Gag order on the EPA

[pbrower2a]

Quote:I just returned from a briefing for Communication Directors where the following information was provided. These restrictions are effective immediately and will remain in place until further direction is received from the new Administration’s Beach Team. Please review this material and share with all appropriate individuals in your organization. If anyone on your staff receives a press inquiry of any kind, it must be referred to me so I can coordinate with the appropriate individuals in OPA.

• No press releases will be going out to external audiences.
  
• No social media will be going out. A Digital Strategist will be coming on board to oversee social media. Existing, individually controlled, social media accounts may become more centrally controlled.
  
• No blog messages.
  
• The Beach Team will review the list of upcoming webinars and decide which ones will go forward.
  
• Please send me a list of any external speaking engagements that are currently scheduled among any of your staff from today through February.
  
• Incoming media requests will be carefully screened.
  
• No new content can be placed on any website. Only do clean up where essential.
  
• List servers will be reviewed. Only send out critical messages, as messages can be shared broadly and end up in the press.
  

I will provide updates to this information as soon as I receive it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/envi...i5dn29&

It looks as if anyone who works for an environmentally-sensitive area in the government will have to defer to the will of the President and his close associates. Secrecy, centralization, politicization, and despotic management are on the way.

The Gleichschaltung has begun in Trump's plutocratic America.

[Warren Dew]

(01-24-2017, 07:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It looks as if anyone who works for an environmentally-sensitive area in the government will have to defer to the will of the President and his close associates.

Just as they have had to for every previous President, yes.

[Galen]

(01-24-2017, 10:42 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 07:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It looks as if anyone who works for an environmentally-sensitive area in the government will have to defer to the will of the President and his close associates.

Just as they have had to for every previous President, yes.

Yes, only this time it looks like the Gaia worshipers are running for cover.  An order like this really wasn't very surprising because the permanent bureaucracy doesn't like being downsized and under Obozo the EPA could pretty much do whatever they wanted.

[Warren Dew]

(01-24-2017, 03:59 PM)Galen Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 10:42 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 07:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It looks as if anyone who works for an environmentally-sensitive area in the government will have to defer to the will of the President and his close associates.

Just as they have had to for every previous President, yes.

Yes, only this time it looks like the Gaia worshipers are running for cover.  An order like this really wasn't very surprising because the permanent bureaucracy doesn't like being downsized and under Obozo the EPA could pretty much do whatever they wanted.

Not quite everything.  They were required to change the mileage standards to favor large SUVs over small cars to help Government Motors.  But given the people at the EPA no longer seem to actually care about the environment, that was a small price to pay.

[pbrower2a]

(01-24-2017, 03:59 PM)Galen Wrote: Obozo

I can insult a President for his policies and personality without twisting his name.

Of course I am suggesting that people find a rhyming word for an often-devastating move in contract bridge.. the "trump".

...bump, dump, hump, jump, lump, pump, rump, stump, and thump all suggest themselves.

[gabrielle]

(01-24-2017, 03:59 PM)Galen Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 10:42 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 07:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It looks as if anyone who works for an environmentally-sensitive area in the government will have to defer to the will of the President and his close associates.

Just as they have had to for every previous President, yes.

Yes, only this time it looks like the Gaia worshipers are running for cover.  An order like this really wasn't very surprising because the permanent bureaucracy doesn't like being downsized and under Obozo the EPA could pretty much do whatever they wanted.

Is that what you call scientists?

[Warren Dew]

(01-24-2017, 11:31 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I am a so called "Luke Warmer" heavy emphasis on the Luke.

As such, I can't stand the cabal who some term "The Hockey Team" (a pejorative reference to the now famous or infamous "Hockey Stick" depicting a seeming step function in warming but later determined to be mostly due to the use of "tremometers" that are actually better hygrometers). James Hanson, Michael Mann, et al ... a bunch of jokes.

Nonetheless, I am not in favor of the extreme turn being taken by the Trump crew.

W would not have approved.

There is a middle path here people.

The gag order is not an extreme turn.

Climate models - as opposed to empirical research on historical climate behavior - continue to show hockey sticks starting at whatever the current year is, and continue to be shown to be wrong the next year.

A temporary gag order on an organization which is infamous for funding and publicizing such models is justified while cleaning house.

Now, Trump may indeed take an extreme turn by eliminating any research on the topic and ignoring carbon emissions in all his policies, not that Obama's policies were much better in that respect.  If so, though, that turn remains in the future; this isn't it.

[Eric the Green]

A preview of things to come, is what this is. The EPA must be gagged, the Trumpistas say, so that we may be sure that what they say corresponds with the priorities of the new administration. Yeah, and what are those priorities? #1 priority: war on the environment.

[Eric the Green]

(01-24-2017, 10:42 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 07:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It looks as if anyone who works for an environmentally-sensitive area in the government will have to defer to the will of the President and his close associates.

Just as they have had to for every previous President, yes.

Yes, and the will of this "president" is to destroy the environment.

[Galen]

(01-24-2017, 11:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 03:59 PM)Galen Wrote: Obozo

I can insult a President for his policies and personality without twisting his name.

Of course I am suggesting that people find a rhyming word for an often-devastating move in contract bridge.. the "trump".

...bump, dump, hump, jump, lump, pump, rump, stump, and thump all suggest themselves.

I don't see any reason why I shouldn't call an obvious clown Obozo.  You can call Trump anything you like but it will mean as little as everything else you say.

[Galen]

(01-25-2017, 01:32 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 11:31 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I am a so called "Luke Warmer" heavy emphasis on the Luke.

As such, I can't stand the cabal who some term "The Hockey Team" (a pejorative reference to the now famous or infamous "Hockey Stick" depicting a seeming step function in warming but later determined to be mostly due to the use of "tremometers" that are actually better hygrometers). James Hanson, Michael Mann, et al ... a bunch of jokes.

Nonetheless, I am not in favor of the extreme turn being taken by the Trump crew.

W would not have approved.

There is a middle path here people.

Climate models - as opposed to empirical research on historical climate behavior - continue to show hockey sticks starting at whatever the current year is, and continue to be shown to be wrong the next year.

Which is a sure sign that they don't know anything because the models are demonstrably wrong if this keeps happening.  This suggests that the real agenda is to scare people into giving the government power and money.  This is a very old story.

[Odin]

(01-24-2017, 11:23 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 03:59 PM)Galen Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 10:42 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 07:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It looks as if anyone who works for an environmentally-sensitive area in the government will have to defer to the will of the President and his close associates.

Just as they have had to for every previous President, yes.

Yes, only this time it looks like the Gaia worshipers are running for cover.  An order like this really wasn't very surprising because the permanent bureaucracy doesn't like being downsized and under Obozo the EPA could pretty much do whatever they wanted.

Is that what you call scientists?

In another thread he mentioned that he's perfectly fine with Trump as long as we "libtards" cry. He's childish.

[Odin]

(01-25-2017, 03:29 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:32 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 11:31 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I am a so called "Luke Warmer" heavy emphasis on the Luke.

As such, I can't stand the cabal who some term "The Hockey Team" (a pejorative reference to the now famous or infamous "Hockey Stick" depicting a seeming step function in warming but later determined to be mostly due to the use of "tremometers" that are actually better hygrometers). James Hanson, Michael Mann, et al ... a bunch of jokes.

Nonetheless, I am not in favor of the extreme turn being taken by the Trump crew.

W would not have approved.

There is a middle path here people.

Climate models - as opposed to empirical research on historical climate behavior - continue to show hockey sticks starting at whatever the current year is, and continue to be shown to be wrong the next year.

Which is a sure sign that they don't know anything because the models are demonstrably wrong if this keeps happening.  This suggests that the real agenda is to scare people into giving the government power and money.  This is a very old story.

This is called a conspiracy theory.

[David Horn]

(01-25-2017, 03:29 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:32 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Climate models - as opposed to empirical research on historical climate behavior - continue to show hockey sticks starting at whatever the current year is, and continue to be shown to be wrong the next year.

Which is a sure sign that they don't know anything because the models are demonstrably wrong if this keeps happening.  This suggests that the real agenda is to scare people into giving the government power and money.  This is a very old story.

Which climate models are you referencing?  None that I've seen in the last 30 years.

[Galen]

(01-25-2017, 08:12 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 03:29 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:32 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 11:31 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I am a so called "Luke Warmer" heavy emphasis on the Luke.

As such, I can't stand the cabal who some term "The Hockey Team" (a pejorative reference to the now famous or infamous "Hockey Stick" depicting a seeming step function in warming but later determined to be mostly due to the use of "tremometers" that are actually better hygrometers). James Hanson, Michael Mann, et al ... a bunch of jokes.

Nonetheless, I am not in favor of the extreme turn being taken by the Trump crew.

W would not have approved.

There is a middle path here people.

Climate models - as opposed to empirical research on historical climate behavior - continue to show hockey sticks starting at whatever the current year is, and continue to be shown to be wrong the next year.

Which is a sure sign that they don't know anything because the models are demonstrably wrong if this keeps happening.  This suggests that the real agenda is to scare people into giving the government power and money.  This is a very old story.

This is called a conspiracy theory.

As I look back over geological time scales at the carbon dioxide levels and temperature I discover something very interesting.  First is that carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than they are now for much of the last 600 million years. Second the earth's average temperature has varied over that time from 10 to 25 degrees Celsius.

Unless the paleontologists are just making shit up then I am forced to conclude that carbon dioxide levels are not going to turn the earth into Venus because that never happened with much higher levels in the distant past.  This is exactly what I would expect from a system that has been stable for geological time scales.  If there was a positive feedback mechanism where carbon dioxide then it should have been triggered when carbon dioxide levels were greater than 3000 ppm.  Since we are here this clearly did not happen.

[Odin]

(01-25-2017, 04:14 PM)Galen Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 08:12 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 03:29 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:32 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 11:31 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I am a so called "Luke Warmer" heavy emphasis on the Luke.

As such, I can't stand the cabal who some term "The Hockey Team" (a pejorative reference to the now famous or infamous "Hockey Stick" depicting a seeming step function in warming but later determined to be mostly due to the use of "tremometers" that are actually better hygrometers). James Hanson, Michael Mann, et al ... a bunch of jokes.

Nonetheless, I am not in favor of the extreme turn being taken by the Trump crew.

W would not have approved.

There is a middle path here people.

Climate models - as opposed to empirical research on historical climate behavior - continue to show hockey sticks starting at whatever the current year is, and continue to be shown to be wrong the next year.

Which is a sure sign that they don't know anything because the models are demonstrably wrong if this keeps happening.  This suggests that the real agenda is to scare people into giving the government power and money.  This is a very old story.

This is called a conspiracy theory.

As I look back over geological time scales at the carbon dioxide levels and temperature I discover something very interesting.  First is that carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than they are now for much of the last 600 million years. Second the earth's average temperature has varied over that time from 10 to 25 degrees Celsius.

Unless the paleontologists are just making shit up then I am forced to conclude that carbon dioxide levels are not going to turn the earth into Venus because that never happened with much higher levels in the distant past.  This is exactly what I would expect from a system that has been stable for geological time scales.  If there was a positive feedback mechanism where carbon dioxide then it should have been triggered when carbon dioxide levels were greater than 3000 ppm.  Since we are here this clearly did not happen.

Nobody had said that the Earth risks becoming Venus, the absolute worst case scenario is driving CO2 levels high enough to shift the Earth back into a hot-house climate with no ice caps. If you don't see how devastating that would be to human civilization and the biosphere (because it will be happening much faster than it ever happened naturally) there is no point trying to reason with you.

[Odin]

(01-25-2017, 05:37 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:24 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 04:14 PM)Galen Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 08:12 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 03:29 AM)Galen Wrote: Which is a sure sign that they don't know anything because the models are demonstrably wrong if this keeps happening.  This suggests that the real agenda is to scare people into giving the government power and money.  This is a very old story.

This is called a conspiracy theory.

As I look back over geological time scales at the carbon dioxide levels and temperature I discover something very interesting.  First is that carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than they are now for much of the last 600 million years. Second the earth's average temperature has varied over that time from 10 to 25 degrees Celsius.

Unless the paleontologists are just making shit up then I am forced to conclude that carbon dioxide levels are not going to turn the earth into Venus because that never happened with much higher levels in the distant past.  This is exactly what I would expect from a system that has been stable for geological time scales.  If there was a positive feedback mechanism where carbon dioxide then it should have been triggered when carbon dioxide levels were greater than 3000 ppm.  Since we are here this clearly did not happen.

Nobody had said that the Earth risks becoming Venus, the absolute worst case scenario is driving CO2 levels high enough to shift the Earth back into a hot-house climate with no ice caps. If you don't see how devastating that would be to human civilization and the biosphere (because it will be happening much faster than it ever happened naturally) there is no point trying to reason with you.

The actual worst case scenario would probably be matching the previous interglacial in terms of sea level stand.

So far that does not appear to be likely. The rate of sea level rise is not currently enough to hit that level. Broad brush, the rise curve is still a decaying exponential which makes sense given how much of the continental ice has already retreated since the most recent glacial advance. What is really surprising is that the apparent amount of heat and work now in the oceans is estimated to be roughly the same as it was this far into the last interglacial. That sort of result seems to point to some mode that might be different than it was during the past interglacial, preserving more of the ice than was the case at a similar point back then. It may actually be an anthropogenic effect, perhaps the Asian Brown Cloud or some such. Now countering that (above and beyond GHGs) is the impact of soot. It may be that soot has more of an impact on sea ice than it does on serious glacial masses. Lots to learn still on this topic.

As far as I know the consensus among climatologists is that if CO2 levels exceed 550ppm there is nothing stopping the climate from flipping over into the hot-house mode due to all the positive feedback loops. It will take several thousand years for all the ice to melt, but melt it all will.

[David Horn]

(01-25-2017, 01:22 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 03:29 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:32 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Climate models - as opposed to empirical research on historical climate behavior - continue to show hockey sticks starting at whatever the current year is, and continue to be shown to be wrong the next year.

Which is a sure sign that they don't know anything because the models are demonstrably wrong if this keeps happening.  This suggests that the real agenda is to scare people into giving the government power and money.  This is a very old story.

Which climate models are you referencing?  None that I've seen in the last 30 years.

Green oriented people need to face the fact that the models are just that. Modeling such a chaotic system where we are still learning the actual boundary conditions and relevant tensors is no easy task. It is going to be a work in process for some time to come. Then someone who has an agenda as opposed to a desire for pure science (shout out to Michael Mann and his "Real Climate" crew) comes along and plugs in bristlecone pine hygrometer-maybe treemometer cores, or other questionable proxies, and exaggerated depictions may occur. This is not to say warming is not occurring and is not to say the warming is not due to AGW. It is to say, exaggeration does no one any good. I can understand certain adherent's desire to get the attention of the masses and increase the urgency of mitigation actions, but the way the Hockey Team did it is wrong.

The best way to validate a model is to run it backwards until it falls apart.  The early models had that problem, but the newer ones are actually pretty good.  What helps: several model running in parallel that more-or-less agree.  That's where we are today.

Even more to the point, some of the better models have been around long enough to be tested against real results.  They're very close.

[David Horn]

(01-25-2017, 04:14 PM)Galen Wrote: As I look back over geological time scales at the carbon dioxide levels and temperature I discover something very interesting.  First is that carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than they are now for much of the last 600 million years. Second the earth's average temperature has varied over that time from 10 to 25 degrees Celsius.

Unless the paleontologists are just making shit up then I am forced to conclude that carbon dioxide levels are not going to turn the earth into Venus because that never happened with much higher levels in the distant past.  This is exactly what I would expect from a system that has been stable for geological time scales.  If there was a positive feedback mechanism where carbon dioxide then it should have been triggered when carbon dioxide levels were greater than 3000 ppm.  Since we are here this clearly did not happen.

I don't think you need to take things anywhere near that far to find real catastrophe.  If climate drifts slowly, the natural systems can adjust.  If the drift is too fast, they can't.  Watching the temperatures change enough to kill trees unable to adjust, but unable to move where the climate is now conducive, is a catastrophe in the making.  That's already happening.

[Odin]

(01-26-2017, 03:51 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 08:05 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:37 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:24 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 04:14 PM)Galen Wrote: As I look back over geological time scales at the carbon dioxide levels and temperature I discover something very interesting.  First is that carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than they are now for much of the last 600 million years. Second the earth's average temperature has varied over that time from 10 to 25 degrees Celsius.

Unless the paleontologists are just making shit up then I am forced to conclude that carbon dioxide levels are not going to turn the earth into Venus because that never happened with much higher levels in the distant past.  This is exactly what I would expect from a system that has been stable for geological time scales.  If there was a positive feedback mechanism where carbon dioxide then it should have been triggered when carbon dioxide levels were greater than 3000 ppm.  Since we are here this clearly did not happen.

Nobody had said that the Earth risks becoming Venus, the absolute worst case scenario is driving CO2 levels high enough to shift the Earth back into a hot-house climate with no ice caps. If you don't see how devastating that would be to human civilization and the biosphere (because it will be happening much faster than it ever happened naturally) there is no point trying to reason with you.

The actual worst case scenario would probably be matching the previous interglacial in terms of sea level stand.

So far that does not appear to be likely. The rate of sea level rise is not currently enough to hit that level. Broad brush, the rise curve is still a decaying exponential which makes sense given how much of the continental ice has already retreated since the most recent glacial advance. What is really surprising is that the apparent amount of heat and work now in the oceans is estimated to be roughly the same as it was this far into the last interglacial. That sort of result seems to point to some mode that might be different than it was during the past interglacial, preserving more of the ice than was the case at a similar point back then. It may actually be an anthropogenic effect, perhaps the Asian Brown Cloud or some such. Now countering that (above and beyond GHGs) is the impact of soot. It may be that soot has more of an impact on sea ice than it does on serious glacial masses. Lots to learn still on this topic.

As far as I know the consensus among climatologists is that if CO2 levels exceed 550ppm there is nothing stopping the climate from flipping over into the hot-house mode due to all the positive feedback loops. It will take several thousand years for all the ice to melt, but melt it all will.

During the last interglacial, most of the continental ice was gone from the Northern Hemisphere, there was much thawing of perma frost, and the Arctic was free of sea ice every summer. There can be some debate about how high CO2 not to mention other GHGs got at the time. Nonetheless, there was no hot house. I don't even know what that term means. I suppose to some adherents that means going into something like the Carboniferous. That would be pretty tough given how much the mixture of major gases has changed, and the fact that the Equatorial Current can't circle the globe now due to the wall of The Americas and the near wall of SE Asia, India and Africa. The next opportunity for that sort of regime is hundreds of millions of years in the future.

I meant ALL the ice, even in Antarctica. The Earth shifts back and forth between two stable states, the hot-house world when the poles are ice-free and the deep oceans are warm and low in oxygen, and the ice-house world, where there is ice at the poles and the deep oceans are cold and oxygenated. Our current ice-house phase began at the end of the Eocene when the Antarctic ice sheet began to form.

The Carboniferous and early Permian was actually an ice-house world like our own, with a massive ice sheet at the south pole, and glacial-interglacial cycles exposing and then inundating the tropical lowland forests that became the great coal beds of Appalachia and Western Europe, the CO2 levels dropped to 300ppm at the end of the Carboniferous.