should be black with no shading into other component box areas. The heuristics would not have prompted the groupings that I used in the reconstruction – as that was done merely in an attempt to emulate the EMD results. The components that are noise or not well separated will show correlations with other components in the Correlation matrix.
The fourth plot shows an EMD component separation and the fifth plot shows the residual component (trend) and the 4th component as being very significantly outside the expected confident intervals for white and red noise in the series when log(variance) is plotted against log(period length) for each of the component series using 20,000 simulations.
Revealing the approximate 65 year cycle has been done using other methods many times and is nothing new. I do judge that EMD is a superior method in doing this separation and was in fact done earlier in the paper coauthored by the inventor of EMD (N.E. Huang has the patent on it) and is linked here:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-011-1128-8
What I find most interesting about the decomposition of the CW GMST series into a secular trend and cyclical components is that the secular trend starts in earnest around 1900 and proceeds at somewhat constant slope into the present time. If we were to consider that secular trend as being a deterministic trend due mainly to the advent of increasing GHGs in the atmosphere plus feedback effects and other anthropogenic effects it would require some rethinking on the relationship between GHGs and other anthropogenic effects and global mean temperature. Any reoccurring periodic component could be more readily considered a the result of natural events.
Now that I have some better reason to apply EMD to temperature series, I want to look at the CMIP5 models and view differences in those component separations with that for the observed GMST.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/923/Ueva8y.png
MikeN, Many people in the political arena say lots of stupid things. NGO propaganda making it into IPCC reports is far more serious a problem than Rush Limbaugh saying global warming is a “hoax.” When Limbaugh becomes a public official, I’ll speak out. Obama’s Islamophobia-phobia is far more consequential, equally indefensible, and costs lots of lives, both in the West and in the Islamic world.
Phil Hays brought up the subject of the extreme recent melting Arctic at Stoats.–
“someplace between 6 sigma and 12 sigma weird. â€
–
I raised some points.
The observations are only for a short time 1970? on and the standard deviations might be quite larger than what has been allocated at the moment.
The 12 sigma may come about by conflating the SD of two different data sets at opposite ends of their cycles.
Which would still give 4 and 8 sigma additions, which are still extreme.
The change comes at a time that several satellites seem to have gone down in reporting and there may be an algorithm problem in the one reporting ? Japanese, that needs to be fixed.
This rates as a reasonable explanation for the too weird and unexpected changes, a SNAFU. Recheck the findings and correlate with any other sources eg MAISIE [ this may also be showing extreme changes, I don’t know]
–
Conversely something really weird in terms of heating and melting has and was happening which we should all be talking about, thanks Phil.
For which the models and scientists had no clue, No one predicted this as far as I could see two months beforehand. Which makes those clever models??? and scientists???-
As an aside someone at Lucia’s [DeWitt] mentioned that the El Nino spawns heat patterns at the poles, in which case such extremes might not be out of keeping in a post El Nino situation.
Hence the comment about SD not being exactly right to use.
Kenneth F: “If we were to consider that secular trend as being a deterministic trend due mainly to the advent of increasing GHGs in the atmosphere plus feedback effects and other anthropogenic effects it would require some rethinking on the relationship between GHGs and other anthropogenic effects and global mean temperature.”
.
Ken, I assume the “rethinking” needed is due to the extracted trend being expected to fit the Keeling Curve of atmospheric CO2 through the 20th century, not just a linear trend. Is that right? What are the possibilities that the linear trend is partly UHIE considering HADCRUT does not correct for UHIE?
.
“Any reoccurring periodic component could be more readily considered a the result of natural events.”
.
Similarly, I take that this extracted cyclical trend does not fit an AGW warming profile. I would be willing to wager that the CMIP5 trends extracted with same methods will follow the Keeling curve much more. Also I would think if typical CMIP5 model data would be a good control to give confidence these extracted signals from CW time series real and not synthetic. I believe your results but there are many skeptic-skeptics just like Islamophobia-phobics.
In reply to Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #156951)
Cowtan and Way is an interesting “data†set to use.
I want to pick holes in it due to it’s two authors having strong AGW viewpoints which they express separate to their published work.
–
You say
“For this work I used the Cowtan-Way HadCRUT4 Infilled GMST series and did so primarily since it has complete data (in filled in some cases) going back to 1850”
NB “Version 2.0 Long reconstruction (1850-present): HadCRUT4 infilled by kriging 1850-present, original baseline (i.e. 1961-1990), ensemble.The version 2.0 series are based on a more rigorous treatment in which the land and ocean data are reconstructed separately and then blended.All except the long (1850-present) reconstruction are rebaselined on 1981-2010. Rebaselining the data on the period 1981-2010 enables the satellite data to be used for infilling.”
–
I guess this means V2.0 is actually V1.0 with no satellite infilling so really pre 1914 data interpretation the old [Cowtan and] way.
One has to question why they do not incorporate the new V2.0 they use everywhere else and what effect this has on the reliability of the data you are studying.
–
Secondly the data in 1850 is very much different in every way from the data being collected in 2014. Different sites, different gauges and different application of the kriging system.
Do they explain if they have infilled the infilling that HADCRUT 4 did and then krigged the remainder in 1850 etc, or did the apply their system to the few actual data points then available and krig the rest?
“My understanding is that the data used has been modified
In order to better understand the components of the observed global mean surface temperature (GMST)”
–
Referring to “The version 2.0 series are based on a more rigorous treatment in which the land and ocean data are reconstructed separately and then blended”?
–
“I learned that SSA was not able to separate the trends from periodic components in GMST like series”
Why?
–
“The 2 steep nearly linear slopes give a hint that deterministic trends exist as expected in the GHG warming period and perhaps not so expectedly in the early 20th century.”
–
Or something else causes warming trends?
You mention a cycle that helped warming in the GHG warming period. This means that the earlier, unhelped warning was greater than the current one and lacked both a CO2 cause and a warming cycle. Very interesting but not very funny. An alternative would be that both trends were not deterministic or if that what determines global warming is not known yet.
–
The trouble with Cowtan and Way is that it finds what it sets out to find.
It should have exceptions.
It never finds negatives or anomalies. Hence it will confirm [faster] global warming wherever it is used, while the globe is warming.
It’s presumed lack of satellite input in an era when the data exists and is used in their main product hints of a desperate effort to keep a [dangerous] warming message alive. In an era of technology they insist on a stone age graph.
–
I was hoping your studies would throw light on any inbuilt bias in the system used but it probably only outlines my own unwarranted bias. Thanks.
angech: “Hence the comment about SD not being exactly right to use.”
.
For data like this, standard deviation is likely not at all the right measure to use. In addition to the issues you raise there is the fact that there are correlations in the data; that results in much larger spreads than expected from standard deviation.
.
This source (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) shows the November Arctic ice about 3 sigma below the 30 year average. But is also shows a trend (Figure 3) and this year is not all that far off the trend line. Antarctica is 7 sigma down from an upward trend. The recent drop (Figure 5a) is sufficiently spectacular that you don’t need statistics to see that it is weird. But it is a rare event. How many standard deviations is a hurricane off from the mean?
Ron Graf (Comment #156958)
I am motivated in this analysis to separate the CW series into components and attempt to think about the timing of temperature changes in those components in terms of anthropogenic and natural causes. I have not had sufficient time to look at the potential anthropogenic forcings to determine consistency here. Of course, individual forcings are determined by models and the only way of keeping the analysis on a strictly observed basis would be to do some kind of complex multivariate regression of GMST versus changes in forcing agents. If one has to resort to model generated forcings then it is prerequisite that I do EMD on models and compare the results to that of the observed.
Based on my prior knowledge of investigations of UHI I doubt that that effect is going to change my analysis.
angech (Comment #156959)
You ask why SSA cannot separate the secular trend from the period component and I can tell you that it is an apparent short coming of the method – and one that took me much too long to determine to my own satisfaction. My simulations with series with known components confirmed this weakness for me. SSA appears to do best in separating longer frequency periodic components when steeply sloped trends are not present in the series. There are adaption’s of SSA for improving separation such as Iterative Oblique SSA (IOSSA) which is an iterative (EM-like) method for improving separability in SSA. In particular, it serves for separation of mixed components, which are not orthogonal, e.g., of sinusoids with close frequencies or for trend separation for short series. I have used these adaptions for GMST series without success. There are further attempts I can make like detrending and rerunning SSA, but since EMD appears to work better without all the extra effort I will be apply that method to future work. EMD is claimed to be better in that one does not have to chose parameters like the L value in SSA. One does, however, have to choose parameters to avoid getting end effects in EMD.
Link to R package for EMD:
https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2009-1/RJournal_2009-1_Kim+Oh.pdf
I cannot thank Kenneth Frisch enough for the Nic Lewis writeup link. I just finished rereading it and it is the most comprehensive and knowledgable reference on climate sensitivity that I have seen. It is amazing that someone who was an outsider 10 years ago has made such a sterling contribution that everyone must take seriously. Even our friends in the consensus enforcement business (such as Ken Rice) take him seriously. Really a remarkable contribution and all of it unpaid to boot.
DY: “It is amazing that someone who was an outsider 10 years ago has made such a sterling contribution that everyone must take seriously.”
I’m not sure Nic Lewis is a household name but he certainly is foremost expert on the central point of the science. And he is an unpaid volunteer. What that says to me is:
1) No one could do the job paid without also being under duress.
2) Therefore, no one could be paid (by anyone) and be trusted.
3) Nobody under duress would attack the observational record evidence head on when they could use proxies or models which are much more prone to bending to needs.
.
Ken, I see Nic concurs with yours and many other’s concerns with AOGCMs.
https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/briefing-note-on-climate-sensitivity-etc_nic-lewis_mar2016.pdf
.
There needs to be tests to pare down the ensemble to the best three or four of each land and ocean then make the models international property, not national.
As I discovered at Nick Stokes’ blog, there is paper from last summer by Richardson, Cowtan, and Hawkins that uses the CW temperature series to “correct” Nic’s results. Nic responded in detail at Climate Audit. I haven’t taken the time to delve into the technical details. If anyone has done so, I would be interested in their comments. Kenneth Fritsch, have you looked at this?
David Young (Comment #156972)
I think the difference would result from most paper authors using the ocean SST and land SAT to obtain a global temperature for the observed and then comparing those values to climate models using SAT for land and ocean. For most climate models the ocean SAT warms (cools) faster than the Ocean SST and thus the comparison I noted above is apples to oranges. The observed ocean SAT data is very sparse and probably unreliable and thus any observed to model comparison requires using the SAT land and SST ocean for the models.
As I recall Cowtan considered the observed ocean SAT data too unreliable to determine whether the observed ocean SAT warms (cools) faster than the ocean SST. I do my observed to model temperature series comparisons using apples to apples.
Nic Lewis does his ECS and TCR work with observed data and that would be using ocean SST and Land SAT. As a standalone value there is not a problem it is only when comparing with model data that there would be one. I would suppose that one could contend that the models have it wrong on ocean SAT and SST warming (cooling) rates and particularly since there is not good observed data to verify the proposition.
I had an email exchange with Tom Karl and his coauthors on his paper that showed an increased ocean temperature warming rate in the last 15 years or so period for the NCDC v4 ERSST reconstruction (v3b) over the previous version. In the most recent version night time air temperatures where used for correcting ship data and indirectly buoy data. I also notified Cowtan on this but I could not obtain any detailed explanations from the Karl authors or Cowtan. The NCDC ocean temperatures are supposed be SST and I believe the most recent version was offered with the assumption that the observed ocean SAT and SST would not warm or cool at significantly different rates.
Kenneth, It sounds to me as if this is a question of choosing the proper output from the GCM’s to compare to. For me the question would be whether the ocean surface interface conditions are any good. One would have to get humidity and evaporation right for this to be true.
DY, wouldn’t Nic’s results in CW or any other series simply be the ratio relative to the ~130-year trends? From Nick’s essay I understand aerosol forcing and cloud feedback as the main drivers of variation in effective climate sensitivity studies. One other variable for EfCS is ocean uptake. Both initial imbalance and current imbalance to forcings are important assumptions. ARGO could help us determine the current imbalance, especially if we have a major volcano since that clear delta in forcing would be a clear signal to follow in OHC, like a sonar ping. Nic assumes that the pre-industrial ocean was in balance, probably since that is the AR5 assumption, but I don’t know how that makes sense coming out of the LIA.
Ken, remember too that as you calculated here for Nic, the observed tas Tmin (night time temp) trend is about 4% higher than tas (tmean) from change in diurnal temp range (DTR) trend. That corrected the SST with tas to pretty much be same. I wonder if Nic ever brought that to Richardson or if he responded to that.
Ron Graf (Comment #156976)
January 2nd, 2017 at 7:48 pm
I am not sure I know what you are getting at here, but the compensation for using night air SAT in the NCDC ocean SAT would compensate for an average model case but only if the NCDC global temperature was used in the observed to model comparisons. I am not sure how much the night air use in corrections for NCDC changes the observed ocean trends in NCDC.
Just to give you a flavor of the variation in the warming trends using individual model tos (SST) versus ocean tas (SAT), I calculated the increase in tas trend over tos trend (by linear regression) for 1885-2014 for all the CMIP5 RCP4.5 models with data available (47 model runs).
The average increase was 12% with a standard deviation of 61%. I believe Cowtan reported an average value on the order I found, but I do not recall that he reported a variation. Obviously that standard deviation implies some trends for ocean SST being less than those for SAT and some SAT trends being much higher than the average. The increase for the 1976-2014 was an average increase of 7% and a standard deviation of 30% .The link below provides a histogram of the trend increases (decreases) for both periods. It becomes rather obvious from the huge variation in trend differences and variability with time period that other factors are making determining even an average difference between ocean tas and tos a very uncertain exercise.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/924/5EiHKF.png
Ken, to recap, I remember Richardson’s argument to be that models demonstrate SAT rises significantly faster than the SST used in HADCRUT, thus the observed trend is biased lower than it would be if HADCRUT used SAT. Since there is no observed record for SAT(mean) (since daytime recording is confounded by ship hull daytime warming) they thought the models provided a reality that could not factually be disputed.
.
However, there is a record for night sea air temperature, which can be used as a proxy for SAT(min). Then assuming the global trend in diurnal temperature range for land applies to sea we just multiplied the DTR factor to SAT(min) to get SAT(mean). When you did that we found SST(mean) and SAT(mean) to be statistically identical. This proved that the models were wrong on showing SAT variance from SST (if I am remembering this all correctly).
Ron,
How do you get a global DTR if you can’t measure ocean SAT max? Answer, you can’t. DTR of SAT should be high over land because the DTR of the surface is higher. Using the DTR of the SST to calculate DTR of SAT is begging the question. You’ve assumed your conclusion that SAT and SST are closely coupled.
DeWitt, I believe Vose(2003) and Thorne(2016) claim a global DTR trend. Even though the Land and Sea DTR is different there is no theoretical reason the trends should be different.
.
One should be able to gain insight of ocean DTR from Islands and marine coasts trends. The lack of installation on ARGO of SAT measurement capacity was an oversight in my opinion. The DTR trend is an important clue in the AGW puzzle.
It was actually Vose(2005). But Ken derived DTR trend from the CMIP5 model mean for RCP4.5.
Ron,
ARGO ‘floats’ spend most of their time at a depth of 1,000m. They only surface for data transmission about every ten days or so. I should look and see how long they stay on the surface, but I don’t think it’s very long.
You can’t just stick a thermometer out in the air to get SAT, you need a shelter from the sun and probably a fan to move the air through the shelter. That doesn’t sound like it would fit on an ARGO float or survive repeated submersion.
It seems to me that measurement of trends ought to be based on the data that best represent the internal energy in the climate system. For the ocean, that would be sea surface temperature (regarding the deep ocean as outside but connected to the climate system). For land, that would be boundary layer temperature, reasonably represented by daytime maxima.
.
I find it shocking (but not surprising) that climate scientists do not seem to have given careful thought to how they compare models to measurements. Until, that is, they need to find a reason to claim that the observational analyses are looking at something different from the models.
.
One of the first things to look at in comparing models to data should be to examine the extent to which models get relative changes correct. That would seem to be the issue involved with comparing sea surface temperature to air temperature. With that in mind, the observational data show an extremely tight correlation between land and sea surface temperature. Although the models show a similar correlation, the slopes are often quite different. So far as I can tell, the modellers haven’t much worried about that.
.
Finally, I note that I found a lot of the above discussion indecipherable due to excessive jargon. tos? tas?
.
p.s. It seems that the slope of land T vs. ocean T varies depending on what data set is used, so that might not be as useful a diagnostice as I thought.
RonGraf:
The Vose paper shows no difference in maximum and minimum temperature anomalies for the time period of late 1970s-2004 and it deals only with land data.
Anomaly differences for some publically available observed temperature data bases for the time period 1979-2010:
Ocean HadNMAT2 (Nighttime air temperatures)=0.22 degrees C
HadSST3(SST)=0.35 degrees C
HadISST1=0.22 degrees C
20th Century Reanalysis Sea Surface Air =0.32 degrees C
20th Century Sea 2 Meters=0.34 degrees C
HadISST takes into account the changing sea ice areas over time.
The Cowtan paper took into account the change in sea ice areas over time and in my calculations I avoided this problem by using the model data from 60S to 60N.
Anyway the observed data above can be compared in different ways to give conflicting evidence for the rate of warming for SST versus SAT ocean.
I judge that the observed ocean temperature data is more uncertain and possibly biased than the station surface data.
MikeM:
http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov:8080/DataPortal/ipcc5_vars.jsp?bundle_id=day
air_temperature tas t_ref Near-Surface Air Temperature K air temperature near-surface
surface_temperature tos sst Sea Surface Temperature K MOM4
DeWitt: “ARGO ‘floats’ spend most of their time at a depth of 1,000m.”
.
Here from the Argo site:
.
They have a certain number tethered and others float freely. I don’t know how hard it would be to have 500 buoys that just stayed at the surface to measure air temp (with shade hoods). Not having surface air temp for 70% of the planet seems like more than an oversight, even though there are dozens of island stations.
.
Ken, I realized that we do not have observed DTR for sea air temp (SAT or tas) but we should be able to get a clue from coastal and island stations. And the lack of change in DTR 1975-2004 was after a significant trend of narrowing 1945-1975. There is no reason given to explain why. My understanding is that AGW or enhanced GHE should be having a more significant impact in low humidity, like the polar regions and night times, thus the T(min) should be rising more than the T(max), narrowing the DTR. For different reasons urban heat island (UHI) effect does the same thing. This is one reason why it would be great to have a marine record or DTR, which could be used as an AGW mask to diagnose UHI and land use effects in the land surface record.
.
Since fractions of uncertainty in ECS equate to trillions of dollars it would seem a good investment to have those 500 buoys.
Ron Graf,
I think you are missing the point a little. Data is only useful to the powers that be if that data supports the CAGW narrative. Any reasonable empirical estimate of sensitivity is about 60% of the median model warming, somewhere under 2C per doubling. At that warming rate, there is little economic support for draconian public efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. It is and has always been a political/philosophical disagreement about the role and scope of government, not a scientific disagreement. Heck, if you compare the model mean ECS (about 3.2C per doubling) with the mean of empirical estimates (about 1.8 – 1.9C per doubling) there isn’t even very much to argue about beyond the details and assumptions. Those who believe public control of private activities is a good thing will ALWAYS support increasing the scope of public control. Those who think public control of private activity is something to be held to a minimum will ALWAYS resist increasing the scope of public control.
.
We will see what Trump changes…. I am guessing only a modest delay in the Green Borg exerting control over all. I am hoping it will be more than that.
Ron,
Much better would be a replacement for the GLORY satellite to actually measure the effect of aerosols. You notice that not only hasn’t happened, it doesn’t even appear to be a proposal. Data from GLORY would go much farther to constrain models than ocean near surface air temperature. But then they might find out that the effect of aerosols is much less than even AR5. There might not even be an indirect aerosol effect. That would mean that the 65 year cycle in the AMO Index arises naturally. Then they would no longer have the excuse that aerosols have been masking the effect of ghg’s. When I’m really feeling paranoid, I think it was blown up on purpose.
Steve, I Googled Green Borg and got a law firm. Is a Green Borg an artificial intelligence monster that looks as humans as an infection? If so, I could definitely see some of the recent college grads programming it without a blink.
.
It occurs to me that if DTR in the polar regions narrowed more than the tropics this would also confirm the AGW fingerprint. And if the narrowing only happened associated with areas of growth in population and development that would point at UHI, and land use land change LULC. I’ll take a look to see what I find.
.
Speaking of finding what you look for, Zeke Hausfather apparently just published a paper confirming Karl(2015). Here is an article by Zeke supporting Karl the month Karl(2015) was published.
.
DeWitt, you have a good point. Maybe we lobby a new NASA director for GLORY.
New paper by Zeke Hausfather et al.: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207
Finding: “We show that ERSST version 4 trends generally agree with largely independent, near-global, and instrumentally homogeneous SST measurements from floating buoys, Argo floats, and radiometer-based satellite measurements that have been developed and deployed during the past two decades. We find a large cooling bias in ERSST version 3b and smaller but significant cooling biases in HadSST3 and COBE-SST from 2003 to the present, with respect to most series examined.”
Provides strong justification for the current use of ERSSTv4 in NOAA land-ocean global mean temperature. Provides a possible (probable?) explanation of the “pause” which is now essentially absent in the NOAA trend.
Excellent video explanation of new paper by Zeke at https://skepticalscience.com/
Highly recommended for Lamar Smith
So the message (from Zeke’s summary video) is that an additional 0.05C over the last 19 years as measured by SST relative to the past means that SAT is greater and there is no pause any more?
There is so much assumption in AGW that its alarming.
Lobby for glory.?
If lindzen and the skeptics have their way there will be
No money for any science that can be tied to
Climate.
Tim,
That’s 0.05C/decade. ERSSTv4 corrects for the increasing reliance on buoy measurements and decreasing use of ship intake measurements,which had produced a cool bias in version 3. The GMST produced by using ERSSTv4 shows no pause in the past two decades.
Mosher: “If lindzen and the skeptics have their way there will be
No money for any science that can be tied to
Climate.”
.
Rubbish. What Lindzen has recently said: “They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,†he said. “Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.â€
http://archive.is/yiVYd
Owen, the only thing that’s really changed over the period of the so-called pause, is framing the rhetoric to remove a description of a feature that is still there in the newer series:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2017/01/129938.png
Note there is not much difference in any of the series *between* 2000 & 2010, though it looks like the warming since then is accelerated in the newer series.
There are three problems with evaluating the difference in the slope over the intervals they have chosen:
One is there is a maximal point near 1998. (I know this has been picked by the skeptics, but it is still cherry picking.)
Secondly, the maximal difference in the series occurs around the 2015 end point. That too is cherry picking and a poor choice of end points.
(End points get weighted more heavily in a linear LSF than middle points. Weighing the upper end point is a larger problem because we have no way, at this point, of knowing whether the relatively-short-interval difference in trends will persist into the future.)
Thirdly, most of the differences in the former versus revised series is between 2010-2015. I think we’re going to need more time to see if that change is ubiquitous (it probably isn’t).
Mosher,
I’d be very surprised if there ends up being no US money for climate. But if I was on a “soft-money” project in climate, or lower down on the totem-pole, I’d be worried.
I do expect over the next two years a number of projects supported by US will need to be transferred to other countries–some of the model data sharing at Livermore and so on.
Some people at National Labs are going to need to scramble to find other projects to support them. Some will; some won’t. Obviously it will be more difficult for everyone to be absorbed within a lab if a lab is shrinking generally. If they aren’t retirement age and they’ll probably need to figure out how to package their skill set to ‘outside’ the lab, which may be difficult to do also. Running climate models isn’t really a “big” industry thing. Getting positions at universities is always a challenge and will be more so if lots of people come on the market all at once especially if universities are aware that funding in that area has been reduced. And industry tends to look a big disfavorably on the notion that administrative experience at a National Lab is the same as that in industry (because it’s not the same.) So… I think people have cause to worry.
That said: we’ll see. Presidents can’t always get as much done as they like. And with Trump grumbling about re-organizing the CIA, it may well be that he turns out to be ineffective at sticking with previously stated goals. Or not. We’ll see.
Owen,
I agree with Carrick.
I think the paper is very useful. It’s good to explore corrections, get better info in measurement errors and correct. So I applaud the effort. It’s also worth bearing in mind that the correction isn’t going to affect future trends much– it’s pretty much ‘done’ since the source of the shift was a changes in measurement methods resulting in discontinuities which really… is sort of mostly “done deal”.
That said: The main reason “the pause” is “gone” is it’s over. El Nino did come– and there is an uptick. I’ve generally (possibly always?) stayed away from this “pause” rhetoric, because (a) I always thought it would end, and (b) whether the trend was actually zero never was and still in not “the” important issue with the trend.
That said: you can’t blame people for addressing all “the pause” rhetoric that flew around and for discussing whether it ever was a “zero” trend for a long time. People get very focused on “zero” and so on. So obviously, reporters are going to ask, people are going to discuss that.
What’s important in terms of climate models is whether the temperatures move back to the bottom of the model range after El Nino or not. If they stay up and wobble around a high range– well, then that will tend to suggest models are ok. If they go back to being lowish– as before– not so much. Over the next few years we’ll see.
I agree that the strong warming in 2015, 2016 is one reason (and a big one) that the pause is over. But the cool bias in ERSSTv3 was also dragging down GMST starting as far back as 2005. Another reason why I think this paper is important is related to the congressional committee’s request for NOAA emails (strongly suggesting that they suspected Karl et al of fudging data).
.
Spot on.
.
It’s easy to be seduced by confirmatory trends ( high or low ). But stay true to the longer term and larger issues.
.
I continue to contend: global warming is both real and a hoax.
.
Real in principle, a hoax of exaggerated extent and impacts.
.
Neither the pause, nor the pause bust change my contention.
Hausfather uses the satellite trend to the peak of the last El Nino. Since satellites are more responsive to the ENSO then surface stations or buoys this seems a little opportunistic a time to include satellites into consideration. The consensus as been shunning satellites until now. Haufather 2017 chart
Satellites charted against HADCRUT4
Eddie,
Is there also a hoax of minimized extent and impacts?
Carrick,
Cherry picking? The main point of the graph you linked is the comparison between the blue line (v3) and the three others. All are in sync in 1998 when ship intakes were the primary means of measuring SST. As buoy measurements gained greater usage, the blue line progressively falls away from the pattern of the other three as would be expected. NOAA could have been more prescient and caught it earlier, but give them credit, they finally did.
Mosher,
I think there would be a lot more support for replacing the Glory satellite than you imagine, because if nothing else, data… err… ‘trumps’ models. I think paying for a replacement satellite with funds that are currently spent on modeling and ‘studies’ of future consequences based on modeled future warming would be broadly supported, even by folks like Lamar Smith.
.
But will there be cuts in climate science funding? Absolutely, especially where efforts are duplicated. How many climate models does the public need to support? IMO, one or at most two. How many studies of future catastrophes, based on those very uncertain model projections, should the public support? IMO, very close to zero.
.
Climate science has completely failed to meaningfully constrain climate sensitivity, in spite of the investment of many billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money…. and not even considering the huge public expenditures on subsidies for ‘green energy’ which AGW alarm has generated. According to the IPCC, we stand now with exactly the same ‘likely range’ of sensitivity (1.5C to 4.5C per doubling) as the Charney Report gave 38 years ago. We probably disagree about why there has been no real technical progress on this most important question, but the expenditure of money on modeling, and all the speculative studies it spawns, clearly needs to be reined in. Rewarding failure with continued funding is crazy.
I did a quick perusal of the Hausfather/Cowtan paper and was surprised, based on my analysis of the related Karl paper, that for such a short period 2003-2016 that the authors were able to show significant differences between the ERSSTv3b and ERSSTv4. A linearly regressed trend with a relatively noisy (red/white) short series where sampling and measurement errors are added in quadrature to the autocorrelation corrected regression errors takes a large difference to be significant.
I will need to look more closely at how Hausfather et al handled the sampling and measurement error because with the Karl paper’s values it was that error that made short time interval trend differences difficult to determine as significant (p.value<0.05). I would also like to apply my new hammer (Empirical Mode Decomposition) to this analysis. I note that most of v3b and v4 difference in anomaly occurs after 2009-2010 and that trends after that time are nearly the same and the resultant overall trend differences appear to be due to an abrupt jump up by v4 over v3b sometime in the 2009-2010 period. I would guess that the paper would discuss that jump in some detail.
Also, that satellite skin ocean temperature trends (CCI) match those of buoys' measured into the ocean at depth, as indicated by this paper, adds interest to the debate about modeled differences between SST and SAT trends and versus those values for observed series.
“Eddie, Is there also a hoax of minimized extent and impacts?”
.
Always possible – do you have a specific in mind?
Owen:
Actually they are pretty much in sync until 2010. The significant deviations start there. So there’s really no good reason for the sake of this test to use 1998.
The 1998 choice is almost certainly selected because that is the starting year used by skeptics for the “pause”. I don’t blame Zeke for this.
But it’s still a bad choice and it’s clearly cherry picked to give a flattened trend from 1998 to e.g., 2010 (which as Lucia points out is where the “pause” ended).
2016 is where the data ends. But it also corresponds to an ENSO peak.
As I mentioned above (I’ll put equations in a follow-on post for completeness), the points at the edge of the fitted interval get the highest weights in a linear trend. This means in practice that errors due to e.g. episodic noise (e.g. El Niño events) get an undue weighting.
In general it’s not informative to use end points which have large excursions from the presumed model (a linear fit in this case), especially when you don’t know what happens after the end point.
Yes they deserve credit for this. But I’m not objecting to what they did.
I’m just pointing out the use of rhetoric here to try and over-polish the results. It’s the sense that Turbulent Eddie says that “global warming is both real and a hoax.”
The underlying phenomenon are real.
So is the fact of the exaggeration (and over polishing) that occurs by activists (I include here scientists wearing activist hats).
Diverting money from “everything climate science” to long term observation efforts and new energy technology research (including nuclear) is my preferred route.
.
Modelling just for the academic exercise seems to be OK but it doesn’t seem to be resulting in anything that doesn’t end with “but we need decades of more observations to verify this”. The question needs to be asked and answered in how policy or adaption efforts will change based on more modelling. It does not appear uncertainty has been narrowed for at least ten years.
.
I’ve had it up to here (man holding hand above his head) with extreme weather attribution studies that conclude lots of attribution in the face of no measurable long term trends in said event, sixth extinction event studies, 10 feet of sea level rise by 2050, and knee of a curve coming in twenty years.
.
Also fire 97% of environmental journalists who given a test of a “it is not as bad as we thought” study can’t find a way to report on it or can’t give a full descriptive range when they use the term “up to”. OK, that one is hopeless and not related to budgets, ha ha.
Here is a bare-bones proof that “the points at the edge of the fitted interval get the highest weights in a linear trend”.
The main point here is people often compute the linear trend of series which have large deviations from a linear trend near the edges of the series. (I’m concerned here about ones that can’t be interpreted as simple gaussian white noise excursions.)
Large deviations associated with “episodic noise” near an end point, makes the resulting trend estimate unreliable, especially when that end-point is the most recent available measurement. You essentially have no way to evaluate the uncertainty in the resulting trend estimation.
If we have a time series with $latex t _1, t_2, \ldots , N$ and $latex y_1, y_2, \ldots N$, then our model can be written as:
$latex y(t) = a_0 + a_1 (t – \langle t\rangle) = a_0 + a_1 \tau,$
where $latex \tau = t – \langle t\rangle$. Note that $latex \langle \cdots \rangle$ denotes the averaging operator (i.e., it computes the average of a series). For example:
$latex \displaystyle \langle t\rangle = {1\over N} \sum_{n=1}^N t_n$,
I use the “time-centered” form of the model because it makes the structure of the solution easier to understand.
Note that by construction $latex \sum_n \tau_n = 0$.
The least-squares optimization function is
$latex E_2 = \sum_n \left[ a_0 + a_1 \tau_n – y_n\right]^2$.
The optimal value for the offset is:
$latex a_0 = \langle y \rangle = {1\over N} \sum_{n=1}^N y_n$,
and for the linear trend coefficient:
$latex a_1 = \langle \tau y\rangle /\langle \tau^2 \rangle$.
We can rewrite this later expression in terms of a weighted sum:
$latex a_1 ={1\over N} \sum_n \tau_n y_n/\langle \tau^2\rangle = {1\over N} \sum_n W_n y_n = \langle W y\rangle$,
where
$latex W_n = \tau_n/\langle \tau^2\rangle$.
The extremal values of $latex W_n$ occur at $latex n = 1$ and $latex n=N$.
Thus we see that the linear trend $latex a_1$ may be written as the weighted sum of the $latex y_n$ values, with the largest weights being at the end points.
[Note that the offset for “unsubtracted time series” is given by $latex a_0 = \langle y\rangle – a_1 \langle t\rangle$.]
Owen, how do Zeke and Karl establish that there is a cool bias in ERSSTv3 and not a warm bias in v4? Why shouldn’t the bucket measurements be considered ‘too warm’, rather than the buoys ‘too cool’?
MikeN,
When 0.05C difference over 15 years is politically important, the contortions to justify that 0.05C can be pretty extreme.
.
As Lucia correctly points out, what matters is if the trend returns to the lower end of the IPCC range (which, IMO is very likely) or stays higher than over the last 15 years. As Richard Lindzen has noted… it is implausible that all errors in measurement and instrumentation, and the subsequent adjustments to the empirical record, are in the direction of ever greater warming. Yet that is what we appear to always see, which is consistent with people tending to find what they are looking for. But don’t worry, a greatly reduced level of public funding will tend to focus minds on much being more critical in the analysis of measurement errors.
MikeN,
Bucket measurements? Those went out decades ago. The difference is between engine cooling water intake temperature, which is taken well below the surface, to buoys at the surface. The ocean skin temperature can vary a lot compared to the temperature a couple of meters below the surface.
It looks to me like buoy’s give very poor coverage, Owen. Is this them? They’re heavily biased to the tropics measuring ENSO, and the coastlines. There’s nothing very far south and only very few in what might be considered open ocean. There are none in the Indian ocean at all.
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/
Do they have to be tethered to the bottom? That would further bias them to shallower areas.
Ship intakes are going to be all over the shop too. I would expect them to be much deeper than a buoy and they’re going to vary in depth with the type of ship and weight of the freight too. Is that adjusted for?
I am highly skeptical of OHC measurements fullstop and think that ARGO has only marginally improved the situation.
Owen, thank for visiting and providing educated (civil) discussion. I hope you take to heart the point that Lucia and others here have made here that the primary beef that most here have is with passes for protocols of scientific rigor when it comes to global warming/climate change. In short, many are more alarmed by the manipulation of the problem than of the dangers of GW/CC, even though they are real.
.
What bothers Lamar Smith, myself and I’m sure others are the following:
1) It seems that all the revisions get made in one direction.
2) Its obvious the scientists making the revisions have a history of a bias in the direction of the revisions.
3) There have been severe abuses uncovered by climategate of investigators enforcing their bias by silencing dissenters by any means imaginable.
4) The upward revisions are made with the claim of error in prior methods when most scientists and public realize that the investigators allegedly making the errors had a bias in the opposite direction of their error.
.
In the case of Karl(15) we are to believe that there was little thought originally in calibrating buckets with ship intakes or buoys before Karl thought of it. Actually, Hadley thought of it first as covered by Thompson(2008), which was severely criticized in this paper I found Matthews(2013) that Karl apparently never even acknowledges. Matthews claimed there was no field testing to back up Hadley’s assumption to revise up HADSST2. The little testing that Matthews did contradicted the assumptions that the intake water was necessarily warmer unless it sat for a long time. Similarly the buckets could be in error in either direction and thus mostly canceled bias. The main point is that this all should have been tested and documented ages ago.
DeWitt, are the buckets still being used in the reported time series, which is then adjusted?
MikeN,
Climate Audit had several articles on SST measurement and adjustment back in the day discussing bucket and engine intake measurements. Here’s one: https://climateaudit.org/2007/03/17/buckets-and-engines/
If you enter ‘buckets’ in the search window you get a lot more. Apparently there are still some bucket measurements being made as late as 2000.
MikeN: “…are the buckets still being used in the reported time series?”
.
The funny picture here for skeptics is that just when NOAA discontinues ship data, when it can’t confound the future, they decide, “Hmmm, I think the ship data could be tweeked some.”
.
Here is a SKS article cross posted by Zeke also on CE on Karl(15) in Nov 2015. The comments by Dazed and Confused are entertaining as he plays to be a newcomer to be recruited by the SKS denizens but by the end he is asking very penetrating questions (very innocently).
Ron,
“What bothers Lamar Smith, myself and I’m sure others are the following:
1) It seems that all the revisions get made in one direction.”
It may seem that way (it certqinly does to SteveF), but is your point 1 actually true? I don’t know the answer, but I suspect that little is made of revisions that go in the other direction.
I suspect that suspicion reigns supreme on both sides of these issues.
Zeke Hausfather has posted articles here several times and at Judith Curry’s as well – he is clear and thorough in his writing and always level-headed. I consider him to be an honest broker.
Ron writes
Yes. Here is one of them.
And the upshot was that at the time they used the warmer data happily. Now we’re further down the track, they cool it. That seems to be the modus operandi of the alarmists, though.
Owen writes
Of course, but one doesn’t have to be dishonest to succumb to confirmation bias. I’d think Eric Steig is honest too except once he found the warming he wanted in Antarctica, he stopped. And published. And a red Antarctica was on the cover of Time magazine…
It took O’Donnel et al to take apart the data and look at it from every possible angle to get the fact that Steig’s method had smeared the warming all over Antarctica and in fact the data was more likely showing warming regional areas.
Does it matter? Yes it does…its an excellent example of finding what you’re looking for rather than exploring the data to find the best truth possible.
Of course. Then again, climate is not a scientific concept to begin with, so expecting something other than storytelling is unrealistic.
Andrew
Owen,
“I suspect that suspicion reigns supreme on both sides of these issues.”
.
On this we can agree completely; the evidence is overwhelming (eg the UEA emails). The real danger as I see it is that highly motivated people, working for ‘a cause’, are always subject to confirmation bias, even if they are acting ‘honestly’. It is the politically charged nature of climate science, and of climate scientists, which is the problem. The Steig et al paper that TTTM points to is a perfect example of the damage, both scientific and public, political bias can cause. There has been no image in the MSM showing most of Antarctica actually cooling (not warming!), even though both O’Donnell et al and more recent publish work on the net cooling influence of rising CO2 in a very cold high elevation environment like Antarctica show the warming over most of the continent calculated in Steig et al was unadulterated rubbish. The climate scientists who issue breathless press releases of doom with each paper are the primary problem here. The only solution to that problem is public defunding.
SteveF:
And then there’s nobel cause corrruption. People sometimes don’t act ethically because, e.g., they are so convinced (irrationally) that a certain outcome is harmful, or that a particular policy (regardless of outcome) is beneficial, that they override their moral nature in order to work towards a particular end.
TimTheToolMan
I’m not sure I share your view of Steig. He didn’t behave well reviewing O’Donnell.
Nobel cause corruption is the corruption associated with the process of awarding nobel prizes these days. Obama winning the nobel peace prize apparently for just being Obama was an example. Noble cause corruption is what you’re talking about Carrick.
/ sillygrin
lucia:
I’d say Steig behaved dishonestly actually. He never issued a corrigendum where he admitted to the error in smearing the Antarctic Peninsula warming onto the mainland.
mark—ha ha. /threestoogestwofingereyepoke
Now that would be a great emoji. Dunno how you would do it, though.
Carrick,
I think it is a sliding scale between politically movivated bias and noble cause corruption. In the end, both end up causing real damage, even if ‘well intentioned’. The wacko calls for prosecution and jailing of ‘climate den!ers’ under RICO is perfectly consistent with both. The proper response to a fundamentally political problem is political: broad and deep public defunding of the field. I actually think having a lot of reasonably smart technical people involved in economically productive activities, instead of promoting green public policies, would be beneficial… for both them and the public.
Carrick,
By the time O’Donnell was being reviewed, Steig seemed to have suffered a bout of delusion/denial. He had far too much personally invested (a cover image in Nature! public acclaim in the MSM!) to deal rationally with the fact his famous paper was mostly wrong. He handeled it very badly during the review process and afterward, but some things are simply too painful for people to deal with rationally.
When I was analyzing the ERSST3bv (Old Karl) versus ERSSTv4 (New Karl) for the period 1880-2014, I did some breakpoint determinations and the estimated trends with p values for the break segments for the New and Old Karl series (see link below for plots and linear regression details). A breakpoint between these two series can indicate a discontinuity in data measurements in much the same manner as breakpoints are used in station temperature data by the major temperature data providers to find discontinuities between neighboring stations and to adjust the station series that is determined to have discontinuities. Of course, in this case you do not know which series, Old or New, is correct, or whether either is correct for that matter, but the breaks and regime changes indicate some significant changes and I am somewhat surprised that at least the Karl authors did not spend more time discussing these breaks. Even in my email exchanges with Karl authors I could not illicit much in background from the authors on this point.
Hausfather et al do refer to the Had SST3 SST series using much of the same data sources as New Karl and correcting for ship data and yet providing a series more in line with Old Karl than New Karl. It will be interesting to see whether Had CRUT will push the validity of their methods and data sources or accept the more consensus appealing New Karl results.
The Hausfather paper should be given credit for grinding out this analyses as this involves more work than might be assessed on a first look. They also provided links to the data used. I still need to understand better how they estimated the sampling and measurement error to add to the trend error in quadrature, but they did spend a lot of space discussing those errors.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/907/fHXhyv.png
Most of the faults I find with climate science papers that I analyze or see critics analyze is that they are incomplete and not that the evidence of what they present is blatantly wrong. That they give up when they think they have the “correct” answer is a common problem and that goes for all sides of the AGW issue.
I think Eric Steig was in a very bad emotional state during the review of the O’Donnell paper and the aftermath of that paper’s publications. He was I think reacting badly to climate science amateurs publishing and defending their paper beyond his technical skills to defend his own original paper and then having the whole review process exposed to the public. I personally felt that that exposure was a great learning process.
Whatever happened with O’Donnell? I have not heard from or about him for sometime now.
Kenneth,
“Whatever happened with O’Donnell?”
Donno… maybe he realized that his personal obligations (the kinds of obligations many young people have) would not allow him to continue publishing papers like O’Donnell et al. Maybe Jeff Id knows more. The torturous Steig review process may have had something to do with it.
From Skeptical Science:
So they acknowledge one is wrong, and adjust the other?
They go on to say the choice is trend neutral, though their evidence is a Twitter post.
Off topic — although the post’s title includes “nonsense” so perhaps it’s OK — some are still in the denial stage:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/house-democrats-trump-electoral-college-233264
Seriously, WTF? You acknowledge your other data is shit compared to your new data and the answer is to make the new data as shit as the old? The trend doesn’t change?? You mean the trend based on data you just claimed was biased warm when previously you had buckets potentially biased cold? What a farce. Diety help anyone trying to use this data for actual science.
lucia writes
Yes, that’s true. I think I share everyone’s views on Steig, actually…and also think SteveF is right about his “motivation” on being right given his personal and professional investment in the paper.
Owen:
I agree.
.
I also agree with Carrick and others about Nobel and noble cause bias, the former seeking recognition, the later seeking to genuinely do good. The most common trap is what Kenneth pointed out, which is having a tendency to stop looking when you found what you were looking for. This is a very natural and sane behavior but it’s the most common cause of error. The scientific method that is supposed to catch this and other biases does not work well studying complex global systems.
.
Ken, have you studied the 1940 engine room intake (ERI) bulge in the series? For others, in 1940-1944 ERI replaced buckets for most of the data due to the submarine hazard of stopping. This bulge could be studied to see if the corresponding bulge in global SST was due to the ERI warm bias or an El Nino. That bulge in the series is also the reason for the divergence of old Karl and new Karl in 1940-1944.
.
There is a new paper in Science Advances by Wei Liu claiming the AMOC is going to collapse (is collapsing now). Liu feels CMIP5 GCMs are incorrectly assumed by the AOGCMs to be stable. Liu’s simpler model concludes our European friends might want to start reading up on how to live in igloos and drive on ice roads (unless we stop AGW yesterday).
.
Owen, another issue is journalists who have a noble cause bias. Here is the news article I found out about Liu’s paper. Besides telling the story of the movie The Day After Tomorrow, the writer explains all the bad things about climate change and the particularly bad feature of putting Europe into an ice age. The one powerful fact is cited in this sentence:
So I searched that 2/3 slowing and found this 2014 Scientific American article stating:
So the Business Insider article completely made up its statistics as shown in the Scientific American article it cites. And, “Scientivist American” is not exactly an innocent babe on climate science, so I would not be surprised if they were cherry picking the worst out of the Nature article, like the 2/3 drop.
Ron,
Any reduction in the AMOC hasn’t shown up in the AMO Index data yet. But the recent ENSO may be having an effect on that. My prediction has been for some time that a shift in the AMOC would show up as decreased Antarctic ice extent and increased Arctic ice extent, or at least a substantial reduction in the rate of loss.
That seemed to have started to happen in the Arctic until January 2016 when a rapid increase in the AMO Index started. There was also a 3.5K increase in the UAH NoPol anomaly from December, 2015 to January, 2016. The anomaly was closer to normal in December, 2016, but whether that signals the end or not is not at all clear yet. The same goes for the increase in the UAH temperature anomaly for the Antarctic and the recent record low Antarctic sea ice extent.
ENSO extremes are supposed to be over by March.
Dave, if you have a series
2 4 6 8 10 11 13 15 17 19
and you claim a cool bias from year 6 on, changing it would get you
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20, if instead you think it is a warm bias in the early years
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
“So they acknowledge one is wrong, and adjust the other?
They go on to say the choice is trend neutral”
Yes, of course it is trend neutral, and it makes no difference which you adjust. Very elementary. Suppose you have buoy and ship data, and you adjust the buoy data by adding 0.12°C, leaving the ship unchanged. Then suppose you subtract 0.12 from everything. The buoy data is back to unchanged, and the ship data is the one adjusted, down by 0.12. The only difference is that change of 0.12 to everything. That can’t change any trends or relative values. And when you take anomalies, even that disappears. The numbers are exactly the same either way.
Ron,
The collapse of the northern branch of the Gulf Stream has been predicted by many. So far, it is not cooperating much. I believe many well known oceanographers (like Carl Wunsch) remain skeptical. From a 2007 RealClimate post by Wunsch:
Hysteria is usually more newsworthy than reality. Defunding is the answer.
SteveF,
It won’t collapse. It just won’t come as far north as it is now. A northern shift happened in the early twentieth century, causing the sea ice to melt around Svalbard enough that it was worth mining coal there. Then around WWII, it got cold again.
Right now, Svalbard is completely surrounded by open water. The previous two years there was ice on the eastern side. On January 6, 2004 it was almost completely surrounded by ice.
DeWitt,
So maybe the poor children in the UK will not lose the opportunity to see snowfalls after all. 😉
.
I can’t bring myself to take published papers on extreme future European cold very seriously. But at least they may be saved from cooking in their own juices… no, wait…. It’s global warming, so it will be both much hotter and much colder at the same time. Now that is what I call real ‘climate change’!
SteveF,
Nor can I. The Day After Tomorrow was a complete crock, and I say this as a science fiction fan who will put up with a lot of nonsense in movie and TV plots. However, I couldn’t watch more than one episode of SyFy’s new series Incorporated. Neither the apocalyptic global warming nor the corporations ruling the planet make sense on either scientific, economic or political grounds. I suspect it’s a left wingers propaganda wet dream, though.
SteveF,
Ocean gyres, of which the Gulf Stream is a part, are driven by the equatorial trade winds, not thermohaline circulation. A massive dump of fresh water into the North Atlantic might temporarily disrupt circulation. That’s one theory for Younger Dryas. But the winds would still blow and circulation would start up again. However, we’re not coming out of a glacial maximum, so the possibility of such an occurrence is vanishingly small.
When I was communicating with the Karl authors about their paper describing the New Karl (with ERSST v4) and the Old Karl (with ERSST v3b) GMST series, they shared a preprint of a paper they wanted to published in the future. It concerned the warming slowdown and their methods in analyzing the recent period and showing that by their methods there was not a significant slowdown. They did include my suggestions for the time periods to use to show whether a slowdown had occurred. I had suggested at the time that they use Singular Spectrum Analysis (SSA) for looking at trends and forgo the linear regression methods they used in their original paper. They were not prepared to give up the linear regression approach but did introduce the use of Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) as a side light. I was not totally informed about EMD but after some research I could tell that their implementation was not correct. I was surprised because the inventor who has a patent on the EMD method works for NOAA as did Tom Karl and some of the Karl paper authors. Anyway the upshot was that I pointed to the EMD decomposing the series into the secular trend and other components that could be periodic and not part of the trend. I also showed them that in order to determine the significant components they had to determine the confidence intervals using the white/red noise in the series and then determine which components lie outside that interval. At this point our exchange abruptly stopped from their side. I had wondered why when we had a good discussion going it would stop there. I have been looking for a paper on this topic by some of these authors (Karl has since retired) and have not as yet found one.
I was curious after being reminded about the ERSST v4 and ERSST v3b comparisons by the Hausfather/Cowtan paper on that subject and decided to do a rather complete EMD analysis on the GHCN GMST series that contain the ERSST v4 and ERSST v3b ocean series respectively, and updated to 1800-2016. I did a breakpoint linear regression analysis on the New -Old Karl difference updated series and the results look much like those I posted in this thread for the difference series for 1880-2014. I then did the EMD analysis and linked the important results in 4 plots in the link below. I was surprised to see that the significant components (trend and 1 cyclical component for the New Karl series and trend and 2 cyclical components for the Old Karl) had very nearly the same trends and cyclical components and that the difference between New and Old Karl ended up in the noise part of the signals, i.e. the residuals. The 2 cyclical components in the Old Karl are combined into 1 the plots shown in the link.
The trends in degrees C per decade for various periods for New and Old Karl were as follows:
1880-2016: New=0.053; Old=0.056
1975-2016: New=0.081; Old=0.081
2003-2016: New=0.059; Old=0.058
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/924/RH2UzM.png
DeWitt,
I have for a long time been aware that winds drive most ocean currents. I have several times jumped on the Gulf Syream to add 3+ knots to my northbound speed; it is remarkably consistent. The Kuroshio current in the north Pacific is comparable to the Gulf Stream in volume. When people suggest global warming will fundamentally change the interaction between wind and ocean, I can only roll my eyes…. ever more AGW rubbish.
Kenneth, Thanks for the analysis. One of the problems here is that a lot of derived climate parameters such as ECS seem to be pretty sensitive to the exact trends. Overall, it looks to me as if the Karl adjustments are a tempest in a teapot and don’t really make a significant difference in the long term.
David,
” Overall, it looks to me as if the Karl adjustments are a tempest in a teapot and don’t really make a significant difference in the long term.”
.
Indeed. With emperical estimates based on 100+ years , short term trends are pretty much irrelevant.
It is important to note here that many of these studies, including Karl use linear regression, over short time periods and thus all the longer term information in the time series is not used. Methods such as EMD use information over the entire series. Also linear regression assumes that a trend line does not bend over in the period being tested.
By the way Karl did not make the changes from ERSST v3b to v4 as that was the work of Huang. Karl took data from the newer version in an attempt to show that the recent warming slow down was not significant (and that it was with v 3b. I doubt that Karl even understood all that went into the changes, but he apparently got the blame from his critics for making them.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1
Ken writes
Karl’s paper had a specific purpose which was to disappear the pause. They weren’t interested in changing the overall trend, I don’t think.
The fact they had such a specific purpose and went looking for a plausible answer peaks volumes as to the level of their confirmation bias.
Owen (Comment #157036)
“Zeke Hausfather has posted articles here several times and at Judith Curry’s as well – he is clear and thorough in his writing and always level-headed. I consider him to be an honest broker.”
–
Changing the Past? July 7, 2014 by Zeke Hausfather
–
“observers of NCDC’s temperature record have noted that many of the values change by small amounts on a daily basis. This includes not only recent temperatures but those in the distant past, and has created some confusion about why, exactly, the recorded temperatures in 1917 should change day-to-day. The explanation is relatively straightforward. NCDC assumes that the current set of instruments recording temperature is accurate, so any time of observation changes or PHA -adjustments are done relative to current temperatures.
Because breakpoints are detected through pair-wise comparisons, new data coming in may slightly change the magnitude of recent adjustments by providing a more comprehensive difference series between neighboring stations.
When breakpoints are removed, the entire record prior to the breakpoint is adjusted up or down depending on the size and direction of the breakpoint.This means that slight modifications of recent breakpoints will impact all past temperatures at the station in question though a constant offset. The alternative to this would be to assume that the original data is accurate,and adjusted any new data relative to the old data (e.g. adjust everything in front of breakpoints rather than behind them).
From the perspective of calculating trends over time, these two approaches are identical, and its not clear that there is necessarily a preferred option.”
–
Honest brokers would ensure that this message is attached to all data set reconstructions.
This is why I queried Kenneth on his reliance on data that is continually altered as trends derived from such data have an inbuilt compound interest problem.
There is a difference between an honest person and a broker. Zeke is honest, see above.
When it comes to views on the position of AGW he is firmly convinced that it is happening and dangerous and is therefore not
neutral.
He therefore cannot be considered a broker or go between by definition.
TimTheToolMan (Comment #157076)
angech (Comment #157077)
I think we have to separate our thinking on confirmation biases and the effects on the works coming out of climate science. Do I think that in some works of climate science that there is obviously a confirmation bias where the authors tend to report only confirming results? Yes, I do, but that does not mean that I can out of hand reject the works coming out of climate science. Each paper published must stand or fail on its own and the analysis should be based on that proposition. It is also why I have often commented that climate science papers tend to be more incomplete than wrong , i.e. the authors are more interested, like an adversarial lawyer, in reporting only I side of the story or evidence. It is also why I dislike and think is a waste of time these discussions with Steven Mosher that go back and forth with out-of-hand pronouncements and without zeroing in on a single paper or at least area of climate science.
Angech, I use the temperature databases that best serve my analysis purposes and I do not out of hand reject their validity or approximate accuracy. Otherwise I would suppose that a general view of climate science with evidence of confirmation biases would stop anyone critiquing the works of the science from using any data coming out of that science. That would appear to be just what the more protective members of the climate science consensus would want.
The controversy with the Cowtan-Way temperature database would be the infilling method using kriging. It is an accepted method of infilling data but it can have uncertainty errors just like any other infilling method. It is also a means of getting sufficiently long temperature series to better estimate the presence of cyclical components in the series and that was my motivation here. I do not know if you realize that if it were shown that a naturally occurring cyclical component in the global mean temperature series is adding to the recent warming period that is often attributed to anthropogenic GHGs that could change our thinking dramatically on the relationship of anthropogenic forcings and global temperature changes. The 60 to 70 year cycle in the GMST series has been discussed for some time now but has been difficult to show conclusively due to the short observed temperature record and availability of methods for separating cyclical components.
The adjustments that are made to the most current temperatures using the conventional adjustment algorithms can adjust the present or the past as a matter of choice. See Hausfather’s post at Climate Etc. linked below.
https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
By the way the best way to determine the validity of the temperature data bases is with benchmarking with synthetic data where the truth is known. There is a group that has been at this approach in setting up the method for some time that I have linked to below.
http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/
Angech: “This is why I queried Kenneth on his reliance on data that is continually altered as trends derived from such data have an inbuilt compound interest problem.”
.
I am not sure If I am understand the compound interest problem unless you are referring to the Whisper Down the Lane effect. I don’t know if you ever had a teacher in grade school that would start a short story that was whispered from one ear to the next of class members around a circle with the last one comparing what they wrote from what the first person read. Even with honest reporting there is a tendency to neglect what is perceived as unimportant and embellish for emphasis the most important implication. In climate science the story gets changed with each investigators selective contribution and with each reporters selective reporting.
.
This effect is well understood by those in and out of science and is why the skeptics have alarm at the frequency and ease in which historical data is adjusted. Besides the obvious bias of political POV there is a universal bias in feeling superior in understanding than past investigators. For example, it is hard to believe there was never calibrations testing done between SST temperature observation using 4 gal. wooden buckets versus 4 gal canvass versus rubber 2 gal rubber versus engine intakes at depth of 3-10 meters. This could have easily been done in the field or statistically comparing the results of new methods over the first year or two after introduction (fifty or a hundred years ago). For adjustments to occur by Karl or Huang or anyone else in 2015 is ridiculous IMO and dis-serves science.
.
Here is a Steve McIntyre post from seven years ago that demonstrates beautifully what the mindset and daily MO of what went on behind the scenes at NASA when CA pointed out they had screwed up the USHCN and Hansen’s Keystone Cops attempt to fix the problem by ordering the re-adjustment of the entire history only to find out they misunderstood the problem, but then had a moment of panic that they lost the original data to recover back. It’s all from actual FOIA released emails from a suit then by Judicial Watch.
https://climateaudit.org/2010/01/23/nasa-hide-this-after-jim-checks-it/
Thanks for the trip down memory lane, Ron…
There is something disappointing about climate science. Maybe it’s all science (in the blogosphere I don’t really keep track of whatever shenanigans are going on in medical science etc).
Naively I would hope that a real scientist would respond warmly to reports of errors. It’s not about being right: it’s about finding the right answer. Corrections should therefore be welcome. It is depressing to see scientists “doubling down” rather than putting their hands up and offering sincere thanks. Is it simply that they can’t afford (career wise) to make mistakes? I think of Antarctica turned to lava as an example where the authors had a chance to “man up” but didn’t. The hockeystick that wasn’t and then was when it went from Science to Nature or v.v. was crushingly disappointing.
Climate Audit is a wonderful thing. When reading that article about y2k I remembered something else: that skeptic blogs often link to their “enemies” – both CA and this blog link to Realclimate, but Realclimate does not link them back. Instead it links to Hotwhopper and WattsUpWithWattsUp, or whatever it’s called.
Real scientists should link to opposing views. And they should not be wedded to being right.
Angech,
“When it comes to views on the position of AGW he is firmly convinced that it is happening and dangerous and is therefore not neutral.”
I would think that many of the commenters here are firmly convinced that AGW is happening. I’ve never heard Zeke speak on the dangers – have you?
I think Ken will shoot me if I ask Zeke if he is a lukewarmer. 🙂
Ron,
Does it matter if Zeke is a lukewarmer? My view is the important thing is how much one can set aside pre-conceptions to do a fair balanced analysis. I think Zeke appear at least fair at that. Which is the best anyone can really do.
Ken writes
Agreed. And in the case of the Karl paper using buoy data to show that the pause didn’t happen, then the analysis fails on the data itself. From what I can see fully half of the earth’s oceans have no buoy data whatsoever and the other half is sparsely represented.
To conclude a 0.05C SST increase over a short timespan (per decade) from that data is poor science stemming from the need to confirm an expected result rather than finding the truth. IMO.
Ron, I add my thanks for the link as well. It would be funny to read if it the target was not so pathetic.
The climate alarmed do not usually offer any estimate of a best-guess sensitivity value. I would be frankly suprised if Zeke were willing to offer an estimate of sensitivity. People who want public action on GHG emissions want that action quite independent of the actual sensitivity of Earth to GHG forcing. I hope Zeke shows up and offers an ECS estimate, and proves me wrong, but I doubt that will happen.
I was in Hawaii when the DC Court of Appeals decision was released pertaining to Mann v. Steyn. I have real problems with this portion of the opinion: ”
…..
“We are struck by the number, extent, and specificity of the investigations, and by the composition of the investigatory bodies. We believe that a jury would conclude that they may not be dismissed out of hand. Although we do not comment on the weight to be given to the various investigations and reports, which is a question for the jury, what is evident from our review is that they were conducted by credentialed academics and professionals.” p. 85
….
It is really disappointing that a court would take 3 years to make such an uninformed and clearly wrong conclusion. Whether the court is stupid, biased, or simply didn’t take the time to go beyond the superficial conclusions, I don’t know. For various analyses of the whitewash natures of the investigations, see: http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/31/bbc-radio-4-on-climategate/ and Mckitrick summary here: https://www.bing.com/search?q=ross+mckictrick+summary+of+climategate+investigations&pc=MOZI&form=MOZLBR
….
Over time, I am beginning to think that maybe a trial would be a good thing for the public. Mann is such a blowhard that he will almost certainly be a horrible witness. He is obviously a hypocrite in that he call Steve McIntyre’s work “pure scientific fraud.” when it clearly wasn’t. For the public, it is good to see what has gone under the radar become public.
……
On the other hand, in light of the liberality of DC, I don’t discount that there may be a verdict against the defendants. As a lawyer, if Steyn was listening to me, I would tell him that he is taking a big risk by going to trial. As a public citizen, I am more and more welcoming a public trial. Personally, if a large verdict was rendered against Steyn, I would contribute to a fund to pay it off.
JD
Lucia: “Does it matter if Zeke is a lukewarmer? My view is the important thing is how much one can set aside pre-conceptions to do a fair balanced analysis. I think Zeke appear at least fair at that.”
.
Lucia, of course it matters. Peoples interests dictate what they choose to study and many times, if careful blinds are not set up, it affects how they decided to process their results. After investing a year or more into proving something usually one wants to turn out to be right.
.
But my remark was tongue in cheek. I found out recently that lukewarmer doesn’t define very much being so broad, from center consensus to Lindzen. By the way, if Lindzen confirmed Zeke’s work would it matter? I think it would. Why? Because we know it would be something he would confirm only by assignment, not by choice. He would be looking critically.
.
Is Zeke a good guy? Sure. Like Ed Hawkins, he’ll talk to all politely, does not call names, and is professional. I notices no one from BEST makes very political statements except Muller. Maybe it’s a rule or he just has wise employees.
.
JIT, DY, I got a kick out of it too. McIntyre’s Climate Audit has enough material for a movie series.
JD – we talked it over a little in this thread too.
My view continues to be that, for the public’s sake, this one is better won on en banc rehearing in the appellate court (even though Steyn is not part of the appeal)…the precedent that you can go to trial on evidence like this is extremely pernicious, and the implications go far beyond Mann, Steyn, Simberg, and the Stick.
Owen (Comment #157082)
“I would think that many of the commenters here are firmly convinced that AGW is happening.”
That’s a cheap shot, Owen.
I for one, along with virtually everyone else here, are firmly convinced that AGW is happening. Care to quantify that a little, put some meat on the bones, make a real statement about how much AGW everyone here believes in?
–
I’ve never heard Zeke speak on the dangers – have you?”
–
If I find time I will data mine SS, ATTP and Sou where he frequents occasionally [if such a thing is possible] and let you know.
Mind you if he posts at Sou I do not have to find a dangerous comment, Do I ??