Recent Comments

Prev  420  421  422  423  424  425  426  427  428  429  430  431  432  433  434  435  Next

Comments 21351 to 21400:

21351. mancan18 at 11:30 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       I still read Skeptical Science from time to time but not quite as often as I used to. However, after Trump I've come to the conclusion that the Climate Scientists are losing the battle regarding Climate Change. It's quite clear in the world of social media, Climate Science, despite the overwhelming belief of Climate Scientists, is losing out.

       While it is important for Climate Scientists to have venues to discuss their research, and Skeptical Science serves that purpose very well, but it does not serve the purpose of countering Climate Denial very well. In the popular media, Climate Deniers like David Rose are never put under the proper scrutiny of having to justify their position. Having Climate Scientists, just providing more and more information regarding Climate Change is not going to change the mind of Climate Change Deniers who have formed their opinions from the rhetoric of deniers who form their politically based arguments from the cherry picked data of real scientists. In this poltical debate it is too easy to say "climate change is crap" and too involved scientifically to debunk that argument. Perhaps, it is better to debunk who the deniers are instead.

       So how do scientists meaningfully enter into what is essentially a political argument? It is not to overwhelm ordinary people with more information. It is better to ask the right carefully crafted questions for the Deniers to answer, and demand that they answer them properly, or to be reveal to be the scientific frauds they seem to be. Now the basis of questioning should be based on the mathematical idea of proof by contradiction. The proof that root 2 is an irrational number is such a proof. You assume that the scientific premise of the denier is true, and then you question them to show the scientific contradictions in their logic, by using scientific facts that we know to be true. For instance, lets assume that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. What are the logical scientific consequences from such a statement? What are the questions that should be asked of the Denier to show that what they are surmising is not scientifically correct. Another assumption of the denier is that the planet is not warming? What questions does the denier have to answer to explain the observations that indicate that warming is occurring? Let's assume there is a consipracy as the deniers like to imply. What does this mean? What would science be like if it is a consiracy? What questions are needed to indicate that there isn't a conspiracy? Let's assume that CO2 is just a colourless harmless gas? What are the properly  framed scientific questions that need to be answered to indicate that it isn't? What is the denier's explanation for what is being observed? What is the denier's explanation? The deniers needs to be nailed down scientifically and exposed for the superficial scientific agent provocateurs they are. Just more facts aren't going to counter the likes of David Rose, but more properly framed scientific questions that he is required to answer just might. Only Climate Scientists have the knowledge to frame the questions for Deniers. Perhaps some Climate Scientists need to game the deniers like David Rose to create a bank of questions for him based on the scientific contradictions of his stance, so that other scientists and the media can use them to show him up, rather than Climate Scientists just keeping on accumulating more and more evidence that AGW is actually happening. Exposing the Deniers for who they are will be more effective, rather than trying to counter their denial rhetoric in a political debate.

21352. Coal Miner at 10:51 AM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       30 - r

       This video says if we stop adding CO2 today, we'll heat up 1 C.  Says we will be at the 2 C level in 21 years and the video is a couple years old at least, so maybe 19 to go, then...............

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GjrS8QbHmY

21353. nigelj at 10:45 AM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @31, says:

       "Storms, droughts, tornados, heat waves, snow storms, hail, hurricanes, sea surges, etc have occurred forever. We've seen a big drop in hurricanes in the past 10 years. They'll be back - they're not on a bus schedule."

       With respect that is empty, irrelevant rhetoric. Past climate change does not mean we are not causing change now, through fossil fuels. While natural climate cycles clearly affect weather patterns, this tends to be a gentle process over long periods.

       We are causing change, and it is comparatively much more rapid change. The last IPCC report found heatwaves, droughts and heavy rainfall events have already increased significantly, and will increase more.

       Evidence on hurricanes was mixed at the last IPCC report. A drop in numbers over a timeframe of 10 years is meaningless,  as its too short to be statistically significant and you provide no source for that claim. We certainly have evidence of greater hurricane intensity as below.

       www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/hurricane_climate.html

        

       news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080904-warming-hurricanes.html

       There is also evidence in the IPCC reports finding pacific storms have increased. This debate cannot all be about climate risks for America.

       I can appreciate coal miners would have some understandable grounds to be sceptical, but times move on. I have had to learn new stuff in my career as the economy has changed. New jobs will replace old jobs.

       "Today, the debt is much larger around the world so we're still vulnerable. We cannot switch energy sources "today"."

       Well nobody is saying we have to adopt billions of alternative energy "today" so that is an emotive strawman argument.

       We do have global debt, but changing to alternative energy has dropped dramatically in price recently. Wind power is now the same cost as coal power (without subsidies) and solar power is very close, from Forbes who are a business magazine, so could not be accsued of bias towards warmists.

       So the costs of switching to renewable energy are not some huge burden or debt generator. You need to appreciate at the very least old power stations inevitably have to be replaced as they wear out.

       There are also other ways of funding things, like taxes and levies, on the appropriate people or organisations, fairly determined, or innovative forms of infrastructure bonds, that are better than traditional debt instruments.

21354. Coal Miner at 10:16 AM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       32 - nI'd like to see the answer to Richard's question also. It's important because if, as you say, 2 is important, then we need to know:a) why 2 is important (what happens at 2?)b) as R asked, how much dT will we get if everything is held as it is now. c) has anyone calculated how much CO2 could reasonably be taken from the atmosphere using latest technologies?
21355. nigelj at 10:06 AM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Regarding the comment posted above by "Richard"

       "3. To set a lower boundary on the problem, let’s say that ALL new human-produced CO2 and methane added to the atmosphere is reduced to ZERO starting tomorrow. Using current models, what is then the predicted change in average global temperature in 2100?"

       Who would know, and who would even care. And we don't need a lower boundary.  We are not going to stop using "all" fossil fuels by tomorrow, for obvious reasons.

       What is important is keeping climate change under 2 degrees, so reducing carbon emissions accordingly, or failing that making the largest reductions possible. The Paris agreement and other material easily googled outlines the depth of cuts required.

       I have seen the comment by Richard before on other websites. It's internet trolling, in my opinion, as it's been answered before.

21356. Jim Hunt at 09:30 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Paul @9 - Precisely so! Hence the recent extension of our ongoing research project south of the Arctic Circle:

       https://www.researchgate.net/project/Alternative-Facts-in-the-Arctic

       Be warned that that the main project methodology is listed as "Irony". You have to laugh, or you wouldn't be able to stop crying?

21357. enlightenPub at 09:12 AM on 9 February 2017
       It's Urban Heat Island effect
       

       Is it true also that met stations which measure temperatures in rural areas have significantly reduced over the last decade all over the world? if so wouldnt this signify that the results are distorted?

       Also the amount of rainfall across Australia increased from 1900 to 2000, however the rain may have fallen across different areas of land that expected by farmers. Does global warming take into account that rain doesnt always fall in the same location. 

       Has anyone setup a way to directly measure the reduction of the ozone layer from gases that can reach that high in the atmosphere and also directly measure how much heat from the sun the layer actually allows through. If direct measurement is accomplished and demonstrated this might be considered scientific evidence, before that time its always going to be a myth or an assumption to a portion of humanity. Kind of like a Ponzi scheme to many people I think. I have an interest in all of this as Im a studying university student

21358. Coal Miner at 08:48 AM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       29 michael

       I don't see your previous comment.  My answer may have provided a link to economic data that was deemed unacceptable and deleted.

       Storms, droughts, tornados, heat waves, snow storms, hail, hurricanes, sea surges, etc have occurred forever.  We've seen a big drop in hurricanes in the past 10 years.  They'll be back - they're not on a bus schedule.

       The economy of the US and the world is fragile now.  It nearly went down in 2008.  Today, the debt is much larger around the world so we're still vulnerable.  We cannot switch energy sources "today".  This will be a huge undertaking and will still require FF to provide 24/7/365 reliability.  Technology isn't available to do it all without FF - and I'm only talking electrical power generation.  We're far from being able to run our agricultural and transportation industries on renewables.  But let's keep working on it.

       We can help ourselves and the planet only if we are wealthy.  If we are poor we will only be concerned about where the next meal comes from.  Thus, let's fix the economy before getting too worked up about AGW. 

21359. nigelj at 07:12 AM on 9 February 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Thank's for an excellent point by point rebuttal of Meyers badly informed ranting.

       His style of rhetoric reminds me of "Sophistry". This was practiced by the ancient greek Sophists,and plenty of people today, including by my observation lawyers, politicians, lobby groups, and business people. Sophistry uses rhetoric that is superficially appealing, but is devoid of genuine logic, balance or content. It is full of strawman arguments, logical fallacies (those deceptive arguments with long latin names)

       But Meyers must also know many of his claims are at odds with the science. For example he must have read that the vast majority in the science community strongly believes on the weight of evidence that climate sensitivity is medium to high, and positive feedbacks outweigh negative feedbacks.

       So the question is really why is he choosing to ignore this? On what basis would he put his trust in a few of the more fringe scientists, that have contrary views, or non science based political websites? I can only draw the conclusion he put's his vested interests, or political leanings, above the peer reviewed mainstream science and what the vast majority of this says. On that basis we cannot take anything he says on the science seriously.

       Meyers says "So this is the real problem at the heart of the climate debate — the two sides are debating different propositions! In our chart, proponents of global warming action are vigorously defending the propositions on the left side, propositions with which serious skeptics generally already agree. When skeptics raise issues about climate models, natural sources of warming, and climate feedbacks, advocates of global warming action run back to the left side of the chart and respond that the world is warming and greenhouse gas theory is correct. At best, this is a function of the laziness and scientific illiteracy of the media that allows folks to talk past one another; at worst, it is a purposeful bait-and-switch to avoid debate on the tough issues."

       Well the two sides are not debating different propositions. That is another starwman argument. Clearly when sceptics claim climate sensitivity is low, to take one example, climate scientists do not run away and simply say global warming is correct. Climate scientists quite specifically argue why the weight of evidence shows climate sensitivity is considered to be medium to high.

       By the way temperatures over the last three years have destroyed the basis of the low climate sensitivity claims, as these were founded on belief in a large pause after 1998. One look at any of the many latest temperature data sets shows a weak, feeble sort of pause at best.

       And of course advocates of global warming will respond about the general strength of the global warming theory. The science is on their side, and it's their job to stick up for the science. Myers tries in his futile way to make it sound like some crime!

       However I do think the media are letting people talk past each other. Is it a purposeful bait and switch? Yes to some extent.

       So how does this work. The media are certainly turning the thing into a sport to entertain, and we see click bait article titles for the readers. Granted it's fair to say media have to get peoples attention, but click bait is becoming too extreme, in my opinion, and in many cases titles to articles are blatantly false, emotive or misleading and of course people sometimes only read the titles. And click bait and other empty rhetoric is filtering into articles themselves as well, and this is when click bait starts to seriously degrade articles.

       And we have the false news issues and alternative facts. Just what climate science doesn't need.

       And all we get are articles written by warmists and sceptics played off against each other. We have very few articles where the media evaluate the science in a responsible way, and ask the tough questions, and of both warmists and sceptics. But I think the media needs to look much harder at sceptical claims in this respect, as it is now well established that most of these have been provably deceitful or nonsense, or proven wrong when officially investigated (eg climate gate), so on that basis the media need to be putting them under far greater scrutiny.

       The media are in many ways perpetuating a false debate just to get readers.

       The media are either lazy, or captive to certain business orientated lobby groups, or both. Not all media are this way, and some media possibly favour environmentalism, but in my experience the majority of media are tilting towards corporate interests.

       And we are tired of false balance. Most climate scientists say we are warming the planet, (for example studies by Cooke, Doran, and several other studies of late) yet equal column space is often given to a few dissenting eccentrics, funded by groups with vested interests, and writing obviously deliberately provocative nonsense, that often has more to do with promoting some sceptics book.

       But regardless of media communications issues, Myers is clearly shown to be completely wrong about the science.

21360. Richard13791 at 06:23 AM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       For One Planet Only Forever:

       You may be able to answer my questions here:

       
       Here are some observations from the current literature, as I understand them, and questions::

       1. Average global temperatures are predicted to rise by 2100 by from 1.1 to 5.4 deg C. (Is this accurate?)

       2. Once CO2 gets into the atmosphere most of it stays there for a very long time (perhaps centuries), and presumably continues to contribute to rising temperatures while it is there.

       3. To set a lower boundary on the problem, let’s say that ALL new human-produced CO2 and methane added to the atmosphere is reduced to ZERO starting tomorrow. Using current models, what is then the predicted change in average global temperature in 2100?

       4. Are my statements/assumptions accurate?

       5. Has anyone run the simulation I describe in (3)?

21361. nigelj at 05:27 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Uncletimrob @2, yes journalism has become very poor quality, especially on science. People say it's because print media have had cutbacks in staff due to competition form the internet, but that is no real excuse. It's often just laziness.

       Here is a hint for journalists. If anybody is making a remotely controversial claim, even if it's a qualified sceptical climate scientist like Pielke or Singer etc, check it out in minute detail. You will find there are virtually always flaws in what they say, and strong published science refuting them, but you have to track it down. I have done this a few times out of personal interest. Start with some proper detective work, it's what you are paid for, and supposed to aspire to. Get some ideals!

21362. Paul D at 05:23 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Mail On Sunday - Alternative Facts!

21363. nigelj at 05:19 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       MA Rodger @3

       Yes it seems pretty obvious from your document that the process was indeed not rushed. Other articles I have read said the same, which is why I said there was no proof anything was rushed.

       I really didn't have much time to comment. I just wanted to post a connected article which seemed interesting, and make a brief comment on what I generally thought.

       I have been following the climate debate for 20 years, just as a casual observer, and seen hundredss of attacks on the science and hundreds of sceptical claims. Every one has turned out to be deceitful, or nonsense, or worse. Right now I believe nothing scpetics say, even if they have some documents, until I see an independent, high quaility investigation. Needless to say all those have turned up nothing as well, eg Climategate. This NOAA issue is yet another beat up. There is nothing there that warrents any investigation.

       It's time some of these sceptical bodies were sued for harassment  or the like.

21364. Jim Hunt at 05:03 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Factotum @5 - Ever heard of IPSO? We're on the case!
       
       http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#comment-217736

       Scroll down the comments a bit for the "libel" discussion too:
       
       So, let’s just sit this one out and see who takes legal action.

21365. Jim Hunt at 04:58 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Al @3 - "As far as the timing of all this, the timeline of publication is being utterly ignored by the denialists."
       
       Something that's also been utterly ignored by the likes of Dana Rohrabacher & Lamar Smith is the "pre-bunking" of ex Prof. Judy's "shock news" by my very good friend "Snow White". Reproducing her news release at Climate Etc. yesterday:

       Speaking from their Ivory Towers near the North Pole, Great White Con spokesperson Snow White announced by the light of the silvery moon:

       We are extremely proud to have been selected as Feedspot’s 21st best Global Warming blog on the web. Whilst it’s galling to be below WUWT we’re well ahead of the GWPF and Climate Etc. is nowhere to be seen.

       By way of celebration we have some Shock News to impart!

       http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/beta-testing-snow-whites-alternate-fact-detector/

       We flipped the switch on the first beta test version of Snow White’s Alternative Facts Wetware™ (AFW™ for short) AF detection subsystem early on Saturday morning (UTC). We were astonished when the needle literally flew past the end stops later that morning. Initially we suspected a bug must have sneaked in via one of Snow’s unprotected ear canals. However when she rather reluctantly ran her exhaustive diagnostic routines they revealed that her mission was in actual fact absolutely nominal.

       What happened next therefore came as no surprise whatsoever!

       
       Surreal? Moi?

21366. factotum at 04:39 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       My understanding is that it is relatively easy to sue for liable and slander in the UK  http://kellywarnerlaw.com/uk-defamation-laws/

       Perhaps such a suit would bring Dr. Karl to heel.   And consider that the Queens husband is very much a green person :-)

       https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/29/prince-charles-climate-change-trump-visit-britain

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Off-topic remark snipped.

       Please take the time to review the SkS Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding in this matter.

21367. ELIofVA at 00:35 AM on 9 February 2017
       A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
       

       Coal Miner @ 21

       Yes, individuals should take many of the steps you suggest when we recognize that the build up of co2 in the atmosphere is the source of the warming.  It is sometimes hypocritical for AGW believers to take international flights.  Moderator, I thinks these are valid points.  As individuals, if we do that, it is largely symbolic when others AGW believers or not are greatly over emitting co2 that can be sequestered out.  I see this as an emergency that would justify for all the steps you have suggested for only AGW believers.  Using the figures from 2007 for annual carbon cycle, if we divide the net natural sequestration by world population, if each individual emitted 2.57 tons, that would match what nature can sequester, and we would stop adding co2 to the atmosphere.  This achieves net zero carbon emissions (all co2 in the carbon cycle).  I am personally striving for that standard as an ethical statement.  However, until this goal is recognized by popular culture, there is not chance of achieving it.  The steps you describe can not be limited to the extreme AGW believers.  When the limit of the carbon cycle is recognized, we can construct the support to help us all achieve the appropriate footprint.  It is the only way to avoid or reduce the disaster that our descendents will have to deal with.  

21368. JWRebel at 21:56 PM on 8 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       There is a real problem here: This is being touted as ClimateGate2 and there are calls on all sorts of platforms not only to fire but to jail the people involved. The denialists act as though they have demonstrated a proven pattern of dishonesty, tampering, and fraud with regards to the data. This article has made a big splash.

       In fact, what controversy there is, is not about the data, but about strict compliance with very technical methodologies about record keeping and storage, where John Bates feels others have not paid full homage to his proposals since being retired. Even if that is 100% true, even he does not articulate any doubts about the truth and reliability of the data and the arguments in the article.

       Rose is a master manipulator, a sophist in the worst sense of the word, he has sold his soul to the devil and willingly serves evil.

21369. michael sweet at 20:51 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner,

       You have not answered my question.  Why are you so concerned about possible damage to the economy caused by actions to control AGW when you are completely unconcerned about damage caused by AGW?  Analysis by economists conclusively show that more damage will result from business as usual than caused by any suggested changes to limit warming.

       Already we see billions of dollars to the economy every year in the US alone from AGW.  Miami and Miami Beach are spending hundreds of millions in a futile effort to hold back the sea.  California suffered billions in losses from the drought.  How much damage are you willing to accept before  you decide to take action?  Keep in mind that once CO2 is released it cannot be captured back again.

       In the end oil will run out no matter what we do.  Then we will have to switch to renewable energy.  Why not switch now and reduce suffering from AGW?

       Scientists know exactly which quantum shifts cause warming.  It generally is the bending vibrations in the CO2 molecule (and other multi atom molecules, diatomic molecules do not have this type of bend).  Very few people care about those details so they are not widely discussed.  If you want the details ask and SkS posters can explain it to you.

21370. MA Rodger at 19:32 PM on 8 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       nigelj @1.

       As far as the timing of all this, the timeline of publication is being utterly ignored by the denialists. This is suggestive of a non-story (or in modern-speak fake news).

       Karl et al 2015 was submitted for publication in  December 2014. The publication process contains no controversy (according to the magazine editor) who tweeted this image - Roz Pidcock ‏@RozPidcock Feb 6 - Editor-In-Chief of @sciencemagazine @jeremymberg just sent me this re Mail on Sunday article. Yellow is full response to @DavidRoseUK

       

       If you then ignore all the blather from John Bates about events post-submission, I don't think there is anything of significance left of his kiss-and-tell story.

       As far as the David Rose story is concerned, Judith Curry who as ever plays the role of climate expert in Rose's story actually dismisses Rose's story as "verbage" and defends John Bates's allegations directly, but not very convincingly.

       The only substance is from Curry herself who is firstly trying to make a mountain out of the difference between ERSSTv4 and ERSSTv5. We will have to await sight of a paper by Huang et al submitted for publication in November ( a draft version of which Curry says she is quoting from) to get any further on that front. She is also trying to make an issue of the adjustment of the buoy and ship SST measurements in Karl et al (2015), again citing the Huang et al draft paper. This is the question Does it make any difference if you calibrate the ship data against the buoy data or if you calibarate the buoy data against the ship? Curry is saying that according to the paper, it does.

21371. uncletimrob at 19:27 PM on 8 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       @1 nigelj Agreed, there are occasions when publications are "rushed", but the checks and balances of the scientific community make short work of those that are demontrably bad science. 

       What worries me most about this article is the blatant dishonesty of Rose. He must have known that his claims were false, and if he did not, then his journalism is sloppy at best.

       At the risk of making a political statement, unfortunately there are people making significant decisions about our futures, who are reading and accepting the writings of people like Rose, without bothering to track down the facts.

21372. nigelj at 18:20 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @26,

       The mythbusters experiment was only ever a quick experiment to demonstrate the general principle. Neither it or myself ever claimed it would replicate conditions of planet earth precisely, and I don't see that it could. 

       That is the issue. We are really mostly reliant on laboratory tests on how much heat CO2 absorbs. We also have paleo climate data on past CO2 concentrations versus temperatures. The combination of the two gives two lines of evidence, as far as I can see, which is very persuasive. 

       I also can't see anything wrong with what TC is saying, and he has obvious expertise. Unless you have in depth knowledge, and the time to aquire this, you have to trust the experts. And it takes a lot of time. You might have that knowledge, but most people never will have.

       Trump sure doesn't, and is too busy 'tweeting' anyway.

21373. Tom Curtis at 17:04 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @25, the atmosphere does indeed have a larger mass, and hence a larger heat capacity.  It does not, however, have a very much larger mass per exposed surface area (m^2).  Larger, but not very much larger.  Further, given a constant heat source, heat capacity controlls the time it takes to reach the equilibrium temperature, but not what the equilibrium temperature is.  Consequently the greater heat capacity means it will take longer to reach equilibrium, not that the equilibrium temperature will represent a substantial increase.

       As an aside, I do not think the myth buster experiment is "a correctly modeled experiment".  I am pointing out that your conclusions from it (low climate sensitivity) are specious, and based on noting one salient factors while neglecting other equally salient factors.

21374. Coal Miner at 16:43 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       And of course before running the experiment in the video, you'd have to run it with air in all boxes to prove they were the same, etc.

21375. Coal Miner at 16:42 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       22 - Tom

       Except the real atmosphere would have a larger mass and similar input energy would give no detectable rise in temperature.  You might be able to devise a correctly modeled experiment, but that was not it.

21376. Coal Miner at 16:37 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       23 - Rob

       In the video I watched again and you can see the gas man's monitoring panel reading about 7.35% CO2.  That was a digital reading.  So, unless that part of the video is wrong, the the commenter is correct.  There were other comments on other topics that may be valid objections also.

21377. Rob Honeycutt at 16:11 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       CM @21...  I'm curious how you determined that the commenter was correct regarding the 73,000ppm figure?

21378. Tom Curtis at 14:39 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @21, allow a CO2 concentration of 73,000 ppmv, or about 260 times the preindustrial average.  We must also allow that the compartments were at most 2 meters deep.  It follows that the comparments had the same absorption capability of about 520 meters of atmospheric CO2 at sea level.  That's just half a kilometer, when the troposphere is 10 kilometers in depth (albeit with diminishing pressure).  The obvious conclusion should be that the compartments had much less capacity to trap heat relative to the atmosphere, despite the higher CO2 concentration.

21379. Coal Miner at 13:12 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       20 - I had seen that video but I watched it again.  I think it is well established that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  The question is - and it is a very legitimate one and is the crux to many "deniers" - how much difference would it make to go from say 400 to 450 or 500 ppm? I could not tell what the CO2 concentration used was, but I scrolled down to a comment by "Realist" and the CO2 concentration in the video was over 73,000 ppm.  Thus, as realist indicates, it gives great evidence that CO2 levels near 400 ppm are not a problem.  

21380. nigelj at 09:14 AM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coalminer, one other thing. The following is a "Mythbusters video" demonstrating  carbon dioxide increasing temperatures in an experiment. Regardless of why it increases temperatures, we know with absolute certainty it does increase temperatures. (Or 99.999% certainty given ultimate proofs are not technically possible in science)

       www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

21381. nigelj at 07:05 AM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @17

       You say you want to understand climate science, very thoroughly, before making a decision on whether we are warming the climate or commiting to carbon taxes etc, etc.

       Well fair enough in general terms. We should all examine the basics of the greenhouse effect. 

       But the science is extremely complicated. Nobody can "fully" understand the science unless they have advanced maths and physics degrees. It's totally unrealistic to expect people to have this. I have a generally broad education at university level, including some maths, but a text on quantum mechanics is out of my league. In fact many climate scientists themselves would not know the fine detail about how C02 absorbs heat, as it's a specialist area.

       In the end people are better to simply look at the basics and claims from both sides of the argument. It also has to be said the overwhelming majority of climate scientsis say we have a problem. There are numerous polls on this from Cooke, Doran etc as below.

       LINK

       We aren't reliant on just one poll or survey. Theres nothing more we can do in terms of surveying expert views. If you don't peronally have advanced maths or physics, you have to respect the end  who do.

       I broadly agree with your big list of recommendations on how to tackle climate change in your other post.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Shortened link.

21382. nigelj at 06:40 AM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @16

       Yes I think Americas economy is doing reasonably OK overall. Remember I said America's economy was doing OK. I didn't say it was doing fantastically! And I really do hope things work out well for America under Trump or any future president.

       But facts are facts. GDP growth has averaged 2% per year recently and this is reasonably ok. Unemployment has dropped a lot from 2010 regardless of how you measure it. The latest numbers also show wages are finally starting to rise. The data on this is available on financial database websites like Tradingeconomics.com if you want the detail. Given things have been improving during the Obama period, it seems unwise for some totally opposite approach.

       Foodstamps have been around before the financial crash. Partly it applies to all sorts of different people on welfare, not just the unemployed.

       Food stamps do also prop up the incomes of very low wage people. I agree low wages are a problem, but fixing this is really difficult. Protectionist trade may push up some wages at the lower end, but it will also push up prices. So it could all cancel out. 

       My country had tariffs in the 1970's and it did keep some wages up, but ended up causing huge inflation in all sorts of goods. We abandoned tariffs for free trade and would be very unlikely to go back. Granted America is a differenet country, but I remain a bit sceptical about protectionism. It possibly had a place in the past more than todays world.

       I think it's better to assist low wage people with income support, retraining grants, things like that. I suppose it's a bit socialist, but to me it's pragmatic and justified.

       But I do think trumps corporate tax break policies make some sense, as they are internal to America.

       America does have high government (public debt) as below. 

       LINK

       As you can see from the graph, much of this comes from the Reagon years, GW Bush, and Obama. The current level is considered high by economists, but not catastrophically so. In defence of Obama, he was faced with a huge financial crash and reduced tax take, and borrowed to avoid the sort of cost cutting that would have made the crash worse. I think that was the right move.

       But nobody wants a lot of debt. Donald Trump wants to cut taxes and increase spending, but this risks a further increase in debt, just exactly as happened under Reagon, if you look at the graph in the link. Not that Reagon was a bad guy, but he did increase debt.

       Bringing back coal does not seem like good climate policy, and nor does it make much economic sense. Trump needs to slow down. He has some valid criticisms of various things, but the solutions are really just not as simplistic as he thinks.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Shortened link.

21383. nigelj at 06:07 AM on 8 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       The following article discusses this NOAA temperature adjustment issue. It is very illuminating, and is from Carbon Brief, and is commentary by a scientist from Berkely Earth who are apparently one of the agencies who verified NOAAs work and reached essentially the same conclusions as NOAA by analysing the raw data in their own way. The article also has a discussion of this issue around buoys and ship intakes.

       www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

       I suppose it's possible (but as yet entirely unproven) that NOAA hurried publication, but the fact that their results have been verified by several other parties is the more important thing in my opinion. 

21384. Coal Miner at 06:06 AM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       2

       Suggestions on how to communicate.  I'd tell the truth.  That usually works, right?  If you don't really understand the quantum physics behind AGW, say I don't understand it myself, but I believe the scientists so I support.......whatever it is you support.

       That's what I try to do.  I say: I am struggling to understand the physics, still investigating, and I think AGW may be real, but I'm not sure and I'm not willing to sign on to huge tax plans, or other major distruptions to the economy until I understand the science.  I do recommend everyone who wants to should do what they can as individuals to reduce FF use, etc, and I think that if all believers did so, it would make a difference.   I think coming up with a 24/7/365 reliable electric grid using only renewables will not happen quickly or cheaply and we will be using FF as backup for quite a long time until better technology comes along.  I say, I think nations that are wealthy can help the world better than poor nations so I'd like to see the US become more prosperous so we can do that - Bill Gates helps more folks than the average man on the street - works the same with countries.

21385. Coal Miner at 05:52 AM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       6 - nigelj

       Are you sure the econonmy is OK?  What do you think the economy would look like if the government had not added 10 trillion to the debt over the past 8 years?  Currently there are ~40+ million on food stamps.  Trump may add even more debt than O did - time will tell and that's not what we want.  One reason some folks voted for T because they don't want to keep adding to the debt - many of them even believe in AGW, but think we need to get our fiscal house in order before we try to save the world. 

21386. Coal Miner at 05:34 AM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Given the reality on the ground: Trump is the president and may not be as friendly to AGW as many would like,  which of the following 4 cases would be the better option from a climate perspective?

       CASE 1 

       All Americans who believe in AGW (say 50% of us) elect voluntarily to do the following:

       a) If you have the money choose to drive a hybrid or electric car; and use public transport or bike/walk when possible

       b) Install PV panels + solar hot water panels at their home (apartment dwellers would be limited in what they can do)

       c) Turn down the t-stat in winter and up in summer

       d) Plant a tree or 2 in the yard to capture some carbon. And mow the grass with a manual non-motorized mower.

       CASE 2

       Spend 4 to 8 years complaining about the current president policies and continue with current FF lifestyles.

       CASE 3

       Get a national carbon tax or similar system which say raises fuel prices for transportation and heating with a resulting say 5-10% decrease in FF usage.  

       CASE 4

       Get your state to enact really aggressive AGW policies whether the US as a whole does it or not.  They might pass a big tax to pay for solar and wind farms, provide electric car subsidies, subsidies for installing heat pumps and other efficient technologies, subsidies for solar water heating for domestic water and for space heating, etc.....

21387. william5331 at 04:25 AM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Even with Bernie as president and a majority in both houses, it is questionable if he could have reversed the direction we are going fast enough to avoid sudden climate change.  At least we would have had a chance or at least some hope.  Under Trump our only chance is that, like an innoculation which causes the body to fight back, he will cause such a reaction that we will do much more to mitigate climate change.  Not much of a hope, I admit.  Perhaps the law of unexpected consequenses will work in our favor for a change but don't hold your breath.

21388. blatz at 01:59 AM on 8 February 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       Tom Curtis and nigelj,  thanks to both of you.  I think I have a response to my denier friend.

       I agree NOAA needs to be more clear with how they present the data.  The smallest bit of doubt results in amatuer criticism like this and before we know it, it's on Fox News.

21389. chriskoz at 20:15 PM on 7 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       The term "Obamacare" in the caption looks misplaced because the article does not talk about Obamacare at all. It just mentions than by conceiving the two anti-EPA initiatives, REPs are endangering the Health of the nation by degrading the environment. That that has nothing to do with Obamacare per se.

       Or maybe REPs did also prepare the initiative to repeal of Obamacare, that Dana wanted to talk about but forgot? The last rumours I've heard about it is: during the transition period, T-man somewhat softened his previous stance and said that Obamacare has some good aspect and that he will keep them.

21390. nigelj at 14:38 PM on 7 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       One Planet Only Forever @ 12

       One other point. You are right globalisation has sort of gone off the rails, in the sense everyone is pushed down to the lowest common denominator of standards, including in western economies as well as your quoted countries. Western countries need to push for political parties that maintain decent rules on employment conditions etc. But that's up to the voters to use some sense.

       It's the same with climate change regulations and other mitigation methods. Theres a risk globalisation could push that well down the agenda from an economic viewpoint, as the corporate sector wins the debate over "deregulation" for price efficiency. We have to fight this.

       Of course regardless of globalisation, the same thing is now happening within a more isolationist America, sadly to say.

21391. nigelj at 14:31 PM on 7 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       One Planet Only Forever @12

       Globalisation, in the sense of free trade, has actually caused some job losses and general related poverty problems in America. Thats basic economics. The Economist.com calculate 30% of job losses in manufacturing in America come from free trade, 70% from automation. 

       That's not to say globalisation or free trade are bad things. They are good things, and must be maintained, but more should be done to assist people hurt, like with government retraining or income support. Or maybe a universal basic income (I'm still undecided about this, just mentioning it).

       Both Democrats and Republicans ingnored that free trade has had some downsides and they did nothing. This is why Trump gained traction!

       I agree there are also other reasons for job losses, and related poverty issues, and you summarise these well.

       Another example is coal isn't coming back. Fracking gas has made coal uneconomic regardless of climate issues. Whats Trump going to do about that? He has to face reality.

       The solution to coal is to help workers with retraining etc. But the Republicans resent this sort of state assistance. The result is a total disaster and crazy returns to protectionist trade.

21392. One Planet Only Forever at 13:40 PM on 7 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       nigelj@5,

       I agree that some people in the USA and the rest of the world have "been left behind".  I disgree with the claim that globalization caused many of the people in the USA who feel "Left Behind" to be in the situation they are in today.

       I blame the development of unsustainable perceptions of prosperity and opportunity for the circumstances that many have ended up in. And I would add that poverty and inequity existed in the USA before globalization. I also say it because of what has just happened in Alberta.

       The surge of activity to expand the rate of extraction of the gooey stuff from the sands of Northern Alberta should have been understood to have no future, to be a chase for benefit that was understandably unacceptable and would have to end sooner than the games of popularity and profitability would end it.

       The anger and frustration many in Alberta now express is due to the development of delusions of prosperity and opportunity. They were getting away with it and are angry that others are actually explaining why they should no longer be able to get away with it.

       It is a developed perception problem. And it will not be solved by trying to return to continuing the unsustainable unacceptable activity. That will just develop more damaging delusions.

       Globalization has generally been a global benefit. However, some people have abused it, producing damaging results for many other people in developed, developing, and "left behind" nations like Haiti.

       The shift of work to locations where people can truly live decently at lower cost and produce the same results at lower cost is a great idea. But that is not the way that globalization has developed.

       The result has been a failure to ensure that higher standards were pursued and maintained globally. The Winners were the ones who got away with things like: less acceptable treatment of workers, lower standards for quality control, and lower standards for environmental protection, or lower costs for what they bought because of all the above.

       In fact, today there is more pressure to reduce the standards for treatment of workers, quality control, and protection of the environment even in the so called advanced nations.

       Instead of stepping up the game globally, competition to be better, there is intense competitive pressure to knock down higher Standards by making them compete against lower standards that are allowed in other "percieved to be advanced or advancing" nations. That is a downward spiral of standards and ways of living that has no future, in spite of the popularity of the lower costs and higher short-term profitability (or the unsustainable perceptions of reduction of poverty in the nations where less accaptable activity is being gotten away with).

       Solving such a problem requires the admission that it exists. Then a variety of solutions can actually be developed, like requiring every nation to provide all of the requirements of a basic decent life to all of their citizens who may be "left behind" by the socio-economic-political games that are being played, and the expectation that the more fortunate "Earthlings" will thoughtfully change their actions and their interactions with the less fortunate in ways that make truly lasting better lives for the least fortunate, reducing what nations have to provide for the Left Behinders (those who do not really get to benefit from the games people play on this amazing planet, including those who are fooled into damaging unsustainable delusions of being among the ones who will benefit from a Change).

21393. Haze at 12:57 PM on 7 February 2017
       Global warming hiatus claims prebunked in 1980s and 1990s
       

       @18 There is a saying "that lies are round the world before truth is even out of bed"  The current publicity on the Dr Bates' comments exemplifies what that saying means.  Yesterday the Australian published a piece, written by Matt Ridley and first published in the UK Times.  The number of people reading that piece both here and in the UK plus those reading the piece by David Rose in the deplorable  Daily Mail headlined "Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data", far, far  exceeds the number that will read the denuciations to which you refer.  In consequence these pieces will have far, far more effect on the general public's view of the validity of climate science and the credibility of climate scientists

21394. nigelj at 12:07 PM on 7 February 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       Blatz @12, my apologies.  I miss read that map. My colour vision is not the greatest at the best of times,  and I missed that note.

       However  like I said in my early post above, NOAA are confusing in how they depict data, and you are better to look at the NASA website. Also look at this website as it gives an indication of where weather stations in Africa are located, and no other data to confuse things.

       tahmo.org/african-climate-data/

21395. Tom Curtis at 10:48 AM on 7 February 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
       

       blatz @10 and @12, I have to disagree with nigelj, the grey shaded rectangles do represent no data (as distinct from the white shaded data, which represent "near average" temperature percentiles.  That the grey shaded rectangles represent no data is clearly stated on the lower right hand side of the graph:

       

       What Tony Heller purports to show is a contradiction between NOAA's map anomaly temperature for Dec 2016 (shown above), and NOAA's map of temperature percentiles:

       

       The only problem is that the map the anomaly shows almost no data in Africa.  In contrast the Land/Ocean version of the anomaly map does:

       

        

        (All maps source from NOAA.)

       Neither anomaly map accurately shows the data actually available.  If you go to the GISS temperature analysis, and use the same month (Dec 2016), anomaly period (1981-2010), and the 250 km smoothing radius, it will show data over land only within 250 km of a reporting station.  If you do you will see that there is reported data for South Africa, Zimbabwe and Zambia in the south, and for most of West Africa and East Africa north of the equator, but not for Libya.  Tony Heller's map excludes all of that Southern African, and most of the Eastern African, north of the equator, data.  The current NOAA map, on the other hand, shows data over far more areas than that, but that is because the land temperatures shown are based on a smoothed product, which deliberately fills in areas having no data using data from nearby sites (and averages across areas with data).  In doing this, they use land data over land only.

       Further, in the land only anomaly (unsmoothed version), they exclude data which do not have data from sufficient fields around them.

       There method for doing this has been publicly available for over 10 years.

       Finally, the hot temperatures shown over south, eastern Africa in the Land/Ocean anomaly map (in contradiction to UAH) are probably an artifact of the method.  GISS, which smooths the same data using a different algorithm shows temperatures near the 1981-2010 anomaly value over that period, ie, agrees with UAH.  That does not mean their global anomaly is out, however, as it is calculated from the unsmoothed data (as I understand it). 

21396. nigelj at 10:06 AM on 7 February 2017
       A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
       

       Michael Sweet @ 20,

       I think you make quite a good point that we have some costs now in mitigating climate change, but truly vast and ongoing costs in the future if we do nothing. It intrigues me why people can't see that, or don't want to see that. I will get to this below.

       In fact climate change denial fascinates me. I'm not going to get into my educational background because that doesn't prove anything I say is correct, but I did do psychology at university in addition to more technical and a few papers in earth science subjects, hence the interest in the climate denial issue, and why and how people react.

       In my view there are a variety of reasons for climate denial from people with vested interests, people with ideological concerns about the role of government, etc.

       We also have evidence the human brain does not normally prioritise more distant future issues. This is possibly why some people can't grasp the issue. This concern about the future does vary from person to person. This partly explains why some people don't compute what you are saying in your post. However we have to encourage people to think more about the future of humanity and impacts on people over extended time periods.

       And GW Bush may have got one thing right. He said "we are addicted to oil" and this probably has more psychological power than we realise. However I have decided to buy an electric car.

21397. nigelj at 09:39 AM on 7 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       "The term ‘air pollutant’ does not include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride."

       This just makes my blood boil, and is such retrograde, reactionary, badly informed decision making. Quite apart from the climate issue,which is bad enough, cars emit nitrous oxides that are hazardous to health. Are we to now give up on trying to improve that situation as well?

       Regulations might in some cases have short term costs on business, but they have long term benefits for humanity that count for more which relate to health, quality of life etc. Of course regulations should be carefully considered on scientific evidence of whether risks are significant, but that's what Obama tried to do. Trump is throwing scientific evidence out of the door, and "trusting his gut". Well that is unlikely to end well.

       Regulations also arguably stimulate innovation. The automobile industry is an obvious example.

       Many Americans, with respect, are often such hypocrites. They preach about their constitution, and how special America is, and it's rights to free speech". Where are Republicans now that Trump is trampling over the free speech of the EPA, and other government bodies? 

21398. nigelj at 09:19 AM on 7 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @3, short term trends are indeed of little value. But we have had approximately a 45 year warming trend. This is not short term. Climate science recognises that 30 years is the important time frame to determine whether we have a sufficient trend.

       Any trend under 30 years could be generated by quite significant natural cycles, as these opeate on 5- 30 year cycles, but once you get over 30 years there are no known natural cycles of such length that have anything like enough power to change the climate by orders of several degrees. There is plenty of research on this.

       Just for once understand scientists are not stupid, and the very first thing they explored in regards to climate change was possible natural causes, and you can get much of this in the IPCC reports. Natural causes for the warming since the 1970s have been ruled out by very smart people, who have investigated this in considerable depth. This website has plenty of related articles.

21399. One Planet Only Forever at 09:14 AM on 7 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       uncletimrob,

       I have been fairly successful if I start by saying that I want to be sure we (me and whoever I am trying to change the mind of regarding climate change and global warming), have a common basis for the discussion.

       1. Then I ask what they know about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Based on how they answer I work to ensure there is an agreement of understanding about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
       2. I follow that with a question about why the rapid recent increase of CO2 has occurred. This is where I can usually determine how difficult it will be to change the mind I am dealing with. Helping people understand that actions like burning wood pellets and bio-fuel do not create "New Carbon" is usually required.
       3. After we agree that excess CO2 is being created by human activity I move on to asking if they understand that future generations will not be able to continue to benefit from activity like burning fossil fuels. I find that twist can set some people onto a tangent about the false claims of peak oil or that you can't live without burning fossil fuels. But I remain focused on establishing the understanding that future generations cannot continue to benefit from that way of living. I even add points about the damage done so far by the activity including vicious fighting over the ability to benefit most from the burning of fossil fuels, including the human tragedies that have been created in places like the Middle East, Africa, Indonesia and Ukraine.
       4. If I do not get acceptance that the excess CO2 is created by human activity, particularly burning fossil fuels, and do not get acceptance that major past and current day problems are the result of pursuits of benefit from those activities, I make sure there is no doubt about how close-minded and wrong the person is choosing to be. I state how unhelpful people who choose to think that way are.
       5. If I do get acceptance of the fundamantal unacceptability of a portion of the hopefully eternal history of humanity benefiting from an unsustainable and damaging activity like the burning of fossil fuels I am set for a longer fruitful conversation. I move on to helping them understand the potential changes due to the excess CO2, especially the challenges that will be faced by future generations. I share a main concern of mine as a Structural Engineer, the difficulty of knowing what climate conditions need to be designed for so that a structure can perform successfully into the future. That includes pointing out that rapid rates of climate change make it more difficult to predict exactly what change of climate is to be expected in any location. I then add that as a gardener I appreciate how much more difficult it will be for farmers to figure out what they can most successfuly grow in a coming season. I would really like to start with this fundamental purpose of life point, but find that it is usually best to bring it up after getting a shared understanding of the unacceptability of a political, social or economic desire or pursuit (any of the many unacceptable desires and pursuits work as a basis for bringing up this fundamantal point. I then point out that other efforts by people wanting to be helpful share the objective of advancing humanity to a better future and struggle to overcome the damaging impacts created by those who do not care to responsibly limit what they choose to do, what they try to get away with, what they are unwilling to accept is unacceptable).

       Sometimes I have gotten particularly short with a person who is clearly not interested in better understanding this issue or the importance of helping to advance humanity. In those cases I regret questioning "why the person thinks anyone should care about the interests of someone like them who seems determined to believe what they wish and do as they please in pursuit of personal pleasure and benefit without caring to actually understand the potential or likely consequences of their actions, without trying to be helpful rather than harmful." I think that all the time, and generically share that sentiment with people, but I try to not direct it at an individual.

21400. nigelj at 09:09 AM on 7 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @5 says:

       "Agree that unelected bureaucrats in any department should not be able to make rules and regulations for people. We have how many doing that today? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? It's totally out of control and is destroying our nations economy and jobs."

       What are you even saying? Unemployment in America has dropped from 12% at the peak of the financical crash to about 5%, a very low level by global standards. Remember capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment, so is unlikely to get to zero. America has just last month had record job creation, and even Trump has commented on this. So clearly regulations are not the onerous burden you claim. Here is some data and discussion:

        www.cnbc.com/2016/07/18/obamas-record-on-jobs-versus-five-other-presidents.html

       You can find other economics and job data for America on Trading economics.com a global financial database, so not a partisan body. Its all been good on jobs and economic growth on the whole. Some groups are admittedly not doing so well, but they are in a minority.

       Trumps claims of devastation are simply a huge fiction.

Prev  420  421  422  423  424  425  426  427  428  429  430  431  432  433  434  435  Next