Trump wants ‘really clean coal’

Donald Trump has issued another executive order, this time to roll back Obama environmental regulations and climate change initiatives.

Notably Vice President Mike Pence said they were ending “the war on coal” and Trump promoted ‘clean coal, really clean coal”. He says this will bring back mining jobs, but there is no guarantee it will swing energy use back to coal. The surge in fracking enabled natural gas has reduced the demand for coal anyway.

Time:  President Trump Will Sign Executive Order Rolling Back Obama-Era Environmental Regulations

President Donald Trump will sign a sweeping executive order Tuesday intended to shift the direction of U.S. environmental policy and begin the process of undoing some of the most prominent Obama-era environmental regulations, according to a senior White House official.

The executive order, billed as a measure to promote “energy independence” and create jobs, will target a slew of environmental measures aimed at combating climate change including the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of President Obama’s global warming efforts. Some directives take effect immediately, like the end to a moratorium on new leases for coal mining on federal land, while others, like the review of the Clean Power Plan, require a rule making process that could take years to complete.

President Donald Trump will sign a sweeping executive order Tuesday intended to shift the direction of U.S. environmental policy and begin the process of undoing some of the most prominent Obama-era environmental regulations, according to a senior White House official.

The executive order, billed as a measure to promote “energy independence” and create jobs, will target a slew of environmental measures aimed at combating climate change including the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of President Obama’s global warming efforts. Some directives take effect immediately, like the end to a moratorium on new leases for coal mining on federal land, while others, like the review of the Clean Power Plan, require a rule making process that could take years to complete.

“For too long, we have accepted a narrative that if you’re pro-growth, pro-jobs, you’re anti-environment,” Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said in an ABC News interview previewing the order on Sunday. “The executive order will address the past administration’s effort to kill jobs throughout the country through the Clean Power Plan.”

The are worried about “killing jobs” through environmental protections but don’t seem to care about killing people through pollution.

I guess there will be resistance to these changes.

Video of Trump here.

“We’ve already eliminated a devastating anti-coal regulation, but that was just the beginning.

Today I’m taking bold action to follow through on that promise.

My administration is putting an end to the war on coal. We’re going to have clean coal, really clean coal.

Maybe Trump can use the really clean coal to manufacture all the really safe bombs he wants to invest in.

Leave a comment


  1. Griff

     /  29th March 2017

    Another trump brain fart that ends up in court.

    • Gezza

       /  29th March 2017

      • Gezza

         /  29th March 2017

        I do feel showing that Trumpy has musical talents beyond just blowing his own trumpet is worth a few more than just 3 upticks. Just saying …

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  29th March 2017

          Someone’s put Trump up to this.

          Aagh-even looking at a squeezebox is annoying !!!

  2. High Flying Duck

     /  29th March 2017

    While there is plenty of skepticism, it seems ‘clean coal’ is not necessarily quite the oxymoron some have painted it as and viable clean coal is already in use:

    The process, invented by Carbon Clean Solutions, marks a global breakthrough in carbon-capture technology. Most such projects aim to bury CO2 in underground rocks, reaping no economic benefit; that’s called carbon capture and storage (CCS). But Tuticorin represents the first successful industrial-scale application of carbon capture and utilization (CCU), meaning the carbon is put to good use and helps turn a profit.

    Tuticorin’s owner says the plant now has virtually no emissions. And the facility is not receiving any government subsidies. Many carbon-capture projects have needed subsidies because of high costs, but Carbon Clean’s process is more efficient, requiring less energy and less equipment.

    • artcroft

       /  29th March 2017

      Trump wouldn’t know what you are talking about. He probably thinks clean coal has be put through a dishwasher.

      • High Flying Duck

         /  29th March 2017

        The well worn Trope of Republican presidents being stupid. Reagan, Bush, Trump.
        Good one.
        He’s definitely naive with regards Government (although even that may be in question with the scope of the changes he’s put in place), but he’s no fool.

        • artcroft

           /  29th March 2017

          You’re kidding right? Trump “who knew health care was so complicated” is dumb enough to go looking for rainbows at midnight. And Republicans are stupid enough to follow him.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  29th March 2017

            He’s been smart enough to overcome big losses and turn a company of millions into billions, including negotiating out of a multi-billion dollar debt in the ’90’s.

            He was smart enough to win a congested Primary for the Republicans, and he completely outsmarted Clinton on the campaign trail to win the unwinnable election.

            He’s been smart enough to restructure Washington in the space of two months and change the government to meet his goals.

            A look at the videos of people underestimating Trump and saying he would NEVER be be president is instructive as to the perils of writing him off.

            I think you’ll find he wins on healthcare in the end too.

            I actually have no opinion on whether he will be successful or not overall. I’m no fan of protectionism. He could end up being the disaster the media keep reporting him as, but it is far too soon to actually judge.

            However calling him stupid is just wrong and counterproductive.

            • artcroft

               /  29th March 2017

              “He’s been smart enough to restructure Washington in the space of two months and change the government to meet his goals.”

              Well done Kelly Anne, the best presentation of alternative facts yet.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  29th March 2017

              Refer this article, which I posted yesterday, to see what he has actually done. Written by a person who has no time for Trump…


            • Joe Bloggs

               /  29th March 2017

              And for another less sycophantic view of what he’s achieved – and not achieved – here’s my take on the chasm between what he said he would do and what he has actually done: trump has generated intense attention and sold himself as a man of action while doing little other than promote an image of himself as someone who gets things done. He gives the illusion of a presidency, not the real thing.

              Quite aside from his failure to introduce Muslim travel bans, and healthcare reforms, the US dollar has tanked to a 4 month low and the Dow Jones is heading for its longest losing streak since 2011

              Carrier is still laying off workers, US relationships with Australia, Canada, Germany, and the UK have suffered. He’s demonstrated no understanding of NATO. Members of his administration have been exposed as lying crooks, and shills for Putin. Far from being drained the swamp has been filled to overflowing with his billionaire buddies. His wavering rhetoric on Israel has morphed into an entirely conventional steady-as-she-goes policy. The wall’s hit a wall. His vetting standards and ethics processes have been non-existent.

              The list goes on.

              About the only thing he’s achieved is to make his presidency the laughing stock of the world. Oh, and months of innuendo, cries of “fake news” and wild trump accusations and deflections. Thereby demonstrating clearly that he is educationally, emotionally and experientially unfit to be President

              As for his business acumen, it’s clear that he would have been better off by poutting his inherited millions into hedge funds rather than into the many business failures that he’s tried his hand at… Here’s a link to those failures to refresh your memory:


              The list excludes his real estate fiascos which run into the billions of dollars in bankrupcies. The list also excludes the damage he’s done to the many suppliers left high and dry without payment, and to the thousands of workers and their families who’ve lost their jobs as a result of his many business failures.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  29th March 2017

              Thanks for that Joe.

              I wasn’t talking about achievements – just pointing out Trump is no mug, despite the portrayal in the media.

              The article on his “success” was scathing of what he is doing – just pointing out he has massively restructured Washington in a very short period of time, and has made significant progress on his agenda while everyone focuses on minor points.

              The so called “Muslim” ban was a smokescreen. As was pointed out by many it really had little effect whether in place or not. But it got a lot of attention didn’t it?

              The healthcare reform was Ryan’s, although Trump backed it – it certainly didn’t reflect what Trump actually wanted. He is using back channels to ensure Obama care fails and reform becomes inevitable.

              Note Trump’s views on health care are far more in line with the Democrats than the Republicans.

              Job creation is hardly a weak spot in the USA since January, with new jobs running well ahead of expectations and joblessness hitting all time lows. He’s taking credit for it whether it is due or not.

              And re his business – it’s not where you’ve been, it’s where you are now. He dug himself out of a massive financial hole through deft negotiation and is now valued in the billions.

              He hasn’t been president for even three months yet and people are rushing to judge his “presidency”.

              When the histrionics cease and some actual time passes a true indication of his impact will be determined.

              Until then it’s all stardust and wishes.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  29th March 2017

            Artcroft, Trump has an indoor sundial to save clock batteries. 😀

    • High Flying Duck

       /  29th March 2017

      Who’s against clean energy?

    • … you were just OUT OF RANGE High Flying Duck …

      Thanks for the post and link about clean burning coal. I’ve heard of it before …

      • High Flying Duck

         /  29th March 2017

        I had read a lot about ‘clean coal’ being a mythical pipe dream dreamed up by the energy lobby, but this company – assuming the data is all above board – seems to have found a viable economic and effective way to keep the emissions down. If so it can only be a good thing for efficient energy production to tide us over until renewables and clean energy can catch up.

        Whether, as Artcroft mentioned in his disparaging way, this type of technology is actually on Trump’s radar or whether he was just saying the right things while removing environmental protections remains to be seen.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  29th March 2017

          if coal is used and treated properly, it is a clean fuel.

          Just burning it in fires isn’t, of course-it stinks the place out and if anyone wants to know what it does to its surroundings, look at Bath where the yellow stone buildings turned black.It was a major contributor to ‘smog’. But when it’s used as it is in power stations, it’s clean. The ‘smoke’ from Huntly power station is actually steam.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  29th March 2017

            Trump is hardly saying anything new, this has been around for years. The trouble is that one tends to think of stinking coal fires and smoke-I have heard that cleaning a house that’s had coal fires is an awful job, and can well believe it.

  3. David

     /  29th March 2017

    “The are worried about “killing jobs” through environmental protections but don’t seem to care about killing people through pollution.”

    What about killing people from the lack of affordable energy?

    • David

       /  29th March 2017

      Just to add, that cost is 15,000 dead in the UK alone in one year.

      • Griff

         /  29th March 2017

        You do know that multiple economics papers are out there pointing out that a failure to do anything about climate change will cost a lot more than we save by not changing?

        Click to access sternreview_report_complete.pdf

        Even Richard Tol once his gremlins are fixed comes to the same conclusions.
        Your concern for the poor would be touching .
        If it was not just bullshit as we can see with your comment history.

        For many of the worlds poor it is not the cost of energy generation it is the cost of a grid to deliver it to them .
        Even here in NZ it is cheaper for me to generate my own energy than for me to connect to the grid.
        To run a cable 350 meters to my house would cost $10,000 to build my total solar system cost $5,000.

        The third world will leapfrog our centralized energy generation paradigm and go straight to a distributed network just as they leapfrogged over the copper wire phone system and went straight to cellular networks.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  29th March 2017

          Generation has not been an issue for some time – storage is the limiting factor that still makes localised generation prohibitive.

          Once this issue is solved there may well be a shift to localised generation. Until then, the masses, and poorer people and nations will be reliant on mass generation and grids.

          Climate change has a long standing habit of threatening much and delivering little. Your comment and related link to David is interesting given it is so wrong.

          At the end of the Gremlins article it states:

          Tol, for his part, tells us that the errors don’t undermine his conclusions:
          “Although the numbers have changed, the conclusions have not. The difference between the new and old results is not statistically significant. There is no qualitative change either.”

          And in the comments it further explains:

          “In particular Tol explains that the change is policy-irrelevant, as the ‘benefits’ happen(ed) regardless of policy, and the new graph suggests a slower increase in cost as global warming increases.”

          And Tol himself adds:

          Mr Ward also omits that the assessment of the impacts of profound climate change has been revised: We are now less pessimistic than we used to be.

          • Griff

             /  29th March 2017

            Tol, for his part, tells us that the errors don’t undermine his conclusions:

            He would say that .

            However, after I raised concerns with Professor Tol and with the journal about a number of errors in the article, a correction was quietly posted on the journal’s website last week. The correction points out that the original paper concluded that “there were net benefits of climate change associated with warming below about 2°C”, but the updated analysis shows “impacts are always negative”.

            His gremlins do undermine the conclusions of his work .
            There are many examples of nutty tol and his crap on the web.
            To the extent that he is a running joke .

            Climate change has a long standing habit of threatening much and delivering little. Your comment and related link to David is interesting given it is so wrong.

            Prove your statement from a reputable source or you are just another denier repeating rubbish.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  29th March 2017

              You mean the reputable source that will proclaim how the prevailing orthodoxy is wrong?
              Any one who goes against the prevailing political view is – as you say above branded as “a running joke”. I’m sure if he fell into line he would be welcomed back to the fold.

              “Hansen predicted in the late 80s, that :
              “”The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.”” Then he said, “”There will be more police cars.”” Why? “”Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”” ”

              “San Jose Mercury News (CA) – June 30, 1989
              “A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000……… He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect… “”

              A look at Hansen’s 1988 projections.
              “From a warmist website, on Hansen’s 1988 projections:

              There are two main reasons for Hansen’s warming overestimates:”

              Hansen predicted that the 1990-2000 period would see a rise of up to 1 deg F. The next decade would se 2-4 deg F rise.

              Predictions on when the arctic will be ice free. Years picked are between 2000 and 2016….

              The predictive skill of the Met Office is on the low side, 11 of the last 12 years.

              Predictions made on the “permanent drought”. Note that no one said it would never raiin, but many said that the drought was permmanent.

              More on the predictions of the “never ending drought” in Oz. Also, an explanation of why even the experts have confused causation. Warm temperatures do not cause drought, but drought causes warmer temperatures.

              An update, where the scientist stating that no predictions were made, says that the predictions made were only to the press, so don’t really count.

              “Then, talking in repsonse to Katrina: “”We’re in for a rough ride over the next 10 years.”” — Kerry Emanuel, emphasizing that the current increase in hurricanes in the Atlantic is part of a natural cycle. US News & World Report, Aug. 31, 2005

              Now, talking about the longest recorded period between major hurricane landfalls, and also includes the next 7 years in the 10 years in the first quote: Kerry Emanuel, a meteorology professor at MIT, said the seven-year gap between major hurricanes in the U.S. is most likely just due to chance. “Seven years is simply far too short to see global warming signals in U.S. landfalling hurricane statistics of any kind,” he said via email”

              The IPCC 1990 SPM is the only one that has “predictions”. It predicted warming of 1.5 to 2 deg by 2012, over the pre-industrial value.

              “Matthew England said that anyone who says the IPCC projections are over estimates, is lying. It appears he is lying. The IPCC low end estimate of warming from 1990 is higher than current temperatures.

              From the IPCC 1990 report:
              This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1° C above the present value by 2025…”

              That should mean we would have over 0.6 deg of warming in 2012. At best, using HADCRUT 4, its 0.36, or nearly 1/2 the median estimate.”

              2001 Ice Storms
              Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms

              1995 IPCC Draft
              accompanied in the Northern Hemisphere by a shrinking snow cover in winter.

              From the 2007 AR4
              Frequently Asked Question 4.1
              Is the amount of snow and ice on the earth decreasing?
              Snow cover is retreating earlier in the spring.

              However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
              “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

              “This page shows the accuracy of EC seasonal forecasts. As Tim Ball shows on WUWT, the accuracy is about the same as tossing a coin.

              The IPCC forecast in 1995 and 2001, that snow cover would decline.



              Scientists Viner (CRU), and Parker (Hadley) predicted in 2000 that “children won’t know what snow is”.

              The MO just changed its long term projection , and it shows no additional warming 2013-2017, with an average of 0.43 deg C over the 1971-2000 average. This compares to the prediction they made 2 years ago, with average temps of 0.7 deg over the average.

              “The Met Office predicted that 1/2 the years 2010-2015 will be hotter than 1998. Fail.
              They predicted that 2010 would be hotter than 1998. Fail.

              “Nasa predicted an increase of global temps of 0.15 deg C over the period 2009-2014.

              Interestingly, they also predict a slowdown in warming, 2014-2019.”

              The MO predicted a BBQ summer in 2009. Fail.

              The EA predicted drought until Christmas, in the UK. Instead, it was a record year for rain. Fail.
              The MO predicted drier than average for April-May-June. Fail.

              Environment Canada (EC) has a site that looks at past predictions and results. Tossing a coin would be as accurate.

              “The Met Office, whe they changed the predictions for future temperature, also jigged the past predictions. Note the wite line in both charts. It is, as the text says, indicative of past predictions. In the latest chart, it seems to show that they predicted the downturn in temps in 2005. In the older chart, its obvious they were predicting much higher temps.

              While this is due to “”hindcasting””, it does show the accuracy of the models.Also the accuarcy of the descriptions, as the Met should not call them “”previous predictions””, or even “”retorspective forecasts””.



              A list of some of the many failed predictiosn, regarding resources.

              “Hansen predicted that droughts would occur in 1 in 3 years by 2030, vs 1 in 20 in the 50s. However, if you look at the NCDC (NOAA) drought index, the 50s were in drought 1 in 2. Also note there is no trend in droughts over the record.


              Arctic ice free by 2013.

              The met office record of predictions in 2007. Every year from 2005(?) to 2012 is lower than predicted.

              An expert in forescasting principles (he literally wrote the book), says that global warming forecasts violated 72 of 89 relevant forecasting principles.

              This guy predicted arctic ice will be gone by 2013.

              Figure 1.4 of the AR5 draft (Ch. 1, page 39) shows that te
              mperatures since 1998 have been in the lower end of all projections of the IPCC, and that current temperatures are BELOW projections.

              Hansen predicted that the largest sea ice reduction would occur near West Antarctica. In 2013, there was record ice in West Antarctica. In 2012, record ice in the entire Antarctic.

              Hansen’s seminal 1988 paper, with his 3 scenarios. For 2012, scenario A and B were over 1 deg C above the long term average. Scenario C was at 0.6 deg C. Global temps have been running under even Scenario C….

              “From page 1 of the article:
              But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.

              Did Oppenheimer state that snow falls would increase in a warming world? No, he waxed nostaligic on something gone. ”

              Shepherd, now president of the AMS, predicted that hurricanes would become more intense.

              Instead, the hurricane activity in the US, and globally, fell off a cliff, both in numbers and intensity.

              The former head of the IPCC and the Met Office predicted 80% less snow for Wales, due to warming.

              The BBC and the UCS said that “the winters of our youth are unlikely to return”.
              “From Mark Lynas:

              . . . snow has become so rare that when it does fall – often just for a few hours – everything grinds to a halt. In early 2003 a ‘mighty’ five-centimetre snowfall in southeast England caused such severe traffic jams that many motorists had to stay in their cars overnight. Today’s kids are missing out . . .

              Tim and his many failed predictions on Ozzie drought. It should be noted that it was because of warninsg like Flannery’s, that Australia spent billions on de-salination plants that are no longer needed. Nor was that money spent on dams for flood control, as it was thought to be wasted money.

              “From TAR, 12.5.6. Drought
              … Using a transient simulation with the NCAR CCMO GCM at coarse resolution (R15) (Meehl and Washington, 1996), Kothavala (1999) found for northeastern and southeastern Australia that the Palmer Drought Severity Index indicated longer and more severe droughts in the transient simulation at about 2xCO2 conditions than in the control simulation…

              “The BM’s David Jones, in 2008:

              As of this writing (feb 2013), Oz has exactly 0% severe drought (one of 5 lowest). A miniscule portion has Serious (in the bottom 10). ”

              2013–“I’m curiously (and a bit nervously) awaiting this year’s minimum. Will it reach the levels we saw in 2012? Or will there be a ‘recovery’ for denialist apologs to crow over? Under 1 million km2 ice–one definition of ‘ice-free’– would be stunning, but is not out of the question..”
              The IPCC famous “Glaciers Gone by 2035.”

              2013 March, this guy predicts total ice loss between 2013 and 2018.
              “Snow is a thing of the past, in 2004, according to a Lib dem.

              “”Britons will soon be left with only dreams of a white Christmas, as the chances of it actually happening become more remote. Global warming is the main reason for this shift in seasonal weather and is responsible for changing the world as we know it.

              “Schneider predicting, in the next 5 years:
              there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000
              This was in 2009.”

              “Mojib Latif (IPCC) predicted:
              “There aren’t going to be winters with strong frosts and lots of snow at our latitudes anymore, like 20 years ago.”

              Scottish ski industry is a thing of the past. In 2009.
              “This paper was quoted in AR4. Fig 3 shows that expected Antarctic ice extent decline is similar to Arctic. From the paper:
              In the SH, the models generally overestimate the amplitude of the seasonal cycle of sea ice extent and display, on average, a negative trend over 1981–2000. This contrasts with the observations that indicate rather a slight increase.”

              The NRDC predicts a reduction in NE snow fall.

              “This Sierra Club blogger predicted that the winter of 2012-13 would be less wintry than 2011-2012, with even less snow. Major fail.

              He also predicted that arctic ice would not last through 2013.”

              The UK will look like the Med, according to the National Trust. Not in March 2013, it didn’t.
              “researchers from the Met Office, in 2012, predicted “”in the absence of volcanic eruptions, global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record””.

              Arctic ice to be gone by 2013.

              Hansen, in 1986, predicted 2.5 to 5 degrees of warming by 2010. Ummm…Fail.

              Are Cold Winters a Thing of the Past? (2008)
              “The Met Office predictions for winter 2013:

              For February and March the range of possible outcomes is also very broad, although above average UK mean temperatures become more likely.

              The Met Office warning of a dry spell in 2012; just before the wettest April on record.

              The Met Office predicted in dec 2012, that 2013 would be one of the warmest on record, with an anomaly of 0.57 deg C

              “Snow on England and Wales highest mountain, may one day be no more than a memory. (2004)
              Fast forward to 2013.
              Snowdon Mountain Railway will be shut over the Easter weekend after it was hit by 30ft (9.1m) snow drifts.
              Workers using two excavators tried but failed to clear the 4.7 mile (7.5km) track.
              The railway resumed operations from Llanberis last week after the winter break but they were suspended within days after heavy snow on the mountain.

              In Feb 2012, the UK Environment secretary said that drought may be the “new normal”. 2012 ended up being one of the wettest on record.

              “This site predicted 4.5 billion deaths by 2012. Oddly, the page is no longer there. Fortunately, a screen cap was caught.


              Nearly 60 predictions for winter. Almost all predict less snow, more warmth.

              The EPA predicts reduced snow cover.

              The British government predicted a major heat wave by 2012, and up to 10,000 deaths.

              The 2001 TAR showed no obvious multi-year (>2 years) period where there was a cooling or even flat temps. Definitely a monotonic rise on a decadal scale.

              Hubert Lamb’s prediction of a Little Ice Age for Britain, in 1964. Lamb of course, founded the CRU.

              “Hansen said temps could rise by 1 degree by 2000, and 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade.He also said that atmospheric CO2 woudl double by the late 2020s. Oops.

              Another prediction, from Macquire, is that temps would rise 3 to 8 degrees by 2030, and sea levels 4.5 feet. Going to have to hurry, to reach those numbers.. ”

              “FOI request pulled these papers from the Met Office. They are much more circumspect in the briefing papers, then in front of the press. Basically, they have no idea why its hot, dry, wet or cold. Arctic ice loss driving weather? very uncertain…. but this is currently an unknown.

              “FAQ 4.1 – Is the Amount of snow and ice on the earth decreasing?
              A – Yes. Snow cover is retreating earlier in the spring”
              “The predicton in 2009 was that the Scottish ski industry was doomed.
              In 2013, they are thinking they may be open in the summer.
              in 2014, the lifts were UNDER the snow.

              From 2004 – Polar bears will become so skinny by 2012, that they will be unable to reproduce.
              “Most climate models predicted a reduction in Antarctic ice pack. From the paper:

              average Antarctic sea ice area is not retreating but has slowly increased since satellite measurements began in 1979. While most climate models from the CMIP5 archive simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice area over the recent past…”

              Al Gore predicted in 2008, that in 5 years, the arctic ice could be gone.

              John Kerry, echoing the conclusions of scientists who predict arctic ice to be gone by 2013.
              Ms. Fiqueres predicts that 5 billion people will be put into poverty by 2015, through climate change.

              All snow will be gone from Mt Snowdon by 2020.

              A number of predictions that have proved false, with references.,

              May, 2013, Its predicted that the arctic ice will be gone in two years.

              This article suggests that the peak will not be production, but demand.

              Andrew Dessler predicted in 2011, that for Texas, the rest of the 21st century would be “very much like the hot and dry weather of 2011.”

              Hansen predicted in 1986, that temps would rise between 3 and 4 degrees by 2010-2020.

              Hansen’s seminal 1988 paper, with his 3 scenarios. For 2012, scenario A and B were over 1 deg C above the long term average. Scenario C was at 0.6 deg C. Global temps have been running under even Scenario C….also predicts hotter summers for Washington and Omaha, with % chance. His summary concludes that over 0.4 deg C is the “smoking gun”.

              Predicts ice free arctic by 2015.
              the IPCC predictions in 2007, for temperature, precipitation, tropical cyclones and extratropical cyclones.

              “Nepstad, in 2009 suggested that AGW was drying the Amazon. Of course, the Amazon has been getting wetter since 1990.

              The last National Assesment of Climate Change used models that perfromed, on average, 1/2 as well as RANDOM NUMBERS.

              “Dessler precdicted that Texas would endure permanent drought in the 21st century.
              Get used to it. The weather of the 21st century will be very much like the hot and dry weather of 2011.

              “In 2009, it was predicted that temepratures would increase, over the next 5 years, and at 150% the rate predicted by the IPCC. Oops. That means it needs to warm up by nearly 0.5 deg C, in 2014.

              As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

              “Hansen predicted that the world would warm 2 degrees in 20 years.
              In 1986.”

              Sure seems like the MSM and climatologists were predicting an ice age.

              First earth day and 15 predictions that never came close to reality.

              The Met Office predicted average temperatures for the spring in England of 2013. Which just happened to be the coldest in over 100 years.

              Pope predicted, in 2004, that temperatures would rise 0.3 deg by 2014. And 1/2 the years after 2009 will hotter than the record set in 1998.

              Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013.

              Met Office failed predictions. I like the one about overstating the warmth 11 out of 12 years.

              Ledan and Rind predicted, in 2009, that temps would rise 0.15 deg, which is 50% higher than IPCC rates. With one year to go, both appear to be wrong.

              “Hansen predicted in 1988, that the SE US would see above average warming:

              there is a tendency in the model for greater than average warming in the southeastern and central U.S. and relatively cooler or less than average warming in the western U.S. and much of Europe in the late 1980s and in the 1990s. …


              The south eastern US has COOLED over the last 100 years, in all seasons.”
              Arctic ice predictions for 2013, by various groups. Note the Met Office predicting the lowest level of ice.

              Predcitions that the UK will get a climate, and vegetation, like that in Souhtern France or Portugal.
              “I don’t think Les was talking about seasons. And yes, the arctic ice is currently at close to the second lowest level and on track to equal or exceed last year’s record breaking melt!

              A comparison of 3 successive Met Office predictions for global temperature. There is a drop from the 2010 forecast of 0.9 deg anomaly, to the 2011 forecast of 0.6, to the 2012 forecast of 0.3 deg in 2017.

              Serreze predicted that arctic ice would be gone in 5 years, in 2007.

              Hansen predicted a 10-40% loss in Antartic ice. (fig 2-4)

              Hansen predicted in 1986, that temps would rise 2 deg by 2006, and 3-4 degrees by 2010-2020.
              In 2011, Maslowski updated his 2007 forecast of an ice free arctic, to 2016, plus or minus 3 years.
              “June 20, 2008

              “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.

              “Here is a compilation of ice-free Arctic Ocean / North Pole predictions / projections from scientists for the past, present and future.

              Xinhua News Agency – 1 March 2008
              “If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions,” Orheim said.
              [Dr. Olav Orheim – Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat]

     – 16 November 2007
              “According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

              “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier,””
              [Professor Louis Fortier – Université Laval, Director ArcticNet]

              National Geographic – 12 December 2007
              “NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” ”

              [Dr. Jay Zwally – NASA]

              BBC – 12 December 2007
              “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,”…….”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

              [Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]

              Independent – 27 June 2008
              Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer
              “…..It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it’s not happened before,” Professor Wadhams said.”
              [Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]

              Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
              Vol. 40: 625-654 – May 2012
              The Future of Arctic Sea Ice
              “… can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover…..”
              [Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]

              Yale Environment360 – 30 August 2012
              “If this rate of melting [in 2012] is sustained in 2013, we are staring down the barrel and looking at a summer Arctic which is potentially free of sea ice within this decade,”
              [Dr. Mark Drinkwater]

              Guardian – 17 September 2012
              “This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates“.
              [Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]

              Sierra Club – March 23, 2013
              “For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean….”
              [Paul Beckwith – PhD student paleoclimatology and climatology – part-time professor]

              Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013
              “It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,”
              [Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]

              Some claim the IPCC does not make predictions. This shows exactly where they did make predictions.

              “CCSM4 models al predict declining Antarctic sea ice.

              In twentieth-century integrations, Antarctic sea ice area exhibits significant decreasing annual trends in all six ensemble members from 1950 to 2005, in apparent contrast to observations that suggest a modest ice area increase since 1979.”

              “CMIP5 models predict declining sea ice. This paper balmes the differenc e between model and real world as “”natural variability””.

              “Predictions made to 2065, with and without ozone forcings.

              Sea ice extent declines in both ensembles, as a consequence of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations”

              “Once again, “”natural variability””.

              In contrast to Arctic sea ice, average Antarctic sea ice area is not retreating but has slowly increased since satellite measurements began in 1979. While most climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) archive simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice area over the recent past, whether these models can be dismissed as being wrong depends on more than just the sign of change compared to observations”

              “Again, the IPCC models of choice, CMIP5, show different results than real world.

              all of the models have a negative trend in SIE since the mid-nineteenth century. The negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over 1979–2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.

              Predictions of arctic ice extent. Use the list at the left, to go back to different years, 2008 and on.
              Hansen predicted in 1986, that temps would rise 1/2 to 1 deg F by 2000, and 2-4 deg F by 2010. Fail.

              Jan 4, 2008. “This drought may never break”. Over the last 24 months (to Aug 2013), about 99% of Oz is NOT in drought.

              “It was predicted that due to rising sea levels, the Maldives drinking water would be gone in 4 years, and the islands completely swamped in 30 years.

              This prediction was made in 1988.”

              The UKCIP predicted in 2009, based on Met Office data, that the UK would get warmer; summers warmer and drier; winters warmer and wetter. Fail.

              Hansens BAU was Scenario A, not the revionist Scenario B.

              Maslowski’s latest prediction of an ice free arctic is 2016, after his 2013 guess was obviously wrong.
              “Oops. Met office could not make an accurate decadal prediction, nearly 1/2 way through the period….

              Our results also suggest that studies of the Arctic climate based on reanalyses should be undertaken with extreme caution.””

              The many predictions of food shortages.

              Viner again making silly predictions. You would think that someone who worked for a Climate Research Unit, would know that the UK has tornadoes, and that per sq mile, it is the most active country on earth for those storms, albeit weak ones.

              Flannery also predicted that the arctic would be ice free by 2013.

              Hansen, in 1986, predicted 3 to 4 degrees F of warming, between 2010 and 2020.

              Maslowski predicts that ice will disappear by as early as 2016.

              Krugman predicted in 1998, that the Internet would turn out to have no more impact than the fax machine. And that IT jobs would evaporate.

              “The TAR had this to say about predictions of climate:

              In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

              The Met Office has been wrong 13 of the last 14 years, in temperture predictions, and always on the high side. Its also already been shown that ithe MO prediction that half the years from 2010-2015 would be records, to be wrong. And with 2 full years to go, and on a 6 year prediction.

              Hansen’s 1981 paper shows only about 0.1 deg of warming in 1940. The historfical record in 1997 shows about 0.5, so out by a factor of 5. Projecting out to 2010, there should be 1 deg of warming. Warming is about 0.6, Fail.

              “Skiing is doomed in Scotland. 2009 prediction.
              2014 reality, the chair lifts are buried.

              Viner again predciting the end, but of the ski industry, in 2004.

              “Matt England, explaining less than 2 years ago (2012), that global warming was right on track with IPCC projections.


              Less than 2 years later, he says temps have remained steady since 2001, due to an increasing trade wind.


              At least we have a date. He says this hiatus could persist till the end of the decade.”
              “Once again, the MO screws it up. This is the winter precipitation forecast from November 2013.

              The probability that UK precipitation for December-January-February will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 25% and the probability that it will fall into the wettest category is around 15% (the 1981-2010 probability for each of these categories is 20%).”

              “This writer uses January Leading Indicators (JLI) to predict the coming year temps. This is a stock market tool, but looking at past JLI, the accuracy is not bad, with RSS and UAH coming in at about 80% correct when using JLI.

              Using JLI the temps would come in at 0.231 for UAH, and 0.214 for RSS, for the average temps for 2014.

              The MO predicts between 0.43 and 0.71.

              Hansen predicts 2014 to be warmer than 2013, and perhaps the warmest on record. 2015 will be warmer yet.”

              Some predictions for ENSO in 2014-2105, and also for record temperatures.

              The NOAA scored -22 on a scale of -50 to 100, with 100 being totally right, and -50 being monkeys throwing darts. The Sept 2013 forecast for Oct-Dec was even worse, -23.

              The Met Office predicted below average precipitation for DJF. Of course, they changed the title once the floods hit (see Google cache). Link to Met Office document is also there.

              “One more guy worried about snow fall for the ski industry. I guess he never looked outside. From a paper 2 weeks later.

              “In 2009, experts warned that people from the south would soon flood northern cities, to escape a warming climate. But even warmists like Krugman know that people like the warmth, and are moving there.

              More on Tim’s amazingly bad predictions. Now apparently, he is trying to deny that he said what he is recorded as saying.
              “One prediction using January Leading Indicators (JLI, a financial model), and the Met Office predictions.

              MO prediction is between 0.43 and 0.71 deg above the 1961-1990 average, with a mean of 0.57 deg C

              An average of HadCRUT4, GISS and NOAA, using JLI, gives 0.537

              Qualitative JLI gives a warmer 2014, vs 2013. Quantatative JLI gives a cooler 2014 vs 2013.”
              Multiple predictions by this scientist on how the reef was doomed. Then a few months or years later, and he is “surprised” or “overjoyed” at how it recovered.
              “Not only can economists not predict the future, they could not predict the present.

              It is interesting to see that economists also predicted that countries with more regulations, woul do better in in recovering from the crisis. As it turned out, the cost of the regulations were greater than any benefit. In other words, the regulations, rather than helping, hindered the ability of business to recover.
              Bonus quote:
              In an autobiographical essay published 20 years ago, the left-leaning economist Kenneth Arrow recalled entering the Army as a statistician and weather specialist during World War II. “Some of my colleagues had the responsibility of preparing long-range weather forecasts, i.e., for the following month,” Arrow wrote. “The statisticians among us subjected these forecasts to verification and found they differed in no way from chance.”

              Alarmed, Arrow and his colleagues tried to bring this important discovery to the attention of the commanding officer. At last the word came down from a high-ranking aide.
              “The Commanding General is well aware that the forecasts are no good,” the aide said haughtily. “However, he needs them for planning purposes.”

              Mann predicts that temps wil rise above 2 deg C by 2036. If temps were to up in a linear fashion, the temperature anomaly will be 1 deg C by 2020.

              “Hansen predicted in 2006, that a Super el Nino would form, in 2006. Fail.

              He also tries to back out his famous 1988 predictions, where in 1988, the A scenario was BAU; in 2006 it becomes “”on the high side of reality””. In his original paper, he calls it the high side of reality, because of finite resource concerns, even though Scenario A only uses a 1.5% per year increases, vs. the 4% measured in the past century.

              In 1988, Scenario B was with some cuts in emissions; in 2006 it becomes “”most plausible””, even though no cuts occured. But, yes, it is called “”most plausible”” in the 1988 paper, but again, due to finite resources.

              In 2008, Hansen predicted the arctic would be ice free in 5 to 10 years.
              “Arctic ice will be gone by 2015, according to this IPCC review editor, in 2013.

              In 2012, he had it a little later, at 2016.


              jauntycyclist April 2, 2014 at 11:46 am
              they fail the prove predict model of science. Which is why they don’t want to talk about the science but about what is to be done to prevent ‘catastrophe’ .

              Les Johnson April 2, 2014 at 11:48 am
              Anthony: I know I had a lot of URLs in the previous post, so it will get hung up.

              If you want I can also give the remaining references I have for those predictions.

              Tim Churchill April 2, 2014 at 11:49 am
              No tadpoles yet, in fact the frogs were late mating this year!

              Jimbo April 2, 2014 at 11:49 am
              Here is a tip for anyone creating any long lists pertaining to challenging ‘climate science’. Remember Warmists will take a look and try to shoot it down by saying “Oh, but they aren’t even scientists but actors” or “but they didn’t actually say that as it’s not quoted” blah, blah. This is why, unless it is warranted like weather events / headlines, I try to stick long lists with exact quotes and / or scientists, peer reviewed abstracts.

              Ordinary references in comments is OK, but if you are going to make fun of them watch out for the holes. 😉

              Here is a list I made in 2011 on WUWT. I learned a few things too. 😉

              philjourdan April 2, 2014 at 11:49 am
              Way to go Sasha! Bookmarked!

              Bruce Cobb April 2, 2014 at 11:51 am
              #74 is a repeat of #35 – the famous Viner quote.

              The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley April 2, 2014 at 11:53 am
              35 and 74 are the same, but then David Viner was being a complete arse, so it deserves repeating.

              Ray April 2, 2014 at 11:58 am

              it would be great if such a list (complete with references and all) was in your “Climate FAIL Files” menu up there…

              Walt The Physicist April 2, 2014 at 11:59 am
              So, friends, when will we unite and denounce all those predictors as fake and unprofessional scientists? When we all will force their dismissal? All of you know, that they continue “teaching” students, rejecting articles with real scientific content, converting professional societies into “Hollywood” like environment, drawing huge salaries in their tenured academic positions, and impeding scientific progress by overtaking review panels in the science funding agencies…

              ScottR April 2, 2014 at 12:09 pm
              The Motl quote should likely by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. See

            • Nelly Smickers

               /  29th March 2017

              TL:DR XD

        • David

           /  29th March 2017

          “You do know that multiple economics papers are out there pointing out that a failure to do anything about climate change will cost a lot more than we save by not changing?”

          So? There are multiple economics papers out there that state that socialism is a good idea.

          “Even here in NZ it is cheaper for me to generate my own energy than for me to connect to the grid.
          To run a cable 350 meters to my house would cost $10,000 to build my total solar system cost $5,000.”

          Apples and oranges.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  29th March 2017

      I agree – there is much research to back up the fact the world’s living standards increased significantly only when cheap energy became available.
      Renewables and so-called clean options are expensive and unreliable, which affects poor people and nations far more than rich economies.

      While eliminating pollution is important and needs to be incentivised, there needs to be a balance to ensure communities don’t suffer more from the solution than they do from the problem.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  29th March 2017

        The UK’s population is many times what ours is, and their winters more severe.

      • Griff

         /  29th March 2017

        msm and WUWT
        Here is a .little hint my friend.

        Gish gallop.
        The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it’s unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

        You think WUWT is a reputable source?
        we could have fun with some of the loons who post there .

        here is a reputable source

        We have another live one .

        • High Flying Duck

           /  29th March 2017

          All I said was that Climate Change has been promising alarming repercussions for over 2 decades. And after this period of time, that is still what the advocates are claiming. Earlier predictions about what would happen over the last 10 years simply have not eventuated. Many have been wrong by orders of magnitude.

          I don’t get hung up on CC. Even the politicians who endlessly wonk on about it don’t actually DO very much, so the levels of concern are obviously several notches below the rhetoric.

          Smug ROFLing and “live one” smears may make you feel ever so superior, but they don’t actually achieve anything.

          The original point was that local generation of power is a long way from being a viable means of energy production for the masses, and therefore access to cheap mass generation should still be a priority.

          Making this generation clean is important, but not at the expense of people being able use it.

          Thankfully it seems clean coal may be a possibility now.

        • David

           /  29th March 2017

          That graph is based on the economic loss from weather events. It is a perfectly understood fact that as the net value of the assets rises, so does the economic impact of storms. What you are seeing there is not climate change, but rather, the world getting richer.

          • Griff

             /  29th March 2017

            Is it ?
            Or are you talking shite.?
            Here is a hint .
            Read the bloody thing before commenting .
            The bar graph from Munich re is the number of events.The red bars at the bottom with no trend are geological events. The other colors show weather related events are rising .
            here it is again with more detail

            The circle graph from the world economic forum is the cost .

            You do now that we have just seen two extreme events in two weeks in Auckland
            We will probably see another next week .
            Reality is catching up on your rubbish.

            You guys are so transparent in your bullshite .

            • High Flying Duck

               /  29th March 2017

              I think you’ll find those event counts are determined by the level of economic losses. As such David is correct.
              “Events that caused at least 1 fatality and/or produced normalised losses > US$100k, $300k $1m or $3m.”

            • Griff

               /  29th March 2017

              “I think ”
              There is your problem you don’t.

              It has been pointed out to you the Munich Re graph is number of events.
              The number of geological events has not increased .
              If it was just economic expansion causing the rising trend we would see the geological metrics increase not just weather related ones .
              So you are talking shit .
              As does David
              Just another couple of conservative climate science denying useful idiots.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  29th March 2017

              Perhaps you should read slower…

              The Munich graph “events” are counted by reference to economic loss. If the loss was less than $ criteria mentioned the event doesn’t get on the graph.

              Obviously over time, these events would increase due to economics whether actual event numbers increase or not.

              You can stop with the ad hom attacks now.

            • Griff

               /  29th March 2017

              Yip still pushing the same old same old .
              “Obviously over time, these events would increase due to economics whether actual event numbers increase or not.”
              Why don’t geological events show an increase in lock step with weather events ?
              Because extreme weather events are rising .
              Geological events are steady .
              This is obvious but you still deny reality.
              As to ad homme
              If the description fits wear it with pride.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  29th March 2017

              I have not attacked at all. You seem to be the one with anger issues and a determination to paint me as a cartoon villain “denier”.

              The facts stand – that graph shows the number of events as based on economic cost, and as such will reflect population and density more than any actual increase.

              That does not make your contention wrong. It just means that the graph you posted does not prove it.

              I have no issue with climate change, just scaremongering such as the “inconvenient truth” movie and James Hansen’s apocalyptic pronouncements.

              I’m bored of this now as your zealotry and need to assert superiority are very tiresome.

            • David

               /  29th March 2017

              “You do now that we have just seen two extreme events in two weeks in Auckland
              We will probably see another next week .
              Reality is catching up on your rubbish.”

              Don’t worry, reality clearly never has a chance to catch up with you.

  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  29th March 2017

    The surge in fracking enabled natural gas has reduced the demand for coal anyway.

    Can’t make steel from fracking products. The world has a lot more coal than oil. Reducing pollution from coal is a very worthwhile goal. Eliminating CO2 as a byproduct is much less worthwhile on a cost benefit basis.

  5. Zedd

     /  29th March 2017

    some think Mr T is rational.. he actually seems to think that the imaginary place called ‘away’ exists. It doesn’t matter how much pollution or harm you do to the planet, it just magically goes ‘AWAY’ 😦

    can someone wake the fool up ?

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  29th March 2017

      It’s called space to you, Zedd. It’s where excess heat goes to die. Otherwise CO2 gets recycled into plants and rocks like limestone.

  6. Bejeesus!! That was a long scroll through. Its nice to see Griff has new playmates. And no Griff, not a crack at you son but I know you love the climate change debate so its good to see you exercised by new sparring buddies : )


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s