text:
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Compose story
My Blog Spawn
Publications and Projects
Climate FAIL Files
Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment
List of excuses for 'The Pause' in global warming
The Gore-a-thon on WUWT
Atmosphere Page
CO2 Page
Atmospheric Oscillation Page
Climatic Phenomena
ENSO Page
ENSO Forecast Page
Polar Vortex Page
Northern Polar Vortex Page
Southern Polar Vortex Page
"Extreme Weather" Page
Tornado Page
Tropical Cyclone Page
Geomagnetism Page
Global Temperature – Climate
Global Climate Page
Global Temperature Page
Ocean Page
Oceanic Oscillation Page
Paleoclimate Page
Sea Ice Page
Beaufort Sea Ice Page
Great Lakes Ice Page
Northern Regional Sea Ice Page
Potential Climatic Variables Page
The Spencer-Braswell & Dessler papers
Solar Page
US Weather – Climate
US Climate Page
US Weather Page
Tips and Notes
Surprise: Trump was Once Concerned about Climate Change
Eric Worrall / June 9, 2016
Donald Trump, By Michael Vadon – https://www.flickr.com/photos/80038275@N00/20724666936/, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42609338
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A number of stories have appeared recently, claiming that Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump's position on Climate Change is inconsistent, because he used to support Climate Action. Apparently once you embrace the Climate faith, you are not allowed to become an apostate.
Donald Trump once backed urgent climate action. Wait, what?
As negotiators headed to Copenhagen in December 2009 to forge a global climate pact, concerned U.S. business leaders and liberal luminaries took out a full-page ad in the New York Times calling for aggressive climate action. In an open letter to President Obama and the U.S. Congress, they declared: "If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet."
One of the signatories of that letter: Donald Trump.
Also signed by Trump's three adult children, the letter called for passage of U.S. climate legislation, investment in the clean energy economy, and leadership to inspire the rest of the world to join the fight against climate change.
"We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today," the letter tells the president and Congress. "Please allow us, the United States of America, to serve in modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our planet."
In every conceivable way, the letter contradicts Trump's current stance on climate policy. On the campaign trail, Trump has said he is "not a big believer in man-made climate change." Last fall, after Obama described climate change as a major threat to the United States and the world, Trump said that was "one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard in politics — in the history of politics as I know it."
The 2009 ad also argues that a shift to clean energy "will spur economic growth" and "create new energy jobs." But these days, Trump contends that U.S. action to limit greenhouse gas emissions would put the country at a competitive disadvantage. In 2012, he went so far as to claim: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
The Copenhagen conference that inspired the open letter was part of the same two-decade-long U.N. negotiating process that led to a global climate deal in Paris last year. But whereas in 2009 Trump supported the process via the ad, now he wants to sabotage it, promising recently to "cancel" the Paris accord.
Read more: http://grist.org/politics/donald-trump-climate-action-new-york-times/
So what happened in 2009 which might have changed someone's mind about the urgency of climate action? One word – Climategate.
In late November 2009, WUWT posted one of the first notices about the CRU hack.
The details on this are still sketchy, we'll probably never know what went on. But it appears that University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown.
I'm currently traveling and writing this from an airport, but here is what I know so far:
An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:
Read more: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
Around the same time, journalist James Delingpole coined the word "Climategate". The story started to topple the orchestrated feel good press releases supporting the Copenhagen Conference.
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
Read more (note the original link has been purged by The Telegraph): http://jamesdelingpole.com/2009/11/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
If the Climategate news broke in November 2009, why did Trump still believe in December 2009? The answer might be that he was listening to advice from people who didn't want him to change his mind. As soon as the Climategate story broke, the Climate establishment went into frantic damage control, doing everything in their power to downplay the story, to reframe it as a "stolen email" story – presumably to protect the Copenhagen Conference (h/t James Delingpole and Bishop Hill).
Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails
Details of a university inquiry into e-mails stolen from scientists at one of the UK's leading climate research units are likely to be made public next week.
Announcement of a chair of the inquiry and terms of reference will probably be made on Monday, a source says.
The University of East Anglia's (UEA) press office did not confirm the date.
But a spokesperson said information about the investigation into the hack at UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) would be made public very soon.
By February 2010, knowledge of the magnitude of the "problems" in the CRU was becoming widespread.
For the very first time, the Climategate Letters "archived" the deleted portion of the Briffa MXD reconstruction of "Hide the Decline" fame – see here. Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been "hidden in plain sight" (see here. ). This isn't true.
The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA here and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001. Nor was the decline shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working in the two weeks prior to the "trick" email (or for that matter in the IPCC 2007 graph, an issue that I'll return to.)
Read more: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/
Dr. Phil Jones, director of the CRU, gave his BBC interview, in which he admitted there was nothing statistically special about modern warming.
A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
Phil Jones also admitted to in my opinion shockingly bad peer review practices in the climate community. Maybe climate scientists sniff the papers they are asked to peer review, rather than checking the calculations.
Jones conceded that he did not usually publish raw data from weather stations, which was often covered by confidentiality agreements, nor the computer codes he used to analyse the data. "It hasn't been standard practice to do that. Maybe it should, but it's not," he said.
Asked whether other climate scientists reviewing his papers ever required such data, he said, "They've never asked." In response to a specific question about why he had failed to grant freelance researcher Warwick Hughes access to data, he said simply, "We had a lot of work and resources tied up in it."
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18599-climategate-scientist-questioned-in-parliament/
And of course, we have the infamous nature trick email, and the in my opinion unconvincing explanations of why the email doesn't say what it appears to say.
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Read more: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
Was it Climategate which changed Donald Trump's mind? We won't know unless Trump chooses to speak on this issue. I suspect though if you have a lot of money, and scam artists are always circling, you have to develop a pretty well tuned BS meter. There is a lot in the Climategate scandal, to shake the confidence of even the most committed climate activist.
Philip Mulholland points out that the term "Climategate" was first coined by commenter Bulldust
June 9, 2016 in Politics.
Media Attacks Should Be a Signal to Trump: Focus on Flawed Climate Science
Eurosceptics, greens and liberals make major gains in EU elections
Friday Funny – The Day Collusion Died
← Desperate Claim: Greenland's 2015 melt records consistent with 'Arctic amplification'
Bombshell study: past El Niño's 'may have amplified global climate fluctuations for hundreds of years at a time' →
163 thoughts on "Surprise: Trump was Once Concerned about Climate Change"
Felix says:
The Grist articles goes on to point out that, "In 2014, Trump sent a $5,000 check to Protect Our Winters, a climate advocacy nonprofit for skiers and snowboarders…".
And, more recently, "His golf course in Ireland is threatened by coastal erosion, so the company recently applied for a permit to build a seawall to protect the property from "global warming and its effects.""
Eric Worrall says:
If I wanted to protect vulnerable sea front property, I would probably cite "global warming".
The world has warmed, and sea level is slowly rising – but not at a rate which justifies a panic response.
The precautionary principle.
Owen in GA says:
Felix,
More like the "use whatever language will get the dunderheads in the bureaucracy to approve your project" principle.
I don't necessarily think that everyone who applies for variances in zoning and environment law believe the global warming language they put in their applications. Some obviously do, but most lawyers in contract law would put just about any wording into a contract that they believe will get the other side to sign. They don't need to believe a word of it when it doesn't incur any cost or action on their part afterward.
Felflames says:
A friend of mine wanted to build a dam on his property, but the local authorities didn't want to allow it.
I told him to remove the word "dam" and substitute it with "erosion control structure"
He has his dam now.
The funniest thing, he submitted exactly the same proposal , with just the one change.
Felflames,
That story is a classic.
I've read some decent papers that have a blurb about how the study involves, or is connected to, or relates to Global Warming tacked onto the end, as a sort of genuflection of obedience. I have also noted it can be snipped off, if need be, without altering the paper itself.
ferd says:
A. When in doubt do nothing.
B. When in doubt do something, even if you are not sure of the result.
Which one of these truly sounds like the Precautionary Principle?
The McGovern commission on heart disease chose option B, and as a result tens if not hundreds of millions of people now are suffering from obesity and diabetes.
How can it be "Precautionary" to act when the result is unsure?
Tom O says:
As a private citizen and corporate owner, you use the language that you know will allow you to do what you want. I would guess that had he chose merely to build a seawall, it would have been shot down on environmental grounds or horrendously delayed while completing exhaustive environmental impact studies. Yet by blaming it on "global warming," the same project can sail through without regards to environmental impact studies.
ralfellis says:
>>If I wanted to protect vulnerable sea front
>>property, I would probably cite "global warming".
If you cite global warming you get a grant. If you don't, you don't. Its a no-brainer, really.
Gary Hagland says:
Don't know about sending $ to Protect Our Winters, but the request from the golf course in Ireland was probably just a ploy to make the issuance of the permit more compelling to whomever was in charge. And did Trump write the application or even know about it? Seems like a matter for the golf course manager instead of the big boss across the ocean.
fossilsage says:
Gary…the point of spending that money is the same as the business man who says "support any little league team" to his offices. Make friends. That's the way anybody gets known as a "good guy" and the sort of person you can feel comfortable doing business with. Environmentalists have fund raised out the wazoo from people who should be their natural enemies by taking advantage of the "good guy" syndrome.
Hmmmm, yes "Trump666 is a believer in CAGW because a golf course manager in Ireland used the expression in an application for a permit for a $20k sea wall" doesn't sound very compelling to me either.
Can you imagine this guy ringing up saying "Hoi there Mr Troomp, Seamus here – Oi just wanted to run boi you moi wording for this sea wall DA"? I don't think he'd last long in the Trump organisation.
Michael Jankowski says:
Well that stream or river or whatever you want to call it running past the golf course is clearly either man-made or man-altered.
http://www.postandcourier.com/storyimage/CP/20140211/PC05/140219895/AR/0/AR-140219895.jpg&maxw=800&q=90?ver=201402111725
Maybe that's where the erosion problems are and not the beach
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/72904000/jpg/_72904989_hi020002347.jpg
D. J. Hawkins says:
The watercourse to the right of "The Donald" appears to be a tidal pool of some type. It seems visible in a google map of the area.
KLohrn says:
guy's a master at getting others to pay for his projects, or so he claims.
When everyone else is broke that aint gonna fly though.
The land on the ocean side of the 'pool' is the beginning of a submerged bar caused by erosion. It is exposed due to low tide in the photo.
http://thebritishgeographer.weebly.com/coasts-of-erosion-and-coasts-of-deposition.html
I see a lot of that on Cape Cod (national park).
teapartygeezer says:
Michael Jankowski June 9, 2016 at 4:44 pm …
The property you linked to is not the same under discussion. Trump applied for permission to build a seawall on a golf course in Ireland. You linked to a property (not a golf course) he owns called Seven Springs in Bedford, NY.
goldminor says:
I have noticed comments recently stating that Trump wants to build a seawall so I searched to see where the golf course was located. It just so happens that the golf course sits right in the middle of the only stretch of subsiding coast line in Scotland. It is up in the northeast of Scotland.
DD More says:
Endangered snails. While trying to repair the shoreline damaged by the winter storms which MET said were not climate change, the local council stopped progress. Only thing more powerful than the Endangered Species is Climate Change. Found the whole story on an Irish newspaper story from a year ago.
Tom Halla says:
So? Trump has changed his positions on a good many issues, largely when he started following politics much more closely. The ability to evaluate evidence correctly is a good thing. Sticking to a position regardless of the facts is the mark of a fanatic. I rather doubt Grist intended to complement Trump, but they did.
Latitude says:
markstoval says:
"Sticking to a position regardless of the facts is the mark of a fanatic" It is the mark of a fanatic or a climate "scientist".
We have tons of predictions (don't hand me the "projections" BS) that failed utterly. These failed predictions mean that the alarmist's vision of CO2 frying the earth is invalidated. Only a fool, the ignorant, or a crooked person could continue to believe the CO2 delusion.
simple-touriste says:
See this exercice of the French bac (session 2015):
https://mythesmanciesetmathematiques.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/bacprevisiongiec.png
It's written "prevision" not "projection"!
Bryan A says:
For those that don't speak or read French
By 2100 in the worst scenerios, the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere could rise by 5.5C .
Moreover the volume of ice sheets affected by melting due to warming could reach 2.5×10(14) m2.
The evolution of the atmospheric temperature and melting ice sheets could lead to a rising level of oceans reaching nearly one meter.
ilma630 says:
I said this in the context of the UK's EU Referendum: "You can usually tell who's right in a debate. One side rants & the other is measured.", but it's also true of the climate debate. If Trump has taken a measured approach, examined the issue and now arrived at his current position, then all credit to him. I'm sure many current sceptics have travelled the same path.
Grist is trying to deny that the climate of scientific (or pseudo-scientific) ideas can change, has changed, and is changing faster.
We see the climate of ideas changing in unprecedented ways. I am sure the tipping point (cause there is such thing as a tipping point) has been reached.
History is full of tipping points.
JohnKnight says:
I had been feeling kinda strange about seeing Mr. Putin as our best hope . . I'm glad he and Mr. Trump seem to respect each other ; )
Crispin in Waterloo but really in Accra says:
Tipping points: The history of climate is not full of tipping points. The history of climate is barely known.
There many tipping points in political history. That is another matter entirely because people are fickle; nature is not.
There is no such thing as a 'precautionary principle' in nature. There are in human lives, precautions, but there is no principle in them because whatever caution that can be taken for a position equally exists to counter it. When logic fails and proof is lacking, when argument falters, hollow, and persuasion by fright is laughed off, a greasy new 'principle' trots out to take the stage. The precautionary principle is nothing more than an emotional, desperate ploy enwrapping a feeble thread of priestcraft.
"I direct you to act in spite of there being no worthy evidence you should."
"Verily I have seen the signs and interpreted the meaning, and foretold of the calamity to come. In short, because I say so."
"There are in human lives, precautions, but there is no principle in them because whatever caution that can be taken for a position equally exists to counter it."
When the AH1N1 "pig" or "pandemic" flu panic stroked, the French health sinister, Roselyne Bachelot, bought enough to vaccinate the population with 2 doses of vaccine, as a precautionary measure.
Then she said 1 dose was enough.
Only ONE expert in France said that this in itself demonstrated that the vaccine was rushed with no safety testing at all, and that the vaccine wasn't safe. So the precaution was to not get vaccinated.
"Precaution" was a pretext to push an untested product on the "market" (not a free market as the product was already paid by the State).
Later Roselyne Bachelot was criticized strongly for the relatively minor crime of useless spending, and not for the unforgivable crime of pushing an untested product – and making it almost mandatory for the general population. It isn't possible to criticize vaccines even in the leftists medias. Even scientific studies showing the horrible side effects of a vaccine must do the mandatory "vaccination is recommended" genuflection.
Also, most of the "skeptic" (for climate) side isn't ready to direct any skepticism to the government backed vaccine "science".
Tom in Denver says:
Tom Halla said:
"Sticking to a position regardless of the facts is the mark of a fanatic. I rather doubt Grist intended to complement Trump, but they did."
Yes and tying yourself in a pretzel to justify the vagrancy of conviction of one you support, is the sign of an apologist
MarkW says:
It also indicates someone who is willing to change his opinions based on what those who's support he needs want to hear.
my crazy neighbor still believes….
It's a slow, but inevitable process
RockyRoad says:
…."crazy" being the operative word there.
Tsk Tsk says:
You presume that there is a mind inside Trump's head to convince. I'd say he's offered plenty of evidence otherwise. Anyone relying on Trump to stick to a position that doesn't directly benefit Trump once he's elected is naive. The best you could argue is that Clinton will continue to weaponize the EPA while Trump might not. But given Trump's past love affairs with government intervention in private markets, I'd say you're looking at Scylla and Charybdis. Choose your doom.
It's plausible that politicians don't usually have best guesses on anything regarding the natural world, only best guesses on what will help win votes.
However Trump changing his tune about climate can't be used to illustrate that.
gnomish says:
Let's label that the Gillard strategy.
It's the end by whatever means.
I remember Johnson swearing he'd never remove precious metal from coinage back in 1965.
i recognize this pattern.
Expect Trump to enact a carbon trading scheme.
The difference between the two: The Democrats would defend Clinton against impeachment even if she was shown shooting the Marine saluting her as she got off Marine One on national television, thus she can do what she wants to the constitution with impunity; Trump is hated or distrusted by just about everyone in Washington on both sides of the aisle, thus if he so much as sneezes at that Marine on national TV there will be article of impeachment drawn up.
TonyL says:
"I'd say you're looking at Scylla and Charybdis."
Are we allowed to take our two choices and throw them both into the Straights Of Messina?
TA says:
Making CAGW skeptics happy *will* benefit Trump.
I don't agree with your psychoanalysis of Trump.
I think Trump is a little more of a common sense, caring man than you give him credit for, and I don't see any evidence that he is excessively selfish. People assume rich people are selfish. Some are, some are not, just like everyone else.
Trump does have an ego. But that is different than being selfish and thinking only of himself.
Most high-powered individuals do have an ego. It's what drives them to accomplish things, and Trump is definitely an Alpha Male with a big ego, but in a good way. He is a natural-born leader, and that alone draws some people to him.
I have significant doubt about Mr. Trump's honesty/integrity . . But no detectable doubts regarding Ms. Clinton's . . Throw me in that frying pan, please, I say ; )
Didn't many ecoloons change tune on "biofuel"? Are they allowed to change their guesstimates?
Who gets to change his analysis?
Do warmists get to change the cause of the "pause"?
Al Gore changed his tune on ethanol subsidies. But it wasn't that he was wrong about it…he knew better but wanted to help the farmers in places like TN and IA.
Gore didn't want to "help" anyone but himself! That was a change designed to buy a few votes.
Nick Stokes says:
"Was it Climategate which changed Donald Trump's mind? We won't know unless Trump chooses to speak on this issue."
Indeed. This article is a stretch. There is no evidence that Trump ever heard of "Climategate".
Not sure there is any evidence Obama, Kerry, etc, have heard of "Climategate," either.
Even if they have, there's no evidence they read any of the emails involved.
What does it matter, though? They'd just defend it all and pretend it doesn't matter, just like you.
The timing seems to fit. But I agree it's circumstantial evidence at best, hence the note of caution.
After all, correlation is not causation.
There's nothing there on timing. In 2009 he was concerned about AGW. In 2016, seems not. I'd say the more significant timing event is deciding to enter Republican primaries.
Anthony Watts says:
Well Nick, you just don't really know. But don't let that stop you from making pronouncements.
Well, I haven't pronounced on anything there – except saying that there is no evidence given Trump has heard of Climategate. No-one has produced any. There is an article in Politico about the huge and controversial seawall he wants to build in Ireland to protect his golf course against rising sea levels. It lists some of his tweets since 2012. Then he called AGW a Chinese hoax to undermine America. Later complaints that countering would be expensive, and then some complaints about cold weather. No mention of Climategate.
Actually IIRC he's commented on it, but didn't call it climategate, but something else. I doubt Hillary or Berne knows the term either, as they all live in bubbles.
We don't have any direct evidence Trump changed his tune thanks to Climategate, but I have a model where this explains 97 percent of it.
alcheson says:
Sorry Nick, Trump was a skeptic in 2010, so it is quite likely Climategate had much to do with his change, Trump in 2010: "With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore," the tycoon told members of his Trump National Golf Club in Westchester in a recent speech.
There are people alive who've never heard of Climategate? Whaddya suppose will happen when they do hear about it?
ossqss says:
No evidence yet he did not either. Just sayin…
We certainly know where his competitor stands.
Tom Harley says:
Everyone has heard about Climategate, but some choose to ignore it.
Maybe instead of Climategate being the trigger for Trump, it was just all those failed CAGW Alarmist dire predictions about the weather than never panned out over all these years.
The Alarmists have cried wolf too many times, and the majority of the American people and Donald Trump are now skeptical of the CAGW claims. Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us.
Or maybe just the carpet bombing of:
Unusual weather! (Hot, cold, rain, no rain, wind, no wind, high pressure, low pressure … dogs and cats living together…) That's another undeniable proof of climate change!
I expect even children to be able to detect the propaganda.
Mike the Morlock says:
Nick Stokes June 9, 2016 at 4:44 pm
There is no evidence that Trump ever heard of "Climategate".
True Nick, but come national debate time he will "know all about Climategate". And after that,
so will the general public, if they don't know already.
Reg Nelson says:
But Trump's behavior is consistent with reading the Climategate emails, and that counts as undeniable truth these days.
Joel Snider says:
Well, considering the massive coordinated effort by the press, the administration, and academia to shove the #$$! back up in the horse, it frankly depressing how few people have heard of it – and those that have seem to think that it was actually investigated rather than simply whitewashed and covered up.
Trump has commented, however, on the subject of Climate Change. He calls it 'the weather.'
Walter Dnes says:
I, too, used to believe. Then I noticed "the dancing data". It's best described as "Creative Climatology"…
Question: What was the temperature anomaly for a given month/year?
Answer: What do you want it to be?
Michael Palmer says:
It is likely that many here believed the tale at some point; I know I did. What arose my suspicion was a conversation with a senior climate scientist who had made a career out of atmospheric modelling. When I asked him, with a somewhat shaky voice, how bad it really was, he smiled to himself, said something pretty non-committal, and then began to talk about carbon capture. Now, I was naive, but not naive enough to consider carbon capture realistic. So I wondered, if his solution is nonsense, what about his problem? I turned sceptic soon after.
Yes we don't usually check the scientific "results" of any discipline unrelated to our jobs.
I don't expect most people to be able to tell which statistical method is best for averaging the tree rings data and I don't expect most people to be able to learn enough about statistics to be able to decide by themselves.
However, I expect most people to be able to tell that the:
– the temperature series in France before WWII have no commercial value, only a scientific value
– the way Météo France calculates average temperature doesn't have to be a secret
– Mann's tax-payers paid work isn't "private", and copyright has nothing to do with that (when you make a program open source, it's still copyrighted and your name remains on it)
If it sounds like fraud, looks like fraud, smells like fraud, it's probably fraud.
DAS says:
I just posted on "Grist" – "James Hansen once backed Global Cooling."
That's funny, DAS!
John Harmsworth says:
I believe that's true. He made the about face without blinking in the 70's.
Werner Brozek says:
John Maynard Keynes:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
What would you expect a man with an IQ of 156, higher than 99.99% of the population to do when the facts change?
Change the facts again, if you have the power to do so….. Sounds like climate research, no?
You're not saying Trump has 156 IQ, are you? I couldn't believe that.
BFL says:
"Given the usual requirements for admission to a top school like Wharton, I estimate that Mr. Trump has a 156 IQ at the minimum.
The standard description of this level of intelligence is "Genius – Exception intellectual ability and capable of looking beyond known facts." However, the percentile rating is more revealing than the raw score. A 156 IQ is at the 99.9905490555 percentile. That means that Donald Trump is smarter than 99.99 percent of the people on planet earth. Not only does Trump qualify for membership in Mensa but he could join the Triple Nine Society."
"Donald frequently says that he doesn't plan what he is going to say. It is obvious that his strategy is to simply be authentic." His refusal to use a monitor perhaps explains a lot of his sometimes rambling verbosity.
The remainder of the article based on Maslow is also interesting:
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2015/08/donald-trump-is-a-genius-but-thats-just-his-iq-3038790.html
And here's Obama without a monitor:
Scottish Sceptic says:
If they were that intelligent – they'd know IQ is not a measure of real intelligence.
Slywolfe says:
It is a generally accepted indicator of relative intelligence. What alternate measure do you propose / prefer?
Bruce Cobb says:
Stop the presses. Someone who once believed the climate garbage realized that it was baloney after all. Don't want to shock them or anything, but that describes many, many skeptics/climate realists, myself included.
chilemike says:
True. I was just interested in knowing why this 'warming' was happening. After looking into it I was quite perplexed by why they were kind of ignoring the scientific method but still publishing these disaster scenarios. $$$$$$ was the answer. Now it's just sad to see useful idiots duped by this stuff.
Steamboat McGoo says:
It was "State Of Fear" by M. Crichton (may he rest in peace) that initially hard-toggled me from a passive "OK, if they say so…" position to one of, "WTF! How DARE they!" skeptic. I haven't seen any reason to look back …
Gary Pearse says:
Funny thing was the alarmist social sci didn't dial back in light of this totally damning revelation but became even more strident, and prominent so-called lukewarmers, who were on the side of the angels before that time, even began striking out at sceptics and arguing the alarmist case every time a frantic alarmist paper came out.
I'm pleased to see Donald is a pragmatist and gets a message. After 8 yrs of lefty abandonment of American interest, following 8 of disastrous Bush foreign policy, following 8 of Clinton outsourcing of American jobs, immigration disasters, and give away of tech/space to China… Donald gets it. I think he's even going to get the loose threads of his campaign together, too. It should be a cake walk if he does. The dilemma for the GOP leaders is not just to get Trump 'on message' but to shift their own thinking over toward Trump's. After all he's tied with Hillary all on his own with an often ugly and undisciplined amateur campaign. It's the American people out there you GOPs!!
Retired Engineer John says:
My wife recently read 2 of Dale Carnegie's books, one of them "How To Stop Worrying And Start Living" She remarked that Trump seems to be following Carnegie. She wondered if he read the books or was just thinking the same way. Trump is not addressing issues; he is repeating emotional concerns that he is hearing from the public.
Eric Simpson says:
Trump since Climategate on climate change:
"This very expensive global warming bullsh|t has got to stop." -Donald Trump
"Surprise? 1970's global cooling alarmists were pushing the same no-growth liberal agenda as today's global warming." -Donald Trump
"I call it weather. You know, the weather changes." -Donald Trump
"Obama's speech on climate change was scary. It will lower our standard of living and raise costs of fuel & food for everyone." -Donald Trump
"Gore wants us to [take extreme actions because of 'global warming'], when China and other countries couldn't care less. It would make us totally non-competitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America's stupidity." -Donald Trump
"With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore." -Donald Trump
"Remember Cap-and-Trade? Obama outright admitted that his plan to tax businesses on carbon emissions that exceeded his arbitrary cap would drive energy prices sky high." -Donald Trump
Trump at NH rally utilizes the conservative crowd to dismiss a leftist questioner:
It's not just coincidence that the Chinese are spending a fortune on building islands and coal fired power plants with over 300 million in coastal cities. They don't believe in AGW and their research is better than ours. They are playing us for suckers!
Gruber was right.
J. Philip Peterson says:
That's why I supported Cruz over Trump. Cruz hasn't flip-flopped on this and many other conservative issues. (Cruz understands the science on the CAGW issue). Trump could easily flip-flop on this and many other issues if elected. It's in his nature.
But at this time he is better than Hillary by far on this issue. (energy, Keystone pipeline, fracking, opening up more drilling, understanding the outrageous extra costs of wind and solar, etc.
MikeN says:
Here's Trump seeing right through Ali G.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Trump+Ali+G&view=detail&mid=D63D176048815CB5803FD63D176048815CB5803F&FORM=VIRE
He's the only one who did. Ali G got a lot of politicians to sit through hilarious sessions, but Trump? He gave Cohen a few seconds and then got on with his next appointment.
Doug S says:
This is good. I often wonder about all the good people here who vote Democrat and have to resolve their love of science with today's political realities and rhetoric. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and guess what, nobody on earth has any idea how to calculate the climate.
Democrats don't follow science on when life begins or what gender someone is associated with. They play politics 100 percent and portray it as science.
"Democrats don't follow science on when life begins"
What science is that? Biblical science?
dan no longer in CA says:
That's easy. Life begins when the dog dies and the kids leave home. 🙂
Ron Clutz says:
You can't blame Trump for the content of that letter, any more than you can credit Michael Mann with a Nobel prize.
Peter Sable says:
I was the same way until I started reading in detail and doing my own math on it.
tabnumlock says:
I've been a denier from day one and am smug about it.
StarkNakedTruth says:
I'm also a denier and my belief that AGW is a hoax was cemented in stone when the EPA declared CO2 a pollutant.
… and keeps the research and data secret.
NW sage says:
Signing letters individually is a far different matter than being one of a group of many businessmen. As a group all I can conclude is that at the time he wanted to be seen as believing, in a general sort of way, with the statements in the letter. Kind of a group think thing.
Exactly. He was probably simply "going along to get along" in a tough world. Nothing to see here, IMHO …
R.S.Brown says:
Donald Trump changes his fuzzy mind about many things just like he changes his socks… and
probably for the same reasons.
A momentary lack of fuzzy socks does not qualify him for national leadership.
I kept my Kasich yard signs.
I kept my Kasich yard signs
http://www.renewamerica.com/images/columns/15/150626vernon.jpg
u.k(us) says:
She sure doesn't sugar-coat her opinions.
Gotta like that.
Kasich signs equal Hillary signs. Anyone who doesn't vote for Trump, is voting for Hillary, regardless of what rhetorical knots you twist yourself into trying to deny the fact.
Of all the things I can hold against Trump, that isn't one. To be fair, once upon a time, when I was busy establishing a career in geology and relying on mainstream media for my climate info, I thought AGW was probably a problem.
Then they published the hockey stick graph throwing out well documented climate history and convincing the media that climate would still be "stable" and "wonderful" if it wasn't for fossil fuels.
The climate would still be stable. The climate would remain unchanging. The climate would forever be benevolent. And they have the nerve to call skeptics "deniers".
Asp says:
If he supported Climate Action through personal conviction in the past and has now seen the light, that is a good thing.
If his personal convictions are still pro-CA, but he judges that the groundswell of opinion in the US voting population is tending toward anti-CA, that is a good thing as well, as it is a sign that warmist dogma is coming off the boil.
1957chev says:
Many intelligent, honest people fell prey to government-induced climaphobia. The only cure, is research into the work of unbiased climate scientists, and other professional people, who have broken their silence, on globalization, and the role climaphobia plays in wealth redistribution. It is a scam, designed to empty the pockets of the masses, in Western countries!
Just Some Guy says:
Not a big fan of Trump. Sometimes trying to read what he's really thinking is kind of an art. Nevertheless, I'm satisfied that he's a skeptic based on his comments I've seen.
and as president, Clinton would be 100x worse….
Brian Mast running in Florida says it best:
"As the next Congressman from Florida's 18th District I am proud to support and endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States."
"Mast said he wants to run on the same ticket with Trump because Trump understands what needs to be done."
"With anybody, you take the good with the bad. There's things that I hate about him and there's things that I love about him," he said.
"You know, if you have an infestation of rats and rodents in your home and you need to call the exterminator, you don't necessarily care about the personality of the exterminator," he said. "You just care that he gets rid of infestation."
https://www.longroom.com/discussion/97122/brian-mast-endorses-trump-when-you-have-rats-you-call-the-exterminator
Pamela Gray says:
All politicians change their minds, some more, some less. It is in their nature. And Trump is one of the more political ones.
He's not a valid politician until he's elected to some political office, which hasn't happened yet. Dunno what it means to be "one of the more political ones".
You're kidding right? Trump has played the political card game since his first official business signature was affixed to paper, and admits it. He plays the political wind in virtuoso style like few other businessmen. Given the fact that I think the man is a decided risk (as in what will he believe tomorrow?), I can't in good conscious, vote for HIllary. All of her shenanigans are hidden from view under layers of deceptively colorful, xray resistant pant suits. Trump wears his dirty underwear on the outside of his same old black (but expensive) business suit, even hoisting them up on a flag pole just so the media can take pictures!
I will vote for the dirty underwear I know, rather than the dirty underwear I don't know. And then pray as if my life depended on it if the man wins.
RoHa says:
A lot of us were once concerned about climate change. That's why we decided to learn more about it.
Walter Sobchak says:
I loathe Clinton. I despise Trump. I hope that the Earth is struck by an asteroid on November 8. It is a mug's game to try and figure out whether Trump means anything at all. His thinking all originates below his waist. And no, the only house Hillary belongs in is the Big House at Ossining.
Zeke says:
Unbelievable.
I meant this whole situation is unbelievable.
He is unbelievable as well.
Snarling Dolphin says:
If the models don't fit, you must acquit. When individuals take an objective look at the issue, skepticism blossoms.
I think it is time for everyone to just take a deep breath, take away any remaining powers of the electorate.
Give it four years and see what happens, what are we even pushing for ??
Campaigning on Brexit, I've been struck by the similarity of those supporting the undemocratic EU and climate "alarmists" – indeed they could both very well be called "alarmists".
Because the whole argument of both groups is this: "the ordinary people are so stupid (for not supporting whatever daft thing they support), that they must be scared into handing control to unelected officials who 'know' what is best for them".
SAMURAI says:
CAGW is a political phenomenon, not a physical one…
POLITICALLY, it makes perfect business sense for business leaders to give tacit or even explicit support for the political CAGW movement to protect their business interests…
Are these businessmen "selling out" if they're truly skeptical of CAGW but appear otherwise? Yes, of course, they are, but business leaders have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to maximize stockholder equity. Accordingly, from a purely bottom-line business perspective, it currently makes more sense for business executives to give the appearance of being for "saving the planet" (i.e. CAGW) as opposed to being an "evil" CAGW skeptic out to "destroy the planet for children and our children's children" and risk: boycotts, loss of business, lawsuits, careers or even RICO raids…
"For the vast majority of mankind accept appearances as though they were reality, and are influenced more by those things that seem than by those things that are." The Prince (Niccolo Machiavelli, 1513)
Because CAGW is a political movement, and Leftist ideology is prominent illogical, immoral and unscientific political philosophy of this generation, it's logical (at least from a business perspective) to appear to be illogical and unscientific in supporting CAGW for the sake of the bottom line…
CAGW is just one manifestation of the Orwellian Leftist world we line in. Perhaps with the inevitable demise of CAGW, more people will begin to question the Leftist ideology in general and realize it is truly the destroyer of worlds and entire civilizations, as all immoral, unethical, illogical, anti-human and unscientific ideologies eventually lead.
Steven Miller says:
I am astounded that an article mentioning Donald Trump is capable of drawing so many hate filled alarmist cockroaches out into the light of day on this website. Trump is on the side of skeptics; Clinton is on the side of alarmists. From the statements each has made that is an indisputable fact. All those who have made nasty insults about Donald Trump have made it clear where they stand and why they are visiting the site; they are nothing more than disruptive trolls. I feel like the paid agitators who attacked Trump supporters in San Jose are posting on WUTW tonight. Amazing!
ScienceABC123 says:
I to was once very concerned about climate change, but that was back in 1973 when we thought a new ice age was coming soon.
Wolfho says:
Its much easier than that, he was democrat now hes a republican.
Michael J. Dunn says:
Uh, so was Ronald Reagan.
vukcevic says:
Man has mellowed with age, changing from a raving alarmist into the sedate armchair sceptic.
jarthuroriginal says:
Reagan was once a Democrat.
Philip Mulholland says:
Around the same time, journalist James Delingpole coined the word "Climategate".
Sorry Eric, it was Bulldust in this comment published here on WUWT on November 19 2009 who first used the term ClimateGate.
Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?
See also Ben U. November 27, 2015 at 7:40 pm and Telegraph's Booker on the "climategate" scandal for additional confirmation and acknowledgement by James Delingpole.
Thanks, corrected.
Chris Wright says:
As a UK voter who will be voting Leave in two weeks' time, I would say that Trump is far from perfect – but he's several million times better than Obama and Clinton.
Obama threatened us that if we left the corrupt and ant-democratic European Union, we would be at the end of the queue when it came to negotiating any free trade deals with the US.
In contrast, Trump said that it wouldn't be a problem.
Those Trump quotes given above are fairly encouraging. It strongly suggests that Trump has based his change of opinion on some amount of facts, for example he is aware that global cooling was the popular scare in the 1970's. Whether he was aware of Climategate seems to me to be pure speculation, particularly if he never mentioned it.
I hope that Trump will be the next President and that, perhaps against all the odds, he proves to be a great President that restores America's proper place in the world, after the damage done by Obama. We owe a huge debt to America. If it had not been for the sacrifices of all those US troops, today the European Union would probably be run by the Nazis.
I'm convinced that a strong and resurgent America is the best hope for the world.
And I hope that Britain, finally free of the dead hand of Brussels, will be a close ally of America. Together, our two great nations could have a great future that will also immeasurably benefit the world as a whole.
Steve T says:
"If it had not been for the sacrifices of all those US troops, today the European Union would probably be run by the Na zis."
Hands up all those who think it isn't. ???
SteveT
The United States and Great Britain are a good combination. A winning combination.
I used to be an individual member of the British Wind Energy Association and wrote to the papers regularly about the "need" for wind (but a bigger need to create jobs).
And unlike Trump with a science degree I had even less excuse for taking the word of the idiots pushing climate Armageddon when there was next to no evidence to back them up.
And as a result I will never again take the word of a so called "expert" on any subject whether it is global warming doomsday or the supposed economic "doomsday" when we leave the EU.
I suspect Trump's advisory team has expanded considerably in the past year. I interpret his current language as an indicator that he has found a science advisor.
Or, who the spittle-flecked Climatists will, in lock-step fashion immediately call his "anti-science D-word" advisor.
I interpret his current language as an indicator that he has found a science advisor.
See: http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/673005/Trump-the-climate-change-denier-Republican-hires-top-sceptic-as-energy-advisor
"DONALD Trump has cemented his stance as a 'climate change denier' after hiring one of America's top global warming sceptics as his energy policy advisor.
Trump has given a significant clue to his future energy policies should the entrepreneur make it to the White House, after selecting US Republican Representative Kevin Cramer for the role."
Why did you leave out the part where Cramer is open to a carbon tax? Did you do any more research on Cramer other than reading the obviously biased article you linked to?
Mr Cramer is not a scientist.
Trump already adamantly said after someone else mentioned the supposed Cramer is open to carbon tax, that there DEFINITELY would NOT be any carbon tax in a Trump administration.
CamCam^2 says:
You are trying to rationalize the behavior of a narcissist. Trump will say anything that he thinks will get him what he wants.
Cameron Melin says:
This can't be true. People are only sceptical of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change because they are stubborn and unwilling to change their opinion.
talldave2 says:
Trump didn't change his mind because of ClimateGate. He never had any position on this, or anything else. He just says whatever he thinks the suckers want to hear.
Jim G1 says:
To all ideological voters: Voting always comes down to choosing between, or among, the lesser of evils. Anyone who thinks differently or chooses not to vote if they cannot get everything they want is terminally naive. Socialism does not work. History has proven this. Capitalism does work, also proven by history. Even crony capitalism. The best you can hope for is a very large group of cronies and to "die in your sleep", as Kenny Rogers put it.
All politicians pander to some extent. In the end, actions speak way louder than words, though. True, Trump is somewhat an unknown commodity at this point. I think it is safe to say though, that he isn't going to back down to Greenie demands that he scuttle our economy over some highly-questionable idea. He loves America too much for that, while Clinton we know for a fact is the exact opposite. And she has Bernie on her left, pushing her to do even more , so that we can go down the tubes even faster.
HILLARY just says whatever SHE thinks the suckers want to hear.
wallensworth says:
I used to believe in Global Cooling (1970's) and then initially bought into Global Warming (early 2000's) until I saw Gore's movie, and then as a scientist my "bologna detector" starting ringing off and I recognized CAGW as the scam it is. We're experiencing mild warming. Meh.
So I consider it perfectly reasonable to change one's mind based on the preponderance if evidence.
A great man I know says "If you can't change your mind, you don't have one."
There is an inside view of the minds of dyed in the wool climate fanatics in the Grist and many commenters here. They think it is a sign of weakness or disloyalty to change your mind. This shows it is dogma. The facts don't matter.
I was concerned at the beginning too. Thirty years ago. Then I researched it.
John Whitman says:
In evaluating how to vote in this year's presidential election, I only consider one fundamental view held by candidates Clinton and Trump.
Fundamentally, I consider only which one will tend to mitigate against government intervention on any basic actions needed for a productive and voluntary human life.
So far, Trump has given me cause to think he will do so and I think Clinton will not do so.
tadchem says:
Age and experience allow a sensible person to accumulate wisdom and confront past mistakes, becoming wiser.
I hear frequently about people who formerly were climate alarmists who became skeptics, but never hear of alarmists who were formerly skeptics.
This indicates which way wisdom is driving thinking regarding climate change theory.
I too changed my opinion about the CO2 induced climatic issue once the perversion of the scientific method revealed by climategate was made clear.
The public should expect to have confidence in the statements of scientists and the behaviour of leading climate alarmists was a gross betrayal of the trust that the public placed in them
Bryan wrote: "The public should expect to have confidence in the statements of scientists and the behaviour of leading climate alarmists was a gross betrayal of the trust that the public placed in them"
Absolutely correct. An enornmously costly betrayal of the public trust. With no end in sight.
James at 48 says:
No one knows what a bozo sales puke turned would be politician believes. Such are person will tell the audience what they want to hear. Different audience, different pitch.
Should have read "Such a person" …. auto-correct weirdness …
No one knows what a lying screeching political puke turned would be president believes. Such a person will tell the audience what they want to hear. Different audience, different pitch.
Brian J. Baker says:
Just remember Margaret Thatcher was one of the worlds first politicians to support the concept of AGW. However as has been testified by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, before she died she to changed her mind. So the Donald is in good company.
I know that there are many here who are not Trump fans. I find many of his positions to be wrong-headed. However, he is leading a populous uprising against the elites. (that is what populous uprisings are really) The elite Republicans are horrific people and are anti-American. But so are the Democratic Party movers and shakers. Sanders was leading a populous uprising on the Democratic side.
Why is there so very much discontent on the part of the working class in America? Find that answer and you will then know why even anarchists (many anarcho-capitalists) and other liberty leaning people are backing The Donald in spite of some of his anti-libertarian positions and statements.
The people who hate Trump mostly are people that hate my kind and I return the sentiment. The enemy of my enemy and all that. I hate the smug left wing liars with a passion that can not be put into words. So, go Trump go.
Did Trump find out about the CO2 delusion as time went along? Sure, as did many who comment here. I wager not 1 in 100 here did not believe a word of it from the very beginning. I bet the long pause was important to many and the climate-gate e-mails were very important to others. (some overlap there no doubt) Many people here changed position over time. Why not Trump?
If the Climate Pest we would dump,
Let us vote for Donald J. Trump.
markstoval
Because Trump sways with the political climate. He will say whatever he needs to say to get the votes he needs to get his foot in the door. You certainly couldn't rely on a thing he says. If he (God forbid) ends up being president, only time will tell what he does. You would be naive to rely on his word to predict his future actions.
Simon …
"He will say whatever he needs to say to get the votes he needs …"
As does Hillary, of course. She and her husband have taken pandering to a level never seen before.
Many of us are voting for Trump because he's a question mark and Hillary is not … she is evil personified. We don't know what we would get with a President Trump … but we do know what we would get with a President Hillary, including giving her husband a third term in the WH. That would be unacceptable.
Because Trump sways with the political climate. He will say whatever he needs to say to get the votes he needs to get his foot in the door.
And you would rather have the career politician instead? The one who has been a warmonger for decades now? I hear those career politicians are often very stingy with the truth.
I don't expect there to ever be a great choice to vote for — I will recommend a vote against the establishment Republicans and the establishment Democrats when you can. I choose this because I see the country in deep, deep trouble with a crumbling society that gets more barbaric by the day; and believe that those who rule you brought this about. The elites, establishment, or deep state — call it what you wish.
If you look around and love what you see; then by all means vote for the establishment's preferred candidate. Care not about the women and children that will be killed in the countries she decides needs invading next. As for me, the populist beats heck out of the deep state's choice — any day.
~ Mark
markstoval wrote: "The elite Republicans are horrific people and are anti-American. But so are the Democratic Party movers and shakers."
Agreed. The elite Republicans *are* horrific, deluded people. Their behavior is unbelieveable. Romney and his clique ought to be kicked out of the Republican Pary. I guess they go crazy when their power and influence are threatened, and that's why they are acting so nutty.
The problem is "crazy" is going to get Clinton elected, and then we lose our country to the Lunatic Left, maybe for good. Meanwhile, Romney and friends are rolling the dice over our future. These guys are the enemy, as much as the Lunatic Left.
Trump is going to go around these clowns to the American people, just like Reagan did. Just like he has been doing this entire election.
The people are listening to Trump, not the elites. If the elites give Trump trouble, Trump is going to tell the people to write and complain to their congressional representative, and they will write their congressional representative. And their congressional represenative will salute. People Power!
getitright says:
Well, you know the punishment for Apostasy.
CLRII says:
Why does anyone bother citing issues where Trump has changed his position any more? He's changed his position on nearly every issue in order to conform with those of the people he's counting on to elect him president. In fact, it seems that the only issues on which he hasn't changed his position are those on which his position has been consistently wrong.
Well, "CLRII," you seem to be indulging in sheer prejudice. Which issues? From what to what? And where is he now? The point seems to be, is he in the right place with respect to the issues? If he is, how can you say it is not sincere? How is it that you–and only you?–have the telepathic insight into Trump that he is not to be trusted? Or are all his loyal employees and family a parade of actors?
In fact, Trump has been saying what hardly anyone OTHER than him has been saying, and we (the people) AGREE with him. He is in the lead on these issues. He is not following anyone. Which you would be aware of, if you actually followed what he is doing.
Since the alternative to Trump is Hillary Clinton, a multiple violator of national security–if not an actual traitor–and a consummate liar (just like her husband), it is obvious where your sympathies lie, and why there is no limit to what you will say.
OrganicFool says:
3 billion people don't have adequate access to electricity. Very little running water, no indoor plumbing or toilets, dung for fuel. Do we want to go back to whale oil and cutting down forests? Would the AGW crowd like to trade their lives for someone living in the slums of Calcutta?
The Left is about economic control as part of anti-capitalism from what I can see.
Search WUWT:
Donate to support WUWT
Support our work: HERE
The Maxim of our resolve
"Walk toward the fire. Don't worry about what they call you." – Andrew Breitbart | read more
393,821,467 hits
Use Promo Code "WATTS" for 50% off.
BOOM! Scott Adams uses Dilbert to Diss the 'Climate Crisis' Again
"New Solar + Battery Price Crushes Fossil Fuels, Buries Nuclear" Until You Do the Math
10 fallacies about Arctic sea ice & polar bear survival: teachers & parents take note
Solar Update July 2019
Penalty phase coming for the Peter Ridd vs. @jcu firing fiasco
Is Historic Newport, RI Threatened by Sea Level Rise?
First They Came For Climate Sceptics
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: Climate Change is 'not a clear and present danger'
NREL Energy Storage System Cost Benchmark
Energy Dominance: US Crude Oil Production Tops 12 Million Barrels per Day in April!
Weather Picture of the Day
"…the world's most viewed climate website"
– Fred Pearce The Climate Files:
The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming
"…invaluable" – Steven F. Hayward, The Weekly Standard
"…changed the world and is one of the most influential resources on global warming. – Jonathon Moseley, American Thinker
"…flashy (apparently widely distributed)"– Michael E. Mann
Follow WUWT via Email
You are following WUWT via email
ENSO METER
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: Climate Change is 'not a clear and present danger'
CBS livestream broadcast of Apollo 11 launch – this day in 1969
"New Solar + Battery Price Crushes Fossil Fuels, Buries Nuclear" Until You Do the Math
BOOM! Scott Adams uses Dilbert to Diss the 'Climate Crisis' Again
Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #367
Hubble Peers at Galactic Cherry Blossoms
Archives Select Month July 2019 (105) June 2019 (188) May 2019 (201) April 2019 (201) March 2019 (227) February 2019 (197) January 2019 (222) December 2018 (232) November 2018 (214) October 2018 (192) September 2018 (180) August 2018 (181) July 2018 (178) June 2018 (194) May 2018 (191) April 2018 (164) March 2018 (185) February 2018 (170) January 2018 (178) December 2017 (153) November 2017 (176) October 2017 (173) September 2017 (188) August 2017 (218) July 2017 (185) June 2017 (121) May 2017 (131) April 2017 (131) March 2017 (147) February 2017 (125) January 2017 (149) December 2016 (139) November 2016 (138) October 2016 (171) September 2016 (133) August 2016 (142) July 2016 (138) June 2016 (156) May 2016 (160) April 2016 (163) March 2016 (172) February 2016 (137) January 2016 (133) December 2015 (158) November 2015 (136) October 2015 (123) September 2015 (129) August 2015 (130) July 2015 (146) June 2015 (144) May 2015 (157) April 2015 (125) March 2015 (126) February 2015 (115) January 2015 (106) December 2014 (130) November 2014 (136) October 2014 (163) September 2014 (185) August 2014 (190) July 2014 (173) June 2014 (195) May 2014 (216) April 2014 (182) March 2014 (185) February 2014 (164) January 2014 (202) December 2013 (144) November 2013 (146) October 2013 (147) September 2013 (148) August 2013 (165) July 2013 (174) June 2013 (164) May 2013 (193) April 2013 (171) March 2013 (164) February 2013 (165) January 2013 (172) December 2012 (126) November 2012 (139) October 2012 (176) September 2012 (151) August 2012 (144) July 2012 (175) June 2012 (179) May 2012 (177) April 2012 (178) March 2012 (190) February 2012 (161) January 2012 (142) December 2011 (161) November 2011 (168) October 2011 (180) September 2011 (189) August 2011 (190) July 2011 (170) June 2011 (187) May 2011 (177) April 2011 (177) March 2011 (172) February 2011 (183) January 2011 (193) December 2010 (183) November 2010 (168) October 2010 (191) September 2010 (179) August 2010 (200) July 2010 (188) June 2010 (140) May 2010 (124) April 2010 (122) March 2010 (136) February 2010 (142) January 2010 (157) December 2009 (168) November 2009 (163) October 2009 (132) September 2009 (106) August 2009 (92) July 2009 (96) June 2009 (94) May 2009 (89) April 2009 (99) March 2009 (99) February 2009 (60) January 2009 (60) December 2008 (58) November 2008 (45) October 2008 (63) September 2008 (75) August 2008 (77) July 2008 (68) June 2008 (72) May 2008 (54) April 2008 (54) March 2008 (39) February 2008 (40) January 2008 (31) December 2007 (27) November 2007 (37) October 2007 (29) September 2007 (17) August 2007 (31) July 2007 (20) June 2007 (25) May 2007 (31) April 2007 (31) March 2007 (27) February 2007 (24) January 2007 (25) December 2006 (22) November 2006 (11)
Categories Select Category 2017 Solar Eclipse 350.org connect the dots 97% consensus 99% certainty Adjustments/Corrections Aerosols Agriculture AGU AGU 2013 AGU 2014 AGU 2015 AGU16 Air pollution Al Gore Alarmism Albedo AMO Announcements Antarctic Anthropocene Anthropogenic Ocean Warming Arctic ARGO data Astronomy Atmospheric physics Attribution Bad science Bad science journalism Bengtsson Climate McCarthyism scandal Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Biodiversity biofuels Biomass Book Review Cancun Climate Conference Cap-and-trade Carbon credits Carbon dioxide Carbon footprint Carbon sequestration Carbon soot carbon tax Celebrities on AGW censorship CFC's Chaos and Climate Citizen science Climate Attribution Climate cash Climate Change Debate Climate Communications Climate Craziness of the Week Climate data Climate Economics Climate FAIL Climate Hypocrisy Climate Lawsuits Climate Models Climate Myths Climate News Climate News Roundup Climate Politics Climate reconciliation Climate Reference Network climate refugees Climate Science Climate sensitivity Climate ugliness Climate_change Climategate Climategate 3.0 Clouds Coal Cold wave Common sense Consensus COP conferences Copenhagen Climate Conference Copygate coral reefs Cosmic rays Cowtan & Way Curious things Current News Desertification Disaster disinvitation Drought Durban Climate Conference dust storms Earth Earthquakes Economy-health Education Educational opportunity El Nino Basics Emergence Emergent Climate Phenomena Emissions Endangered Species Energy ENSO Environment EPA erosion Experiments Extinction extreme weather Fake News Fakegate feedbacks flooding fog FOI Forecasting Forests Fracking Freeman Dyson FUG Fun_stuff Fusion power Gavin Schmidt Geoengineering geothermal energy Gergis et al GHCN GISS Glaciers Global cooling Global Greening Global Temperature Update Global warming Global Warming in Perspective Global Warming Optimism GLOC Gore-a-thon 2011 Gore-a-thon 2012 Gorefest11 Government funding of science Government idiocy Graph of the Week Gravity Green Blob Green Mafia Green New Deal Green tech Greenland ice sheet HADCRUT4 hail Hausfather et al 2017 heat wave Hiatus in Global Warming History Hits and Misses How Climate Works Humor humour hurricanes hydroclimatology Hydropower Ice Ages IPCC IPCC AR5 leak IPCC AR5 Report Ira It's Worse Than We Thought! James Hansen John Cook junk science Karl et al. 2015 Katowice Conference Land Surface Air Temperature Data Land use land cover change Landslides Letters To The Editor Lewgate Lewis and Crok lightning Little Ice Age Local_issues Lower Troposphere Temperature Lukewarmerism Marcott et al proxy paper Mass Extinctions measurement media MedievalWarmPeriod Methane MetOffice Michael E. Mann MJO Modeling modification monsoons More On Series NASA NASA GISS National Climate Assessment Report Natural CO2 sources natural gas Natural Warming NCADAC NCDC NCEI News Newsbytes NGOs NOAA NOAA 2 year FOIA documents NOAA ERSST.v4 Pauses Buster Noble Cause Corruption nuclear power Obama Climate Plan Obamas War on Energy Obvious science Ocean acidification Ocean Heat Content Ocean Temperatures Oceans Oil and Gas Open Thread Opinion Optical phenonmena Ozone Paleoclimatology Papal Climate Encyclical Paris Climate Accord PDO Peer review PEOPLE WILL DIE! Personal note petroleum Plankton and other critters Podcasts Polar Amplification Polar Bears Polar Vortex Polarbeargate Politics Positive effects of CO2 Post-normal science Presentations Proxies Puzzling things Quote of The Month Quote of the Week Radiation Radiative Imbalance Rainfall RCP 8.5 Science Fiction records Reference Pages Renewable energy reproducibility RICO20 Ridiculae Rio+20 Russia Salinity Satire Science Sea Sea ice Sea Ice News Sea level Sea Surface Temperature Snow snowfall social cost of carbon Solar solar flare solar power Southern Annular Mode Space Spaceweather Specific Humidity Spencer-Braswell and Dessler statistics Stephan Lewandowsky Stern Review Stratospheric water vapor Surfacestations paper Surveys Sustainability Tabloid Climatology TAO/TRITON Buoys Technology Temperature The "Clitanic" aka Spirit of Mawson The Rat-hole problem The Skeptic's Case The Weather Channel The WUWT Hot Sheet The Yamal Deception thorium power Throwback Thursday Predictions thunderstorms tornadoes Transportation Trenberth's missing heats Tropical Hot spot Tropics Tsunami UHI UKMO HADCRUT4 Uncategorized Uncertainty United Nations USCRN USGS Volcanoes Vortex Vulcanism Waste heat Watts et al 2012 Weather Weather_stations Wiki Wars Wildfires Willis Autobiography wind power WUWT-TV
1000+ skeptical papers
A Walk On The Natural Side – Jim Steele
AccuWeather GW Blog
American Elephants
Appinsys
Autonomous Mind
C3 Headlines
Carlin Economics
Cartoons By Josh
Climate Abyss – John Nielsen-Gammon
Climate Change 101
Climate Conversation – NZ
Climate Debate Daily
Climate Realists of Norway
Climate Resistance
Climate Sanity
Climate Science – Pielke Sr.
Climate Views
Collide-a-scape – Keith Kloor
Die Kalte Sonne
Dr. Norman Page
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
Dr. Roy Spencer
EU Referendum – Richard North
Friends of Science
Green Hell Blog
Haunting the library
International Climate Science Coalition
James Delingpole @ Breitbart
Lucia's The Blackboard
Marcel Crok – De staat van het klimaat
Master Resource
Moshtemp – Steve Mosher
NCDC Hi/Lo Records lookup
Niche Modeling – David Stockwell
No Frakking Consensus
No Tricks Zone
NYT Dot Earth – Revkin
Our World in Data
scienceofdoom
Skeptical Science – John Cook
SOHO solar images
Solar Cycle 24 Board
Stoat – Connolley
Surfacestations Gallery
Surfacestations Main
Susan Crockford – polarbearscience
Tallbloke's Talkshop
Tamino's Open Mind
The Air Vent
The Chiefio – E.M. Smith
The Cosmic Tusk
The Daily Bayonet
The Lukewarmer's Way – Tom Fuller
The Next Grand Minimum
Thomas Fuller – 3000quads
Trust Yet Verify
UAH AMSU Daily Temps
Warren Meyer
WFT – Interactive Climate Graph Engine
William Briggs
World Climate Report
Click for the:
Solar Images & Data Page
ENSO/SST Page
WUWT Tag Cloud
Al Gore antarctica Arctic Australia Bill McKibben california climate climate change Climate model Climatic Research Unit email controversy Current sea level rise Earth El Niño-Southern Oscillation Energy environment Global warming Goddard Institute for Space Studies greenhouse gas greenland Heartland Institute Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC James Hansen Judith Curry La Nina Little Ice Age Met Office Michael Mann NASA National Climatic Data Center National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service NOAA Pacific Ocean Peter Gleick Polar ice packs Science & Environmental Policy Project Sea ice Steve McIntyre sun temperature Temperature record United States United States Environmental Protection Agency Watts Up With That?
Material on this website is copyright © 2006-2019, by Anthony Watts, and may not be stored or archived separately, rebroadcast, or republished without written permission. (Miriam O'Brien aka slandering "Sou" from Hotwhopper, that means you.)
For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.
Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case! Cookie Policy


Two weeks ago we had the opportunity to attend the Edtech Podcast launch, a live podcasting event held at Loughborough University, celebrating six months since former Head of Content at BETT, Sophie Bailey, decided to follow the growing trend towards independent working and air her first podcast dedicated to all things edtech.
We have previously blogged about our attendance at the annual BETT show, commenting on how it can just feel like an opportunity for tech companies to sell their wares without any real understanding of what educators want or need. Perhaps the Edtech Podcast can be seen as an attempt to answer the call for more 'meaningful conversations about the direction of travel in education'.
Looking for new ways of content creation and responding to the continued growth of the podcast, with a reported 11% of people in the UK listening to a podcast every week, Sophie decided it would be the perfect medium by which to engage educators, innovators and anyone else who may be interested in the future of edtech.
She has succeeded in securing 20,000 downloads in the first six months of being on air and her listeners span 69 countries worldwide, with her fourth biggest audience coming from China. Previous episodes have featured interviews with key figures such as Joanne Bersin, Head of Education at Kano, currently making waves in the edtech world, and Dr Rose Luckin from the UCL Knowledge Lab discussing the importance of efficacy.
The live panel debate comprised former Head of ICT turned edtech consultant Mark Anderson @ICTEVANGELIST; founder of the early years app EasyPeasy, Jen Lexmond; former host of the TES modern languages forum Joe Dale; Team Leader of Digital Programmes at the V&A, Alex Flowers; and teacher and ICT enthusiast at Lauriston Primary School in Hackney, Tolu Oyenola.
Ed and tech still failing to connect?
A number of burning issues in edtech were discussed over the course of the evening, crucially how the dialogue between ed and tech could be improved. Although it was suggested that teachers needed to develop a 'growth mindset and be willing to push themselves', all the panelists acknowledged that severe time constraints placed upon teachers made this difficult, with a recent report from the EPI suggesting that a fifth of teachers in the UK work at least 60 hours per week, longer than all but two other countries worldwide.
Teacher confidence was also flagged as a key barrier for teachers engaging in technology, with half of the panelists suggesting more continuing professional development (CPD) was essential for any new edtech purchase, with educators needing to feel like they have 'permission to explore'.
However the EPI report also suggested that teachers in the UK receive an average of just four days CPD a year, compared to the worldwide average of 10.5 days. How then are teachers supposed to make effective use of any new purchases authorised by the powers that be, or indeed get enthused about digital innovation in general?
It was suggested that there was a 'dichotomy between connected educators and those who aren't', and that sharing of practice was essential in getting more teachers engaged. This is certainly true but there are currently few platforms for them to do this, and the key issue remains that it is headteachers, not individual teachers, that hold the budgets.
Edtech companies are keen to stress the fact that effective use of technology can in fact save teachers time, but exactly how this manifests itself is perhaps not being demonstrated to decision makers in a clear enough way.
Which brings us onto the importance not just of efficacy but of good and methodically rigorous research as one of the main ways tech companies can show the value of their products. Jen Lexmond pointed out that the Dartington Social Research Unit, whose job it is to test the rigour of research presented by edtech companies, currently finds that only one percent have the level of evidence required.
Nesta has long believed in the importance of using evidence to display real learning impacts and that edtech for the sake of edtech holds little value.
Jen also spoke about the importance of research not just for the rubber stamp to prove the value of your product, but also in terms of product development to make sure you're responding to user feedback and your product is of real value to your intended audience.
This is key if edtech companies are to make sure their product is of real value to teachers, and responds to teacher feedback that investment in technology was made to 'serve the needs of specific learners or groups of learners' and is in line with specific school development priorities.
Then came the Mark Twain quote from one audience member that 'schools get in the way of education', and the rate of digital growth will mean the future climate of education will be far beyond what anyone can predict, so tech companies should continue to innovate anyway.
The panel agreed, pointing to both pioneers within schools who are setting their own agenda and recent technological advancements such as Google Expeditions as a sign of things to come in the future of education.
However, this smacks of a 'we know best' attitude and the problem with this over-emphasis on what the future might hold, and deciding to work outside existing structures, is that it ignores the current reality of the educational climate and risks further fragmenting the worlds of ed and tech. It also ignores the fact that teachers are in fact experts in the field of education and that time and time again, studies have shown the importance of having a teacher present in order to guide learners and respond to individual learners' needs.
It was a great evening full of people who clearly care about the future of education and were willing to open up the edtech dialogue. However, it would perhaps have benefited from having more currently practising teachers of all levels, including those not so sold on the virtues of edtech, to ensure the industry is not preaching to the converted and listening to genuine concerns from educational professionals. Listen to the debate and previous EdTech Podcasts here.
Editor's NB: Sophie has contacted us about plans in the pipeline for a Pro-Tech vs Anti-Tech teacher debate so watch this space...!


New study identifies different brain areas associated with smoking and drinking which could help in both the prevention and treatment of alcohol and nicotine substance abuse, reports a new study.
Around 3 billion people worldwide currently drink or smoke - new research could help in both the prevention and treatment of alcohol and nicotine substance abuse.
In new research the areas of the brain that are different in those who smoke and those who drink have been identified: the tendency to drink alcohol is associated with increased connectivity of brain networks associated with reward processing, and the tendency to smoke is associated with low connectivity of systems that respond to not receiving rewards.
These differential tendencies to alcohol and nicotine consumption can even be detected in young people before much drinking or smoking has started, thanks to new research led by the University of Warwick.
Academics at the University of Warwick have found that low functional connectivity of the lateral orbitofrontal cortex that is associated with the tendency to smoke is associated with increased impulsiveness - which may contribute to the tendency to smoke. The high connectivity of the reward-related medial orbitofrontal cortex in drinkers may increase the tendency to be attracted to the reward of alcohol consumption.
A new study by Professor Jianfeng Feng, Professor Edmund Rolls from the Department of Computer Science at the University of Warwick, in collaboration with Dr. Wei Cheng from Fudan University, China, examined the neural mechanisms underlying two key types of substance use behavior, smoking and drinking.
In 2000 participants they found that smokers had low functional connectivity in general, and especially in the lateral orbitofrontal cortex, a region of the brain associated with impulsive behavior. This suggests that people who smoke may do so to increase their overall brain connectivity with the stimulating effect of nicotine, and that being impulsive may be a factor leading to smoking.
Drinkers of alcohol had high overall brain connectivity, especially in the medial orbitofrontal cortex, a region implicated in reward. It is suggested that the high connectivity of this reward-related brain region may be a factor in attracting some individuals to alcohol.
Importantly the extent of these functional connectivity changes in the brains of drinkers and smokers correlated with the amount of alcohol and nicotine being consumed. Critically they were even detectable in individuals smoking only a few cigarettes or drinking one unit of alcohol every day.
Another key discovery is that it was possible to relate the connectivity at age 14 to who would smoke or drink at age 19. This opens up the issue of causality in addiction.
Professor Edmund Rolls, from the University of Warwick's Department of Computer Science, comments: "These discoveries help to show that there are different neural bases of different types of addiction, and that the orbitofrontal cortex, a key brain region in emotion, is implicated in these two types of addiction."
Professor Jianfeng Feng, from the University of Warwick's Department of Computer Science, comments: "These findings could have important public health implications, as both drinking and smoking affect a large population worldwide. According to a WHO investigation, there are over 1.1 billion people who smoke tobacco in the world, and more than 7 million people die each year due to the use of tobacco. As well as 2.3 billion people worldwide who are currently drinkers, with more than a quarter of all 15-19 year old teenagers drinking. More than 3 million people die as a result of the harmful use of alcohol each year.
"These are key discoveries that advance our understanding of the neurological bases of smoking and drinking and also provide new evidence on the different neurological mechanisms that are related to these two types of human addictive behavior, smoking, and drinking, and these advances have implications for prevention and treatment of these two substance use."
Smokers and problem drinkers admitted in England hospitals will be offered help in quitting the habit as a part of a 'long-term plan' by NHS England.


And the winner is – Eric Ellefsen.
The Asbury Park Music Foundation announced Sunday that the North Beach resident placed the winning bid for the Upstage Reunion Guitar.
Former E-Street band member David Sancious played the Fender Squier during the reunion jam, and everyone from Bruce Springsteen and Little Steven to Southside Johnny and other members of the E-Street band and Asbury Park music community signed the guitar, Lenskold said.
And while the auction attracted bids from across the nation, in the end it went to Ellefsen, a new member of the Asbury Park community. Lenskold said Ellefsen learned of the auction on the final day. His $5,250 bid will go directly toward supporting the nonprofit's Music Saved My Life youth music programs.
"We are fortunate to have him as part of our musical community and owner of this historical item," Lenskold said.
The guitar features signatures from Bruce Springsteen, Little Steven Van Zandt, Southside Johnny Lyon, David Sancious, Vini Lopez, Paul Whistler, Joe Petillo, Albee Tellone, Gerald Carboy, Jeff Kazee, Tom LaBella, Gary Cavico, Danny Clinch, Ernest "Boom" Carter, Joe Bellia, Marc Ribler, Billy Ryan, Richard Blackwell, and Eddie Manion.
The 2017 Upstage Jam included a rough cut screening of Tom Jones' Before the Dawn, which will feature an interview with Bruce Springsteen and footage from the jam session. The movie is scheduled for release later this year, Lenskold said.


While there is a realization on both sides of the Pacific that a kind of strategic stability is necessary to prevent great power conflict, both China and the United States remain unwilling to compromise and make the kind of meaningful concessions required to move the relationship further from confrontation and conflict and closer to cooperation and rapprochement.
The last day of training introduces participants to the scoring methodology for summative evaluation. As of 4 MayROC nationals are eligible for preferential visa treatment from countries and areas.
Ongoing, reflective teaching is demonstrated through the highest level of expertise and commitment to all students' learning, An evaluation of the us china relations professional growth, and collaborative practice.
Both countries are to ensure the success of the 26th JCCT by making progress on key trade matters of their business communities. The resolution was adopted mainly because the Soviet Union, a veto-wielding powerhad been boycotting UN proceedings since January, in protest that the Republic of China and not the People's Republic of China held a permanent seat on the council.
Roosevelt demanded an apology and compensation from the Japanese, which was received, but relations between the two countries continued to deteriorate. Building of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Taipei. If there are student growth and assessment data available for a teacher for at least three school years, the student growth rating shall be based on the student growth and assessment data for the most recent three-consecutive-school-year period.
Technology is one of the pillars of the bilateral economic relationship between the United States and China.
President Kennedy believed that US policy towards China was "nonsensical",[ This quote needs a citation ] and he considered reestablishing diplomatic ties in his second term.
The PRC was diplomatically isolated and the leadership came to believe that improved relations with the United States would be a useful counterbalance to the Soviet threat. Step 5 - Determine Student Growth Rating: The law authorizes use of force against Taiwan if it declares legal independence from China.
In MayNixon made an equally significant trip to Moscow to support a nuclear arms agreement. China's commerce ministry called the decision totally unacceptable and vowed to respond.
Secretary of State John Hay sent diplomatic letters to these nations, asking them to guarantee the territorial and administrative integrity of China and to not interfere with the free use of treaty ports within their respective spheres of influence. The campaigns took place from November to September 7,during the final years of Manchu rule in China under the Qing dynasty.
Let us take a look at the three key aspects of China-U. The Chinese presence in North Vietnam was well known to US officials, and can explain a number of factors surrounding American strategy in the conflict. The United States along with other countries condemned the action, leading to U. European countries, including Germany, Italy, Finland and Australia, have recalled drugs using valsartan supplied by Huahai following the Europe Medicines Agency issuing an alert to review such drugs earlier this month.
During the California Gold Rush and the construction of the transcontinental railroadlarge numbers of Chinese emigrated to the U. Both countries affirm the value of adopting technology-product international standards that have been developed in an open, transparent, market-driven, and balanced manner that allow for due process.
That comment was a response to the passage Saturday of two U. China approved a list of measures in February making it easier for Taiwanese to work and invest. The United States and the Soviet Union pledged to limit the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles each side would build, and to prevent the development of anti-ballistic missile systems.
American manufacturers are simply tied to suppliers from outside the U. At worst, this approach has already outlived its usefulness.
Hay took this as acceptance of his proposal, which came to be known as the Open Door Policy. Sun Li-jen opposed this action. Both countries resolve to further strengthen the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, and Inter-American Development Bank by enhancing their financial capacity, reforming their governance, and improving their effectiveness and efficiency.
ROC passport has countries and Hong Kong  ranking 33rd in the world reciprocally exchange Visa exemption agreements as of Punch Aug 23, by J. Script - Collect specific and descriptive evidence. An enemy of the Chiang family, K. This is successful, accomplished, professional, and effective practice.
Step 6 - Determine Effectiveness Rating: Both countries affirm that states should not conduct or knowingly support misappropriation of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information with the intent of providing competitive advantages to their companies or commercial sectors.
The smooth acceptance of this so-called " ping-pong diplomacy " gave confidence to both sides. Take the Chen Guangcheng case, for example. The United States and China affirm the efforts of the IMF Executive Board to pursue an interim solution, which aims to converge quota shares to the extent possible to the levels decided under the 14th Review.
The United States and China reaffirm their support for IWG guideline coverage of official export credit support provided by or on behalf of a government, including, but not limited to, official export credit support provided by official export credit policy financial institutions, and look forward to further discussing the scope of the guideline coverage at the next IWG meetings in October.
For most of the 22 years between andSino-US relations were uniformly hostile, with Mao Zedong frequently referring to the United States as "the most dangerous imperialist power",[ This quote needs a citation ] and the U.
Rooseveltand Winston Churchill at the Cairo Conference in A listed Chinese pharmaceutical firm that makes and sells generic drugs to the global market including the US and Europe, has recalled some of its products after finding that they may have been.
Welcome to the AACRAO Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), a web-based resource for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials. China and the Developing World: Beijing's Strategy for the Twenty-first Century (East Gate Books) [Joshua Eisenman, Eric Heginbotham, Derek Mitchell] on agronumericus.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
China's relationship with the developing world is a fundamental part of its larger foreign policy strategy.
Sweeping changes both within and outside of China and the transformation of. DJI, the world's biggest maker of recreational drones, is bracing itself for a potential backlash against Chinese technology companies should US-Sino relations deteriorate after US lawmakers.
Our flexible, interdisciplinary major lets students pursue a wide range of academic interests and careers: business, economics, government, history, international relations, labor relations, law, public policy, and social justice. We offer internship, study-abroad, and research opportunities throughout the world.
Section (3) Beginning with the school year, a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall post on its public website all of the following information about the evaluation tool or tools it uses for its performance evaluation system for teachers.


text:
Home page>WORLD>Russia>Toyota Motor to close it...
Toyota Motor to close its plant in Russia
Reuters Images
The automaker suspended production in St Petersburg in March due to supply chain disruptions and stopped vehicle imports into Russia
Staff Writer, Reuters News
MANUFACTURINGRUSSIAJAPANAUTOMOTIVE
MOSCOW - Japan's Toyota Motor Corp has decided to close its plant in Russia, Russia's Ministry of Industry and Trade said in a statement.
The automaker suspended production in St Petersburg in March due to supply chain disruptions and stopped vehicle imports into Russia.
Toyota will ensure the fulfilment of all social obligations, as well as significant additional pay-offs to the staff, the ministry said, and will retain after-sales service of Toyota and Lexus cars and maintain its dealer network.
Russia's Kommersant newspaper first reported the plans, citing unnamed sources, earlier on Friday.
The factory, which has a capacity of 100,000 units a year and produced the Camry and RAV4 models, will be preserved and may be sold in the future, Kommersant's sources said.
The ministry and regional authorities are working on possible scenarios to develop the site, the ministry said.
Toyota did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Many factories in Russia have suspended production and furloughed workers due to shortages of high-tech equipment and an exodus of Western manufacturers after Moscow sent armed forces into Ukraine on Feb. 24.
(Reporting by Reuters; Editing by Kevin Liffey, Jason Neely)
Russia says new U.S. ambassador will not be able to improve ties
Russia says it struck Ukraine's energy infrastructure, arms shipments
Russia blocks CIA, FBI websites for 'spreading false information'
Putin discusses Russia's Arctic borders at Security Council meeting
Renault, Nissan aim to announce deal on reshaped alliance on Feb 6
Lexus chief to take over Toyota as founder's grandson steps down
Japan's Suzuki to invest $35bln through FY 2030
Toyota says replacing Akio Toyoda as president and CEO

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Lifecycle Of A Woman
Leadership/Staff
Join Persimmon Club
Volunteer Connection
YWCA Wish List
YWCA Media
HomeWho We Are
Board Chair, Jacqueline B McElroy Welcomes you to the YWCA Houston
Are you looking for a career that will empower you to make a difference in peoples' lives? Come work with us!
Community Leaders provide expertise and leadership in our mission.
The YWCA is the oldest and largest multicultural women's organization in the world.
Across the globe, we have more than 25 million members in 106 countries, including 2.6 million members and participants in 300 local associations in the United States.
More important than the numbers, is our mission to eliminate racism and empower women. We provide safe places for women and girls, build strong women leaders, and advocate for women's rights and civil rights in Congress.
Women come to us in times of crisis, as survivors of rape or domestic violence. They come for job training and career counseling. They come for childcare. They come for health and fitness. They come for a variety of reasons. But they come. And they leave with a renewed spirit, new skills, and stronger lives.
YWCA HOUSTON IS ON A MISSION
AS HOUSTON'S PREMIERE ORGANIZATION FOR DISADVANTAGED WOMEN AND GIRLS OF COLOR, WE ARE ON A MISSION TO ADDRESS THEIR UNIQUE NEEDS AND STRIVE FOR OUTCOMES THAT INCREASE THEIR EMOTIONAL AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY.
We're part of the national network of the YWCA USA. This means we leverage the legacy of a pioneering organization that squarely confronts social justice issues to make lasting, meaningful change.
Our programs and services are designed to help women and girls overcome life's challenges and eliminate barriers to success.
• We seek to increase their equal protections and equal opportunities
• We work to increase their economic opportunities
• We strive to improve their health and safety outcomes
We're on a mission to help women and girls educate, empower, advance, lead, serve, and thrive.
6309 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Houston, TX 77021 | Phone: 832-570-2355 | ywca@ywcahouston.org
© 2023 YWCA Houston, All Rights Reserved.