The day 'climate change' became irrelevant in politics – Powerful Green Lobby Defeated In US Midterm Elections

Republicans Win Control Of US Senate

For Tom Steyer and other environmentalists, $85 million wasn’t enough to help Democrats keep the Senate blue or win more than a single governor’s mansion in Tuesday’s toughest races. The billionaire’s super PAC and other green groups saw the vast majority of their favored candidates in the battleground states go down to defeat, despite spending an unprecedented amount of money to help climate-friendly Democrats in the midterm elections. The outcome brought gloating from Republicans and fossil-fuel supporters even before the results rolled in — and raised questions about whether greens can fulfill their pledge to make climate change a decisive campaign issue in 2016. –Andrew Restuccia, Politico, 5 November 2015

Climate Change: This was one of the dogs that didn’t bark in the 2014 election, even after liberal billionaire Tom Steyer spent an estimated $70 million to promote the issue and a new U.N. report Sunday warned of “severe, pervasive, and irreversible” global warming that will worsen without environmental policy changes. Robert Brulle, professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University, said a GOP-led Congress is more likely to try to stop Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency from imposing new regulations on power plants than endorsing any additional steps to reduce U.S. carbon pollution. Said Brulle: “I am not an optimist about us doing anything – I think it looks bad for political action on climate change in any way.” –Will Bunsch, Philadelphia Daily News, 5 November 2014

The $12 million that the United States Senate has allocated to UN climate agencies is expected to be among the first casualties [after] Republican take control of the chamber following Tuesday’s midterm elections. The current Senate bill on funding for state and foreign operations includes $11,700,000 for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). However, the House version of the bill passed by a Republican-controlled sub-committee, states that “none of the funds in this Act may be made available for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” –Denis Fitzgerald, UN Tribune, 4 November 2014

The Keystone XL pipeline won big Tuesday night. Following an election night that saw anti-Keystone Democrats replaced by pro-Keystone Republicans, the oil-sands pipeline project now appears to have at least 60 supporting votes. That means legislation forcing approval of the long-delayed project may be headed to President Obama. Before the election, at least 57 senators could be counted on to support pro-Keystone legislation, but that was never enough to beat a filibuster from the project’s opponents. Tuesday night’s results appear to change that. –Clare Foran, National Journal, 5 November 2014

The expected Republican majority in the U.S. Senate after Tuesday’s mid-term elections is likely to seek to roll back federal regulations on power-plant emissions, approve the Keystone XL pipeline, expand oil and gas development on federal lands and work toward ending the 40-year ban on U.S. crude oil exports, energy experts said. “The Republicans will go to Obama and say, look, ‘We’ve got to get this done; your own government is saying this is fine. The election is over so you don’t have to worry,'” Lynch said. –Jon Hurdle, The Street, 4 November 2014

President Obama will continue to take action on policies to fight climate change whether or not Republicans take control of the Senate, the White House said. White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Tuesday that Obama plans to keep using his executive powers to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. “The president will use his executive action to take some additional steps.” –Timothy Cama, The Hill, 4 November 2014

soon-politicians-wont-be-able-to-avoid-the-issue

Thanks to Dr. Benny Peiser and The GWPF for this summary

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Man Bearpig

This is a great victory for common sense.

Nigel in Waterloo

This is politics -> Any moment now, the common sense will come to a grinding halt.

Jeff Alberts

Totally agreed.
We didn’t see much in the way of reducing AGW legislation during the last Republican-controlled congress. Too many still pay lip service to this nonsense.
If they’re serious, they’ll stop funding the UN, restructure the EPA, and enact legislation that prevents the EPA from creating laws/regulations by fiat. But I don’t see either of those things happening.

Dawtgtomis

Why has a feeling of cloaked doom come over me after election days ever since the century turned, no matter which party wins….

Robert W Turner

Jeff Albersts says: “If they’re serious, they’ll stop funding the UN, restructure the EPA, and enact legislation that prevents the EPA from creating laws/regulations by fiat.”
That’s exactly what needs done (same with the FWS and the endangered species act). All we can do is keep up the good fight. We need to start by making people aware of WHY this needs done. Ironically, the EPA has probably done this for us with the regulations it has enacted this year. Sadly, brown outs and black outs in January is what it will take for the general population to wake up to the damage already done from the liberal fiat government agencies.

Auto

Robert W Turner
Thanks.
You are right.
But – will the politicos actually do that [or a reasonable simulacrum]?
Please do n o t hold your breath!
Auto

Antonia

Dawtgtomas,
Because, “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers.” – Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966.

Catherine Ronconi

The last GOP controlled Congress refused to ratify the Kyoto Accords, voted down cap and trade/tax, “suppressed” a “Pentagon” study supporting the scam and kept the EPA from running amok.

Only the Senate ratifies treaties. And it was UNANIMOUSLY voted down by the senate, all democrats voting against it.

Chip Javert

This victory had nothing to do with common sense; it is purely a function on voters not responding to the CAGW panic button.
Since voters have never ranked CAGW very high in opinion polls, and politicians actually believe in very little other than raising money and remaining in power, it remains to be seen how politicians respond to an issue that no longer gives them either.

Jim G

Maybe. Keep your fingers crossed.

David A

I would like to see the Government, spend a million or three on the science supporting a skeptical view, emphasizing the benefits of CO2, and the failures of the IPCC climate models, and then spend more then that promoting said view.

brians356

Not so fast. Has the EPA been defanged? Didn’t think so. Until EPA has been stripped of their almost unlimited unilateral “rulemaking” power – like declaring CO2 to be a “dangerous pollutant” – we are at their mercy. Congress gave EPA that power – it needs to take it away,

Kpar

Power of the purse, Brian. The EPA (which actually has done much good in the past) will bring their minions under control in response to the threat of serious defunding.
Too bad the EPA has gone so far overboard in its zeal to eliminating ALL pollution, even pollution that isn’t. But, that is the nature of bureaucracy- protecting their paychecks becomes the “be all and end all”.

average joe

Three years ago I was an undecided middle of the road voter, although I would often lean toward the democratic side as they generally seemed more caring and tolerant, dare I say even more rational at times. I accepted the consensus on global warming. Then I started digging into the science behind it to see for myself how serious it was, and what I found has me really bent. I want climate research defunded. Now!!! Not another dollar until the current gatekeepers are replaced by people of integrity that will fight to keep the research unbiased! I think many others may be feeling similarly. Any candidate with a mission to make this happen gets my vote. I hope to see some radical action taking place shortly.

real talk

Congress never gave EPA such power. That’s some bullshit the SCOTUS invented.

AJ Virgo

Exactly, never underestimate the common mans ability to smell a rat……..democracy works. Now lets see how much the politicians have to compromise to get traction.

Democracy always fails. Without individual inalienable rights you end up with the ‘democracy’ of the French Revolution or Egypt’s foray with the Muslem Brotherhood.

Roberto

Mark, enjoy De Toqueville’s “Democracy in America.” This was a fellow who had seen the dysfunctional, sometimes-out-of-control, populist brand of democracy, then the breath of fresh air with American style. He found a number of reasons why one works spectacularly well, compared to the other.
Inalienable individual rights wasn’t one of those differences. It’s more about individually-accepted responsibilities, particularly at the local level, where we really do operate as a democracy.

Claudius

Democracy like communism has failed every time it has been tried. Democracy always becomes what I call a “mobocracy.” Democracy works well ’till the electorate discovers that it can vote itself lavish gifts from the public treasury.

JoNovace

A vote can’t change reality

mikeishere

But can you disagree that it is always heartening when the vote is in-line with reality?

Maybe…just maybe. Another crack in the wall.

Jimmy Haigh

It’s been the best day the planet has had in ages.

Agreed. And the more Obama tries to fight this, the more painful it will be for the “greens” in 2016. I think this was the only area that offered ANY hope for his “legacy”…no foreign policy, no domestic policy, no leadership at all, this was about the only peg left to try and hang a hat on…and the hat just fell.

timg56

While I agree with the no leadership assessment and the President’s lackluster to downright poor performance on both foreign and domestic affairs, ACA will be his legacy. Whether it is good or not has yet to be determined. I personally believe that ACA is here to stay. Portions of it maybe repealed or revised, but that will work to ensure history credits Obama on it.
Which is a bit ironic, as it is my understanding that the credit for it passing goes inlarge part to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and perhaps most of all Raul Emanual.

David A

When the full affects of the ACA are felt, NOBODY will wish to take credit for it.

Catherine Ronconi

Correct re Obama”care”. Mere millions suffered when the individual plan kicked in. The politically and illegally delayed group plan will cause tens of millions to pay more for less and lose their doctors.
The GOP Congress will have to scrap and replace it, whether they want to or not. The old system was destroyed by Obamacare, so something better and market-based will have to replace it.
There are lots of good GOP plans out there, but of course all were ignored by Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

k scott denison

timg256, once the 2015 rates are announced (and then the 2016, 2017, …) no one will want their name associated with the ACA. I for one am happy this will stick to Obama. He deserves it.

average joe

The harder Obummer and his clown science adviser cling to this falsified theory the more ticked off folks are gonna get. Either the dems get him and his epa contained, or they get wiped out come 2016.

TMG: Credit for passing ACA goes to 385 Minnesotans (there were more) who cast fraudulent ballots in 2008, who elected Al Franken, the 60th vote.

385 dead people and non existent people.

CapnRusty

Also felons and people who voted twice (my wife participated in the recount and saw the proof of one person who voted in two different precincts).

Olaf Koenders

I can only hope that the catalyst was Australia, Canada and China devolving that green rubbish, including India telling Greenpiss to go compost itself. If so, we’re likely to see more countries step back from the event horizon.

AJ Virgo

Massive sigh of relief when Tony Abbott won the Australian election. The Carbon Tax was axed along with a Resources tax, the Climate Commission was shut down with indecent haste and billions slated for the Bureau of Meteorologys new supercomputer which was a lock under the progressives is now in doubt as it is thought the only improvement is that it will reach erroneous conclusions faster.

Olaf Koenders

Computers are just fast idiots in the wrong hands. BOM should never be let near one. They should be downgraded to typewriters considering the garbage coming from their offices.
Some years ago Abbott was noted to have said “This global warming is rubbish..”, but then not much later was pushing his own carbon thingie against Labor’s Rudd. I began to lose my trust in him.
Things may have changed much, but he’s still mucking about with an emissions trading scheme. I won’t be happy until Abbott tells the whole truth and chucks this Green crime altogether.

jimmi_the_dalek

“billions” ? for a new computer – I think you have an exaggerated idea of the cost.
Also, the Abbott government has approved it http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/552689/bureau_meteorology_prepares_new_supercomputer/
What will cost billions id the Abbott government’s totally useless “direct action” scheme.

Patrick

Clearly NOT a real polar bear pelt. Nalis. Wood. Ink printing. Sneakers, and a covered chainsaw?

ConTrari

[Snip. OTT – mod]

M Courtney

Tasteless.
[Agree. But it wasn’t snipped for being tasteless, it was snipped for being offensive. mod]

outtheback

And imagine how much CO2 would have been generated to create the nylon suits with plastic snouts. That alone would have raised the temp by 0.2 C if you work by their calculations.

That bear looks like it was crossed with a werewolf.

Good day. We had a drink instead of working last night, first time in many years.

Jimmy Haigh.

Good man.

Given my status as a fence sitter the election results are a plus. The division of power tends to reduce the damage either party can cause. My only concern is foreign policy, the republicans seem to be just as irresponsible as democrats getting us in wars neither side knows how to win properly.
On the other hand, I do see a plus in energy policy. And possibly the democrats will realize a radical agenda doesn’t sell, and moderate their tone.

Joseph Murphy

Agreed, I would rather see government getting very little done than one party having control and steam rolling their goals into fruition. I would also agree on the foreign policy. Although, I would tip my hat in favor of the republicans from a Machiavellian standpoint because I believe a republican pres. is more likely to win/finnish a war regardless of whether or not we are fighting it for the right reasons. An endless war is more dangerous than an immoral war IMHO.

The lesson of Vietnam. An endless war cannot be won and will eventually defeat the most powerful of nations. For every soldier you have fighting in foreign lands, 7 people must work at home to support them. War must be short to be won, and the best strategy is to defeat your enemy mentally not physically. To paraphrase Sun Tsu writing 2500 years ago.

Jeff Alberts

“more likely to win/finnish a war ”
Are we at war with Finland??

Amatør1

@ ferdberple 6:46 am
The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous – Orwell

PhilCP

“Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please. ”
-Niccolo Machiavelli

Alx

Which war has a republican finished exactly, the US has been at war continously since WWII. Grenada doesn;t count, but maybe could make a case for the Korean war having a resolution we decided to live with. Don’t know I would call that winning. Vietnam was a mess under Democrats and Republicans. The middle east is continuing ad-nauseum, and of course the war on terror, like the war on woman. war on drugs, war on poverty, war on war, has about the same chance of winning as Wiley Coyote catching the Road-Runner.

Well, Lincoln (and Johnson) finished the Civil war, McKinley took care of the Spanish War. Since then, (other than Grenada as you stated), no Republicans have started one. Wilson got us into WWI, FDR into WWII, Truman into Korea, JFK into Vietnam. Bin Laden got us into Afghanistan, And Saddam Hussein got us into Iraq.
So you are correct. No Republican has finished a war he started in the past 116 years (other than Grenada). Primarily because no republican has gotten us INTO one. However, they did get us out of the Korean War (Ike) and Vietnam war (Nixon).

Dawtgtomis

I believe war is too big of a moneymaker for the elite and privileged to stop making more of them. During Vietnam we (commoners) were gainfully employed producing the toys of war. That appears to me to have scaled back considerably in the war on terrorism. I find the whole thing similar in nature to the AGW scare and throwing money wildly at a phantom threat while harming the stability of the societies involved. Our record of establishing stable governments lately has been about the same as the record of correct climate predictions. I have a feeling both problems would solve themselves without intervention. However, intervention seems necessary to protect the elite’s massive financial investments. By the way, has anybody got any factual info on how lucrative AGW has been for the President?

joelobryan

The fighting back against the War on the Truth by the Progressives is what brings me back to WUWT day after day.

timg56

Lesson of Vietnam – there are more than one.
First lesson – listen to the subject matter experts. State Department and OSS personnel charged with SE Asia were sending the message that Ho was foremost a nationalist and someone the US could work with. Sec of State disregarded that advice on the grounds that France was the more important allie and supporting their desire to hold on to pre-war colonies was necessary to getting them back on the feet and serving as the bulkwark against the Soviet Union.
Second lesson – micro management doesn’t work. Having sortie targeting lists reviewed and approved from DC was idiotic and ensured that a major US advantage was wasted. Related to this was McNamara’s arrogance in thinking that war could be reduced to number crunching and efficiency measurements. My bet’s on him to win worst SecDef ever.
Third lesson – do not take counsel of you fears. The Administration’s unwillingness to close rail lines from China and blockage Northern ports ensured the “endless” part. Contrary to popular belief, Vietnam was not a guerilla war or insurgency. It was conventional. Meaning the North could never had fought for as long as it did without China and the Soviet Union providing it with close to 100% of its industrial production needs, in addition to energy and food imports. The fear of intervention by either of these two also kept the US from moving into North Vietnam on the ground.
Fourth lesson – not really a lesson but a confirmation – if you want to become a politician, you have to sacrfice your balls and your integrity. The South fell for one reason only – Congress voted to shut off all funding right when it was needed most. When the North invaded they did so with nearly unlimited logistics. ARVN forces facing them had to fight with stocks on hand. They had to ration ammunition, were soon lacking in spare parts and fuel for their air force and helicopter fleet and faced shortages of all types, effectively hamstrung from the start. South Vietnamese forces fought well, until they had nothing to fight with.

timg56,
Boy, can I ever agree with your #3! In Viet Nam we constantly heard news reports about the possible mining Haiphong harbor, bombing rail lines, and shutting down other ingress points.
It was all talk. Until Nixon, they were afraid to make China and Russia mad. But grunts did not see the difference between bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail in Cambodia and stopping the endless flow of armaments from other countries by mining the harbor.
Oh, well, stupid politicians are making the same mistakes [deliberately or not, who knows?] Lately they’ve been air-dropping munitions to ISIS, instead of our allies.
But for the time being we can be happy because the voters have decided that skeptics are right, and the carbon scare is nonsense. With Sen. Inhofe chairing the climate committee, we have a common sense guy in charge for once. Let’s hope the new Congress is willing to perform a needed testiclectomy on you-know-who.

Vietnam…..sigh….few know the good that came out of that ugliness. What was it? It was the complete frustration of Mao’s hopes.
People now tend to mock the concept of “the domino-effect”, which envisions small-nation after small-nation falling to a larger power, unless another larger power steps in to halt it. I’m not sure why they mock. History shows us it happening over and over.
Americans tend to look at Vietnam as a defeat. In fact it was a stalemate. The real loser in a stalemate is not a capitalistic, constitutional democracy, which can accept the status-quo, but rather any form of government that depends on feeding off the conquest of neighbors. (And that includes those who overly tax the productive to feed the nonproductive.)
In truth Vietnam was a defeat for Mao (and to a lesser extent Russia) because their concept of communism was based on expansion.
Mao’s complete disregard for human life, culture, education, and individual rights and liberties can only be dimly glimpsed, because China isn’t yet willing to admit the monster Mao was. His so-called “social experiments” resulted in millions upon millions of his own people dying. The “Great Leap Forward” and the “Cultural Revolution” were hideous disasters, and China deserves credit for now having any educated adults at all, considering they pretty much exterminated all their teachers by 1970. Considering Mao considered the death of so many of his own people “constructive” and “progressive,” one can only imagine what he envisioned would be “helpful” in foreign lands.
In his way stood a bunch of American teenagers. They stopped him in his tracks. Now they are old men. They deserve our thanks for stopping Mao, not the crap they’ve been doled out for nearly half a century.

Caleb,
I agree with you about stopping Mao. We could have destroyed him and united Viet Nam under a South Korean-style system, but for the weak-kneed response of several Administrations.
However, you really didn’t have to say, “Now they are old men.” ‘Mature” would have worked just fine.☺

Jeff

“Jeff Alberts says: November 5, 2014 at 7:39 am “more likely to win/finnish a war ”
Are we at war with Finland??”
Spinach futures are up – “I’ll fight to the finnish when I eat my spinach” … 🙂

milodonharlani

Caleb
November 5, 2014 at 5:47 pm
By fighting in Vietnam for a decade, we kept Thailand, Malaysia & Indonesia from going Communist.
Which still doesn’t justify the criminal misconduct of the war by LBJ, may the psychotic, syphilitic drunken monster roast in the lowest circle of hell.

timg56

Caleb,
Another good – the contributions of Vietnamese Americans to our society and nation. I see examples of this every day.

Danny Thomas

Fernando,
Appreciate your perspective. I’ve said for as long as I can remember that the system of checks and balances that we voters have imposed on our “system of checks and balances” has led to exactly what we’ve got. Stagnation. And we as voters, have only ourselves (not our representatives) to hold accountable for that.
As an independent, I will be sounding the horn with words like yours that “And possibly the democrats will realize a radical agenda doesn’t sell, and moderate their tone.”
In addition, with great power comes great responsibility so it’s up to us all (at every level) to relearn how to work together and communicate respectably. We’ll get things moving again.

stagnation is exactly what the checks and balances are intended to provide, forcing the parties involved to compromise. unfortunately executive order has made the office of the president much more like a king than a president, defeating the checks and balances that would have otherwise led to compromise.
which is why Obama’s place in history will be so different than previous presidents such as Reagan that perfected the art of compromise. Reagan started out left wing, a labor organizer, came over to the Republicans after meeting with Ike, and thus had a foot in both camps. the current president can only see one side of the problem, and thus keeps getting blind-sided as problems arise.

Paul767

There is nothing BETTER than a congress that does nothing! If you believe that the government has to “do something” for every emotional issue out there, then you don’t have a clue what governments are for. Time to roll this government back and have them do much less in our lives.

There is nothing BETTER than a congress that does nothing!

You know that. I know that. But unfortunately the MSM does not know that, and so they spin it as a bad thing. Which then the electorate thinks is a “bad thing”.

Alx

Stagnation for run away government is a good thing. It is a polarized electorate with half the people not voting and the extremists at both ends of the spectrum driving absurd agendas. Half the governenment is crony captitalism where business and government are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable like in a knitted sweater, and the other half run by kooks who want people to stop drinking soda, driving cars to save the planet on one end and kooks on the other end who don’t want government in religion but want religion in government, to save our souls. Hate them both; tin-pot dictators, petty authoritarians. Helpful when they cancel each other out.

Ernest Bush

Stagnation works in the Democrats favor. Government workers are overwhelmingly Democrat both in outlook and how they vote. Many are believers of the Warmist cult and don’t hesitate to use their authority to write stronger and more pervasive regulations while we look at a “do-nothing” congress.
The “government” is at war with its citizens with respect to free enterprise and stagnation has allowed that war to grow to enormous proportions. The left hates capitalism, after all.
Recently I stood at the steps of the courthouse in Colonial Williamsburg as an actor read the proclamation from the Continental Congress approving the Declaration of Independence. Hearing it read aloud in the context of that place made me really listen to the body of the Declaration. It was like somebody slapped me up side the head as I suddenly realized how much the claims against the British government of that time sounded like claims we could lay at the foot of the administrative arm of our government, particularly under Obama. We are way past the point at which our founding fathers took up arms.

As time passed the memories of the WWI veterans surrounding Washington DC faded. Quoting from an article…
“By the summer of 1932, the country was in a state of near rebellion. The “Bonus Army” of angry World War I veterans was camped out in Washington. By the time FDR took the presidential reins in March 1933, the specters of violence and even revolution were in the air. Machine guns guarded government buildings.”
This idea of checks and balances sprung up after the memory faded. Stagnation would be good if I were wealthy, gridlock and only being able to agree on tax cuts, heck yeah!

As a fellow fence-sitter who sees idiocy in almost every government action, I agree wholeheartedly.

mpainter

Fifth lesson:
Do not let a low, conniving person such as LBJ become president. When he was confronted with a problem that could not be solved by lies, or sneaking connivance, he was ineffective.

DonM

Sounds very familiar … LBJ … BHO. Both career politicians that believe(d) the political process is more important than the outcome.

I also disagree with the banner of the post. I think “climate change” was definitely relevant in this election.

In which manner?

The results were, at least in part, a referendum on this president’s policies, which include the green agenda, in spite of the growing body of evidence showing these policies are ill-founded and probably detrimental to the well-being of the country.

The results were definitely a referendum on the president’s policies. Obama himself said this. Climate change was not on the ballot on the last Presidential election. It was hardly mentioned. After the election Obama trotted it out as a major policy initiative. A lot of voters will see this as dishonest and it is reflected in the mid-term results.

Walt Allensworth

The absurd “Climate Change” agenda pushed by the Obama administration when there are SO MANY more pressing issues facing this country absolutely factored into how I voted in this election.
Many, many of my friends also feel this way.
Hopefully that lesson is not lost on the Republicans who were voted into power.

Climate Change was part of the election
Coal states like Kentucky, West Virginia and Arkansas came out especially strong for the Republicans. Before Obama’s EPA edicts, these would have trended Democrat.
Also, the only Republican governor to get massively defeated was the one in Pennsylvania who raised gas taxes 27¢

joelobryan

Agree, the EPA’s War on CO2/Coal was on the ballot in many states yesterday. The EPA lost. Congress will now reel them in via amendments to the CAA and CWA.

mpainter

qam1: “who raised gas taxes 27¢”
#####
GOOD! I am glad the message is clear to these #%!!&*$ elected officials who raise taxes instead if cutting spending.Again, GOOD!

I think his reputation for whitewashing and running interference for Penn State and JoPa didn’t help him much either.

Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
Green Money loses big time. The question is, will California political leaders get the message, or will they double down on climate change? Stay Tuned.

Brad Rich
timg56

A state that elects Jerry brown as governor is one that gets its messages from butterflies and moon beams.

Barbara Skolaut

Silly Russ – there’s no question at all.
It’s California – of course they’ll double down on stupid.

ConfusedPhoton

Lets hope sense returns to the climate debate!
Do not forget Barack Obama has had plenty of donations from people with very green agenda. Hence, he kept quiet about CAGW during his election but came out fighting after, to pay back his donors. Now we can expect the same green donors for Hillary Clinton and therefore expect the same green rhetoric.

Gary Pearse

Now start looking for a brainy, charismatic, silver-tongued Rep. presidential candidate. It’s probably too soon to go for the US’s first (at least in my memory) bald president! This election provides a platform, too. Cut off the UN except for meetings re resolving wars, dealing with sanctions and other non sovereignty-intrusive functions. Get cheap abundant energy flowing to the US economy.
This latter policy will get all the EUSSR politicians kicked out, too, or face 4th world economic status. I’m looking forward to the rest of the world hating the US again as it was in the good old days. The last power that was hated deeply by the Europeans as a whole was the Romans – everyone eventually took to having a bath and putting wheels on their carts though. It was even good for them – I’ve used the metaphor of trying to save the Nile crocodile – they’ll still try to bite your leg off. I’m looking forward to some support for embattled Stephen Harperl who has been one (of two -Abbott of oz) of the shining stars in the west to resist this new world order – a dream of the left. And America, please have a very long memory.

earwig42

+1

Joel O'Bryan

Scott Walker, Governor Wisconsin.

Frank K.

Walker’s win was, perhaps, one of the most satisfying of the night. No one has endured the enormous barrage of politically motivated character assassination as he has.

PeterinMD

Better yet, Larry Hogan here in Maryland! The Dems even played the race card, which was met with disdain from even their own. Shame on them. Time to put Maryland back to work in private jobs, not hitched to the DC Job wagon!

k scott denison

As a Wisconsinite I will second the vote for Scott Walker. He simply knows how to get things done. Time for the country to elect someone who has actually run something successfully in their life.

RayG

Eisenhower, Ford, Lincoln, both Adams, Van Buren are all among our follicly challenged presidents.

rogerknights

The number of bald presidents the American public has willingly elected since Van Buren is one (Garfield). Ford wasn’t elected and Ike’s opponent was also bald.

mpainter

That means that I will never be president.

jorgekafkazar

I saw Ike once. At least, I saw the sun glinting off something in an open limo going down Exposition Blvd. Think it was him. If I had a time machine, I’d go back and live in the Eisenhower years.

Ron C.

Let the actual scientific debates begin.
There will likely be hearings in both chambers where skeptical voices will be heard. Alarmist scientists will have opportunities, if they participate, to present their evidence for concerns about the climate.

It will take a lot more time and effort to even begin to turn this ship. I don’t expect miracles, but I’m cautiously optimistic.

biff33

We don’t need miracles: next week we will have The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, so I’m very optimistic.

it is clear from the repeated “lost email” scandals that a large number of US regulators are not following their own regulations. The problem is a lack of accountability. A token regulator steps down, and gets a plum job inside the democratic party, and an exact clone takes their place. Much better congress simply de-fund the problem departments. Dramatically cut the EPA budget for creating mischief and you will get a lot less mischief. Do the same with climate research. Why fund research if the debate is over?

timg56

+100 fred.

I still don’t know how you can loose emails. They are stored on servers with multiple redundancy, not hard drives.

Owen in GA

Which means it has been a great time for our host here to regain his hearing so as to be more effective in those debates!

Rob Bradley

Time for the Green Party to take up the climate-change banner from the Dems?

Climate Change has always been irrelevant in politics.

RockyRoad

And yet Climate Change is 100% political. As a meme it has outlived its usefulness.

ConTrari

Alas, both politicians and the lectorate have a constant need of illusions. But let us hope this particular illusion is on the way out now. However, there is bound to be a long-term massive clean-up job to rid the administration of activists.

This is good news. Congress can just defund a lot of this nonsense. Executive actions without money to back them up might be useless. And, if they are unpopular, will just make things that much more difficult in 2016 for the Democrats and the Greens.
This serves the Dems right for getting so far to the “left.” I guess the electorate is really middle of the road.

Dawtgtomis

Seems that on a globe if you go too far left you meet those who are very far to the right. In the zone of struggle for fascist control.

jorgekafkazar

Right. There’s virtually no difference between Fascism and Communism. Why? Because they are both based on absolute power vested in the State, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

DirkH

Re left and right socialism: That’s the spectrum of socialism. It has a left and a right end. It has nothing in common with the bourgeousie (the citizen). All socialists want to exploit and ultimate kill the citizenship.

Margaret Smith

Yes, this had been my view for more than 50 years. You go to the left (or right) and eventually the extremes meet.
There are a lot of ‘useful fools’ out there and those happy to exploit them. Tender young brains are very vulnerable to clever propaganda.

ossqss

“▪ Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate political committee pumped $16 million into the race to defeat Scott and advocate for climate-change policies.” Florida Governor’s race.
Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2014/11/05/5456744_scott-headed-to-victory-in-governors.html?sp=/99/100/&rh=1#storylink=cpy
The people have spoken across the board and the Green money can’t overcome the deficit anylonger.
This is a big “Oh the Pain” moment in history for the green agenda, and rightly so. The turn away from tyranny has taken place as the green activists still cling to their models and CAGW religion.
Time now to turn the sights on the EPA funding!

joelobryan

the Congress needs to put a must sign bill on the Presidents desk that amends the Clean Air Act stripping the EPA of the authority to regulate CO2 and natural-source methane emissions.

brians356

Yep. Defanging EPA is the key. CO2 is now officially a “dangerous pollutant”, and SCOTUS affirmed that. God help us.

joelobryan

SCOTUS didn’t rule on the technical merits of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding for CO2. SCOTUS merely affirmed they had legal authority under the CAA to make the finding.
That is why Congress must amend the CAA to restrict the meaning of pollutants definition and not the clean combustion products, CO2(g) and H2O(g). They attach the that amendment to a piece of must sign legislation on the President’s desk. Then if he vetoes it, he shuts-down or kills an important part of the government operations or funding.

Michael C. Roberts

joelobryan – Spot on. The “Endangerment Finding” was based mostly on the “science” found in the then-existing IPCC reports – and was referenced as such in the finding. This is science? Therein lies the technical approach for the newly-elected senators in the US of A to defund any and all additional funding for “carbon” research or to institute any “carbon” emission taxes – that the EPA never followed the requirements established in applicable regulation to begin with. We’ll see how that goes, but therein lies the key…..

timg56

As a viable political party the Greens have zero chance for relevancy in the US. I know a lot of people who like to make fun of the Tea Party, and who thought “Occupy” was one of the most inspiring events (it was so short lived it can’t be called a movement) in their life time. But tally up the number of elected offices Tea Party members have occupied, as compared to the Green Party and you will see which is the gnat on the elephant’s butt.
In fact they know this, which is why they are taking the course of action we are seeing – getting assigned to non-elected positions of influence in government. They know they cannot get even a noticible minority of the electorate to agree to their agenda, and therefore have to rely on the power of governmental regulation.

Evan Jones

“Occupy”
That was my major in graduate school. My bad decision, my responsibility.
I work down there (as a low-level clerical worker). I was giving them the down-twinkles on a daily basis.

Three days before the election South Florida enjoyed a record cold night, 52F in Miami.
Smashing the old record of 54F set in 1993.
News Flash: The Gore Effect strikes the elections.

littlepeaks

I wish I had enough wisdom to be able to profit off of all this political money (from both parties). This is all about the money changing hands — it has to go somewhere. IMHO, the media, and the ad agencies are the big winners. Wish I could invest in these during the elections. And the media is mum on the amount of their windfall. BTW, I am personally happy with the election outcome.

joelobryan

It’s the local TV and radio stations that get the bulk of the ad revenue.

The “Nextgen Climate Action” folks spent a lot of money on anti-Rick Scott ads in Florida over the last months or so, but their efforts were rejected by enough Floridians that Scott (R) was re-elected Governor.
Maybe people here in Florida are figuring out that support of “climate change” means “more of the same” from Congress and they really do want a “change” they can believe in – something that does not seem to be being offered by the Obama Administration.
We will have to see if the Republicans in Congress will stand up to the misinformation of “climate change/global warming”.

Ah, ossqss and I were posting at the same time.
*goes off to read Bradenton Herald article*

LEGALIZE INCANDESCENTS!

Instead, they legalized stoners. Go figure.

Frank K.

Priorities…

We need to get big light bulb out of politics.

PiperPaul

No! Send them back! Aren’t there enough immigration problems already?

TAG

When Rome gave a victorious general a triumphal march, they had a slave stand by him whispering ‘You too are mortal”. 2016 is only two years away and the Senate races then will be in states that favor the Democratic party. A confluence of events led to the Republican victory last night. It is now up to the Republicans to remember that they are mortal and what the voters did last night they can undo in 2016.
President Obama’s approval ratings are in the 40% range. Congress’ approval rating is in the 20% range. Forever is a long time in politics and nothing changes forever

RockyRoad

And yet your rating comparison is bogus–the electorate rates their own congressman higher than the president in practically every case. It’s other congressmen the people don’t like, and why should they? They didn’t vote for them and they aren’t their representatives. It’s like asking voters to rate the governors of neighboring states.

jorgekafkazar

A minor detail. It remains true that the Republicans don’t have any wiggle room to screw up during the next two years.

mpainter

Congress never has high ratings from the voters.

Gunga Din

I’d like to have seen such ratings split between the House and Senate.
Where Congress’ ratings low because they didn’t stop Obama?
Did any of the polls ever ask that question?
I don’t know myself.

Part of the reason for that 20% rating has to do with the steady drumbeat of media articles and pundits who have continuously spread and reinforced the ‘do nothing Congress’ concept, which has gone on for around 3 years now. The press never mentions the many attempts by Republicans to find solutions which H Reid tossed into the trashbin.

They are arguing about immeasurable changes in temperature, as the great lakes freeze. They are crying wolf about warming as the nation sinks into another polar vortex and record early snow covers much of the lower 48.
I do not kid myself that this is the last we will hear of it. it is the zombie issue that will be back. But for now, it is dead Jim.

mpaul

The Democrats believe that when a 501(c)4 advocates for public policies that severely regulate CO2 (like Steyer did), it should be considered a “social welfare” effort and not subject to any campaign limits. But if a 501(c)4 advocates against those policies — well, that’s political activity and should be outlawed.

M Courtney

Not sure I agree with the view that Green Greenbacks are a dead political force.
1 This election had a lower turnout than a US Presidential election. The young disproportionately stayed away. And the young have been exposed to more Green propaganda as a proportion of their experience than anyone else.
2 Climate Change has been bottom of the Pew ratings of issues for a long time. But as the economy improves the other issues decline in relative importance.
3 Opposition is easy. Power requires a raised public profile. If Senator Inhofe assumes the reins at the Environment Committee the Green lobby groups will increasingly demonise him. It is easier to raise the profile of an issue when you have a villain. Everyone likes narratives.
4 The USA is only one country. The EU will still apply pressure in Paris in 2015. And the price may be high (TPin, backing for Middle East policy, other local legacy projects can be influenced from abroad). And a policy area that almost no-one in your country cares about is the easiest policy area to trade off.
5 The Greens are true believers. They honestly do think they are saving the world. As such they will be very vocal. Any politician that wants to attempt a collegiate persona – reaching across the aisle – will have to pay obeisance to the AGW fears.
6 U-Turns are costly. Letting the story go quietly into that good night is possible. But no-one will want to ne seen as the wielder of the knife. The story will stay on the agenda.
7 The internet provides an alternative town hall. The greens will be self-reinforcing. Although they may not be a majority anywhere they will still be able to gather numbers for a demonstration. That will feed the revenue raising beast that funds more lobbyists.
But I am British.
Maybe it is different over there.

One big difference between the US and the UK is that you will be hard pressed to find a single voter over here who gives a damn about what the EU wants. With this new Congress, it’s now guaranteed that no matter what happens in Paris 2015, the US is just going to turn its back and walk away from it. (Backing for Middle East Policy? You actually think the US has a middle east policy anymore? That’s so 2003)
Hey EU! We fart in your general direction!

John F. Hultquist

M.C., you wrote:
The young disproportionately stayed away.
Illinois senator Obama came to national attention July 27, 2004 as he gave the keynote address at that year’s Democratic National Convention. The young of that time, public school aged children and university attendees of 2004, helped propel him to his next big thing – his Nov. 4, 2008 victory speech. Then came the need to lead rather than talk. It has been down hill since then.
The 17 to 24 year olds of 2004, now 27 to 34, have learned that the “hope and change” rhetoric was not a plan, and not helpful to them.
A 17 year old of today (2014) was just 7 when Obama gave that first speech. Obama is that old dude that has been president since about as far back as they can remember.
Not being the young of 2004, the young of 2014 had little inventive to help the old dude complete a legacy by voting in congressional contests.

timg56

Good assessment.

But I am British.
Maybe it is different over there.

The candidates are different. The process is a little different. But your points are not different.

mpainter

M Courtney,
Inhofe is only answerable to voters in Oklahoma, where Greens have no presence. The Greens have already done their worst toward him and this only gives him national stature, because in the eyes of many, if the Greens hate him, he must be a fine fellow, comic books notwithstanding.
This is the calculus of politics: if you villify someone, your enemies become his friends.

mpainter

M Courtney,
Off year elections (non-presidential) always have a lower turnout.
Senator Inhofe has nothing to fear from the Greens, believe me. Not in Oklahoma.
Treaties and such state agreements require senate confirmation. Slim chance that the new senate will commit this country to any Green agenda. That is the new reality for EU as well as for the administration.
Yes, it must be different over here. The Green scare was pushed hard and it flopped utterly at the polls.
The Greens have shot their bolt and they are shown as no account and may be disregarded.

M Courtney

WWS: Most in the EU don’t care about the EU either. But power talks. Don’t underestimate the influence the EU can exert around the world – even in the US.
John F. Hultquist: Good point about the disillusionment of the young. We in the UK have experienced similar declines in popularity for the LibDems when hit with the reality of responsibility. But young in electoral terms does mean under 50. And once people have committed themselves to a candidate they are emotionally invested. The point you make is sound but may not be as significant a disillusionment as at first appears.
philjourdan: Thanks. I tried to be pretty generic.
mpainter: Senator Inhofe has never shown any sign of being afraid of the Greens. But that may just make it easier for him to be made to appear to be a comic book villain.
In the EU and the US hardly anyone cares much about AGW. But those who do really care a lot. And they are the ones who will be active on behalf of Green sounding politicians and even vote on Green matters. The sceptical have more important issues that we vote on. Meaning that the zealots are more likely to be worth appeasing.
Thanks for the replies. As a British Socialist I really have no right to rain on the US Republican parade but, please take it this way, outside views can be helpful. Overconfidence could be fatal.

Tom in Florida

Mid term elections always have a lower turnout. However, Republican victories in States that normally lean heavily towards the Democrats show that all the ” Hope and Change” touted by Obama has become “No Hope and Time for a Change”. A clear rejection of the way the Country is being run by this administration.

Matthew Epp

M Courtney, Your points are well thought out but as you state in your conclusion You are British and yes it is different over here.
1. Many American children have been brained washed about AGW, but it hasn’t manifested in true belief or dramatic behavioral change. Most of us will make minor inconsequential changes in lifestyle, but not subscribe to major changes in the name of environmentalism, and the youngest generations are the most spoiled and entitled yet.
2. and 3 are not issues except to enviro radicals and they are already as energized as they can be. The majority of Americans are more concerned with paying our bills than reducing carbon footprint for some nebulous future benefit.
4. Americans believe the USA is the ONLY country and quite frankly, we typically don’t give a rip what the EU does. We know China and India are ramping up their economies and we are more interested in competing and benefiting from their growth than appeasing the European Socialists.
5. The Greenies are true believers, but they are a fringe minority in the US and they got their clocks cleaned in the last election.
6 and 7 won;t really amount to much.
This isn’t a criticism of your thoughts, just an American perspective.
Cheers,
Matthew Epp.

M Courtney

Matthew Epp: Thanks for the perspective. I won’t argue with your view of the impact that green propaganda has had on the attitudes of America’s young.
I do question how little you concern yourself with the zeolotry of the Green true believers. They are loud, repetitive and ubiquitous just because they care about the issue more than everyone else. Little drips look worthy of contempt but if they keep dripping they will eventually carve the Grand Canyon.
Above all, I think you miss the importance of the pressure from the EU. It isn’t a matter of competition. It is a matter of partnership.
The USA has many common values with the developed economies of Europe. Trade agreements like Tpin are very beneficial to the USA and if the cost is a concession on something that no-one cares about much (global warming avoidance) then politically… why wouldn’t your leaders make that call?
And that is just one case where the USA and EU have common interests.

DirkH

M Courtney
November 5, 2014 at 1:23 pm
“I do question how little you concern yourself with the zeolotry of the Green true believers. They are loud, repetitive and ubiquitous just because they care about the issue more than everyone else.”
The Greens are watermelons. They don’t give a flying spit for the environment. Currently they’re obsessing about multiculturalism and genderism here in Germany, as they know they can’t win anything with Climate anymore.

mpainter

Dirk H,
Interesting. It appears that the Greens understand that they have reached their limits on the CO2 issue and now try to broaden their base by gender issues, etc. Do you read it that way?

M Courtney

DirkH: We’ve disagreed before on the Watermelon idea.
Being Green is not necessarily left-wing. And the proposed green policies are not left-wing.
Transferring wealth from the poorest (via fuel bills) to corporations and rich landowners via wind and solar farms is the opposite of left-wing.
Cheaper energy helps the poor more than the rich, proportionately.
All the green transport initiatives restrict movement by cost – higher fuel taxes and congestion charges – not by need.
5 recycling boxes can be fit into a porch or utility room easily but are a real imposition on those in small flats or studios.
Subsidised buses for everyone would be left-wing. it isn’t proposed.
The Greens are green not red. They generally come from low input financial service industries and academia. Typically, they are middle-class with comfortable and secure incomes. Often, they are separated from physical inputs and concentrated on social constructs.
Reds tend to come from the workers in key industries who want a ‘fairer’ share of the output they produce.
I know; I am left-wing.

jorgekafkazar

Our two-party system is different from yours, MC. We have two complete and independent asses, here.

hunter

Steyer should ponder that he has been playing the role of the “Emperor” in the “Emperor’s New Clothes” remake for the 21st century. He might be wise to closely consider just how he arrived at the idea that the climate is changing dangerously and that he needed to pay a small circle of special advisers a *lot* of money to guide his political donations.
Steyer, and the others who wasted their resources on climate obsessed ideas, have been had.

Rhoda R

HAS he been wasting his resources or does he consider them an investment against future earnings from things like Cap and Trade?

“Robert Brulle, professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University”. Can anybody explain what “sociology and environmental science” is?

Sociology has become the “Deamonize Whites and Men” study. (I took the class at UC…) and Environmental Science has become the “Capitalism and Industry are Evil” study. So he is a professor of “Capitalism and Industry are Evil and it is the fault of White Men”…
Glad to provide translation services as needed. The jargon of PC can be a bit thick at times…

dalyplanet

Heh!

jorgekafkazar

Thank you for the lucid explanation.

DonM

Phil, you said it before I had chance … I had almost the exact sentiment.
“Robert Brulle, professor of sociology and environmental science” … who crossbred or spawned this monster?
Thanks for the apt description Mr. Smith

Juice

The election had everything to do with Obamacare and not much to do about climate matters. People are pissed off about the effect Obamacare has had on their insurance. Climate stuff is way down on the list of concerns.

M Courtney

From the outside I thought that was the point.
Despite massive funding to promote Green issues – it just doesn’t register with the voters.
So is that funding worth continuing?

Owen in GA

If it gains Steyer some hip cred with the leftist echo chamber he runs in then he will continue until it actually hurts. To him and other billionaires, $20-100 million is play money. If it draws in more leftist money to his hedge fund it is even a good investment for him. There are a number of very wealthy people who are geniuses at what they do, who feel guilty about their success and its impact, so they assuage that guilt by limiting the ability of others to obtain their level of success to “SAVE THE PLANET”. Why they think their success has caused damage is beyond my ability as an amateur psychologist. (trained in physics – much more straight forward than peoples’ brains/psyches!) What their guilt leads to is investing in anything “GREEN” and his funds are more than happy to provide corresponding investment products. I would almost go so far as to say that his very public expenditures on GREEN politics could be a good PR game for his funds.

I disagree. I think they were pissed off about Obama, period, whether it was Obamacare, Obamaclimate, or any other of a hundred things.

Mac the Knife

S’truth!

jorgekafkazar

Only a hundred?

Streetcred

S’truth, indeed! That’s how it looked to this outsider.

timg56

While that may be the leading issue, I think there were / are enough other issues for it to be a collective impact. The recent revelations about Obama’s complete disinterest in Iraq and how that is a major factor in what is happening now in that country. The criticism from Hilary and Panetta regarding his (lack) of leadership skills. Throw in the growing image of a President more interested in vacationing and his golf game then the grind of comming to terms with Congress and the taint of Benghazi and at a minimum you get folks who figure it is not worth the effort to vote.

Mike from the cold side of the Sierra

Hope returns as change has occurred

TAG

From CNN
=========================
Washington (CNN) — A majority of Americans are dissatisfied or angry with President Barack Obama’s administration and GOP leaders, according to exit polls released Tuesday and analyzed by CNN.
And about 8 in 10 Americans disapprove of how Congress is handling its job, according to a survey of voters outside of polling places on Election Day.
What’s the impact of a republican win? Who are the midterm spoilers?
Nearly six in 10 voters are either dissatisfied or angry with both the White House and Republican leaders in Congress. Less than a third of Americans are satisfied with the Obama administration and GOP leaders.
=========================
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/politics/midterm-exit-polls-1/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Triumphal narratives from republican supporters have to be interpreted along with the does of reality described above

TAG

Sorry – “a dose of reality”. I don’t know what a “does of reality” is but it can’t be good.

jorgekafkazar

Does of reality are what makes the buck stop here.

Frank K.

Consider the source …

LogosWrench

The RFK jrs and Gores and U.N. flunkies have alarmed themselves into irrelevance. Anyone remember a boy and a wolf? The chief difference being the boy didn’t economically ruin his neighbors with his wolf cries.

Rhoda R

Yes he did — all the sheep he was watching was a common herd and the wolves got all of them.

Alan Robertson

The Environmental Protection Agency falls under the purview of the Administrative branch of Government. That means POTUS, who, in keeping with his totalitarian bent, rules by edict and decree. When you see someone stepping hard on the EPA, that will be the time to rejoice.

brians356

Hear, hear!

Mark T

POTUS is the executive branch, not administrative. The three branches are executive, legislative, and judicial.
Mark

Alan Robertson

So right. Words failed me 🙂

Actually the part of the problem is that the bureaucracy has gotten so large as to be a branch of government unanswerable to anyone. You really think the EPA cares who is in the White House? Obama plays on this problem when declaring he only finds out what is happening in the government by watching the evening news.

Colin

Expect the Green Organization to start accusing Big Oil and the Koch Brothers of manipulating the election. With their money tree threatened the rhetoric will get cranked up. Same with the UN and the IPCC. With their livlihood threatened they will also start. Any day now.

They were doing that all along…well before the election.

timg56

I recently saw a statistic regarding political donations. Between 1989 & 2012 Koch Industries donated a bit over $12.6 million to political entities. During that same time, the biggest 20+ unions donated over $600 million.

BruceC

……start accusing Big Oil and the Koch Brothers of manipulating the election.
Any day now

How about now:
How much does it cost to buy the U.S. Senate? $1Billion, apparently.
#KochMachine #CitizensUnited

Guess who?
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/530006927737364480

Vince Causey

I don’t follow US elections, but I thought that Republicans took the Senate 4 years ago. Or maybe they merely increased their seats but didn’t reach a majority.

No. Democrats have had a firm control on the Senate. Harry Reid has earned the Senate “The Most Do-Nothing” Senate ever…having blocked almost every piece of legislation put forth.
That was the first major legislative hurdle. Now that it’s been overcome, the next real hurdle is the Pres.

PiperPaul

‘Pres’ or ‘press’?

Let’s go with the PRESS for now.

rogerknights

They took the House then.

Rhoda R

Yes, the House.

No. The Republicans took the House back in 2010 and they have held their majority since, including this election in which they made some additional gains. It was the Senate they took in this election cycle. Thus they hold 52 out of 100 seats with the strong likelihood for 2 additional pickups. Democrats will hold 46. There are 2 Independents (although they tend to caucus with the Democrats).

The good news is Senator Inhofe will now be back as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works committee.
Hopefully he will expose the GISS and NOAA’s temperature manipulations

YIPPEE! Imhotep in the saddle. Fire all the liars in the National Climate Control organizations, just as Australia did, and end any thoughts of Carbon Credits or COP AND TIRADE agreements.

David A

…and make public the skeptical arguments, and include the benefits of CO2

Streetcred

I hope that they remember this:

Barbara Boxer to Inhofe: ‘You’re not making the rules – you used to when you did this. You don’t do this any more.’
“Elections have consequences,” she added

Indeed this election WILL have consequences !!

SAMURAI

The drubbing the Leftists took in the mid-terms sets the stage for a 2016 GOP Presidential win and perhaps even holding (barely) both Houses through the next elections.
The key to the GOP holding on to power is to thwart Obama’s coming Executive Order granting blanket Amnesty to 10’s of millions of illegal aliens. If Obama is successful in unconstitutionally granting amnesty, the Left will hold control of all three branches of government for the next 100 years.
Such Leftist control will lead to massive CAGW legislation: cap and trade, $trillions in wind/solar subsidies and mega-projects, the death of coal, an end to the Keystone Pipeline, restrictions to fracking, legislation capping CO2 emissions, massive EPA overreach, and a general explosion of the Welfare State.
66% of Americans (89% of REPS) now feel the country has moved too far Left. The Left knows this, and realizes that In order to complete their goal of “fundamentally transforming America”, they are working to unconstitutionally get Amnesty done before Christmas of this year….
The fate of America’s floundering Republic will be decided over the next 2 months….. It’ll be interesting to see what happens…

Mac the Knife

The key to the GOP holding on to power is to thwart Obama’s coming Executive Order granting blanket Amnesty to 10’s of millions of illegal aliens.
Samurai,
This is the first effort we all must make. It can be done, if we make sure all of our elected officials, families, friends, and neighbors understand that
“Executive action to grant amnesty to illegal aliens is unequivocal treason.”

DonM

say it again so it make begin to stick…
“Executive action to grant amnesty to illegal aliens is unequivocal treason.”
…repeat as necessary.

Ron C.

Liberals tried to use climate change as a wedge issue in these midterm elections, thinking it would mobilize their environmentalist base while exposing unbelieving conservatives as anti-science.
The spectacular failure of this tactic suggests that the electorate is about as sensitive to alarmist scare stories as the climate is sensitive to CO2.

Well, this may have been a win for the Republicans generally, but in my own completely unscientific, limited, small-sample-size, discussions with people, my sense is that the elections had a lot more to do with the economy, general political affiliations, and dissatisfaction with Pres. Obama than with anything climate related. I would be surprised if very many people voted for person X based on their stance on climate change.

John West

That’s kinda the point. Climate is not a priority issue for most Americans even though they’ve been repeatedly told it’s the most critical issue ever faced by humanity from advocates for taking action on climate change. The advocates have all but cornered all aspects of mass media, have the grand majority of academics touting the cause as moral and imperative, and politicians parroting and doubling down on the inanity and yet still they haven’t been able to convince the American public that it deserves their attention.
The question is: Why? Is it the rag tag skeptics fighting in the wild west of media venues that the advocates can’t control? Is it some kind of communal BS detector? Is it some psychological mechanism that repulsed people away from the doom mongering? Is it merely that many of the worst projected effects won’t be realized until later rather than sooner and people are more concerned with the here and now?
I don’t know, but whatever it is I’m thankful for it and hope it keeps it up.

John West

Oops. Should be projected effects supposedly won’t be realized. Didn’t mean to suggest that the projections were in any way reasonably expected to actually happen.

PiperPaul

+97

Ron C.

Good questions John West. An optimist would say that years of exposure to advertising created a population that resists claims of “sure things.” A pessimist would say that Americans have a short attention span, and climate is a long term subject.

Dave in Canmore

“Is it merely that many of the worst projected effects won’t be realized until later rather than sooner and people are more concerned with the here and now?”
John, I suspect this is the answer. It also explains why alarmists believe they need to yell louder and provide the scariest headlines.

Here’s how good a night it was, from the head of the Sierra Club himself!
“Despite the climate movement’s significant investments and an unprecedented get out the vote program, strong voices for climate action were defeated and candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said on Wednesday.
ROFL!!!

philincalifornia

“sinister voter suppression tactics”
Ha ha. Leftist-speak for “telling the truth”

Leonard Lane

You cannot fly, get on a bus, cash a check, get to see a doctor, get a prescription, adopt a baby, adopt a pet, buy a car, buy a house, or anything of significance that is legal without showing your identification. Yet every time reasonable people in the US want to require identification to vote, Democrats, and other radical leftists defend voting without identification. Obama’s proposed executive amnesty for 34 million illegal aliens is designed to make the leftist and racist Democrats into a single party rule and a leftist and oppressive dictatorship. If the Republicans have any brains and patriotism they will stop supporting illegal immigration and amnesty.

Rhoda R

Yes.

PeterinMD

A woman called into a local radio show yesterday (Tuesday) afternoon to tell about her voting experience. She walked up to the registrar, gave her name, her last name is evidently very unique and not common. The Registrar mentioned that she sees her husband early voted this year, which was quite a surprise to the woman, who mentioned that her husband had passed away in 2000. Welcome to a blue, blue state. Not the first time there has been charges that the dead vote here in Maryland. I hope governor elect Hogan’s first directive to the state’s attorney’s office is to investigate and prosecute any voter fraud. Then they need to compare voting records and expunge all votes of the dead, and recalculate the results!
Ok, so I like dreaming………

Jonathan Griggs

When I went to vote yesterday here in Georgia, they not only asked for my ID but actually scanned the bar code on the back to verify that it was not a fake. I could not have been more proud to live in a state often portrayed as a redneck backwater of little significance on the national stage.
Fun fact: When I rolled out driver’s license scanning technology to retail stores at my last job about 4 years ago, Georgia was the only state in the Union that actually encrypts the information on the bar code so it cannot be easily spoofed.

timg56

Maybe true, but if the Republican Party doesn’t immediately pull its collective head out of its ass on immigration reform, they will be locking themselves into this very scenario.

mpainter

Voting the dead is an ancient tactic of the dems. The local machines would keep lists of names from obituaries and even scout the graveyards for recent burials.Our democratic tradition.

Streetcred

Funny, I don’t recall Republican’s assisting illegal immigrants to vote, nor do I recall seeing reports of voting machines changing votes to Republican or leaving DemoKtraz candidates off the voting list.

JoeThePimpernel

“Climate change” is now as toxic as gun control.
I encourage all Lefties to base their campaigns on both those issues.

jim south london

President Obama If you are going to re invade Iraq and fight the Islamic State and counter Russian Military Expansionism and Chinese Economic Expansionism then you are going to need all the Cheap Fossil Fuel you get hold of.
PS and also stop Ebola.

DirkH

“counter Russian Military Expansionism”
says a guy from a country that recently bombed Libya.

Alx

I do not know that climate change was a huge issue in this election, Senate democrats have been whining as long as I can remember. Event when the held the house, sentate and Executive branch they whined about Bush this, Bush that. When they lost the house, they whined even more. Reid I think lost his mind, he rarely did anything other than to bash private citizens who donated to causes he did not approve of. Who in their right mind thinks that is the primary responsibility of the Senate lead. I think people become fed up with the whining and deflecting of accountability, “the buck always stopped somewhere else” got old. But maybe the most important factor is the economy. Six years after the Democratic take over of power we still have not a had a recovery, it has been a miserable 6 years for working people and young people entering the job market. If you want to continue not getting elected keep blaming Bush or the other side, instead of taking accountability in improving the economic malaise.
So while climate change was a small factor if any in the election, climate change does take a big hit in government and financial support. I can imagine a lot of researchers using global delete to remove references to “climate change” in their research proposals.

William Astley

It is possible that climate change is not going away as an election issue. There are so many unknowns and possible surprises, as to what will happen over the next couple of years, as to what will or will not be an election issue for 2016. Climate change could come back in a new form, if the sun was the cause of the warming not CO2. I find it difficult to even imagine how the media, public, and politicians would react to global cooling.
It is possible that the green scams could become a sad joke, a subject for discussion in history books. It is possible that we could experience an oil shortage similar to the 1973 and 1979 crisis. It is surreal that the Obama administration continues to block the Keystone pipeline and continues with policies that appear may lead to a middle east war. It seems logical, likely, there would be broad based regional support for a caliphate, a prophetic based Islamic state with sharia law, with equitable sharing of wealth, to people who pray five times a day and who must support 15,000 princes and princesses how are part of a never ending corrupt regime and who are surrounding by fanatical fighters who fight another corrupt regime.
http://www.sharnoffsglobalviews.com/defecting-prince-154/

Prince Khalid’s account of his family’s draconian policies and plundering of the country’s wealth re-enforces what many Saudi and foreign critics have articulated for many years.
In an Arabic video on YouTube, Prince Khalid described his family as a corrupt group of princes who, “…don’t think about anything but their personal benefits and do not care for [the] country’s and people’s interests or even national security.”

The oil infrastructure in the middle east is a soft target. We could go from an oil surplus to a energy crisis in a few months. The middle east oil infrastructure would take years to rebuild. The EU and the Obama administration seem to fight purposelessly with the Russians. it appears they are pushing the Russians, providing them with a logical reason, to support a war in the middle east.

Just Steve

The only way in which climate change was an issue in this cycle was the fact Dear Leader Mao Bama seemed to make it a priority, as did some Dem pols running, while most Americans are concerned with wages, jobs, Ebola and videos of ISIS, ISIL, IS Cute and Fuzzy Bunny or whatever they’re called now cutting off heads and massacring men women and children on YouTube.

average joe

I respectfully disagree with you Steve, people in coal country are very pissed at this kook president and his chicken-little stooges waging war on their livelihood. Way bigger deal than sadists on the other side of the world.

Larry Hamlin

The Republicans should push rapidly for new energy development legislation except for expensive and unreliable renewables which need to have tax subsidies cut. Additionally they should eliminate politically contrived EPA climate related environmental regulations and massively reduce government funding of climate alarmist universities and institutions.
Our current President who unfortunately believes he was elected “king” will fight all these measures but a record needs to be created regarding reasonable and science based energy and environmental measures which could have been undertaken absent the role of the unelected “king”.
These measures need to be undertaken to help create a better understanding of how these initiatives can benefit the economy and at the same time demonstrate how existing and flawed energy and environmental regulations based on nothing but political ideology but supported by the “king’ have harmed the economy.

John the Cube

William Astley November 5, 2014 at 9:33 am
“The oil infrastructure in the middle east is a soft target. We could go from an oil surplus to a energy crisis in a few months. The middle east oil infrastructure would take years to rebuild. The EU and the Obama administration seem to fight purposelessly with the Russians. it appears they are pushing the Russians, providing them with a logical reason, to support a war in the middle east.”
——-
That is exactly what the libs want. Jack up the price of oil to make the windmills look cheap.

joelobryan

In a region-wide war, one of two possibilities exist for the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. As was seen during Iran-Iraq war of the 80’s, and the First Gulf War in 91, many oil fields get blown up, setting off huge oil fires and oil spills, lasting months to years. Oil well fires are an ecological disaster for the region, and a source of futile CO2. The other possibility is below market privateering to avoid sanctions. ISIS is currently siaid to be selling Iraq oil to blackmarket transporters who pay below market prices, while ISIS pockets the money. Sadam Hussein also sold below market priced oil to avoid UN sanctions in the Clinton years. Iran did the same thing in the 80s, selling oil on the black market.

george e. smith

That solution is a non-starter. Jacking up the price of oil, simply increases the cost of windmills. Ever noticed how you simply can’t eliminate the energy cost of doing something.
It’s the same principle as the minimum wage. If all Union contracts are pegged to the minimum wage, the cost of everything that minimum wage recipients buy just goes up to compensate. Only the government wins, because non-tax payers suddenly become tax payers, and the rest move into higher tax brackets.
As they say, rising seas float all boats.

Owen in GA

And there you have put your finger on the unspoken real reason the liberals support a high minimum wage. Many union contracts (particularly those on government bid contracts) dictate that positions will be paid minimum wage plus an offset. The offset is different for each position. Union dues are based on the amount earned, so Democrat Party coffers are immediately filled (since unions are mostly Democrat Party money laundering operations these days). For a hypothetical – the unskilled guys leaning on the shovels at a construction site may be specified that they are paid minimum wage + $10 and hour. The heavy equipment operator must get minimum + $25, etc. If the minimum wage is increased by $3 per hour, all these union guys immediately get a $3 per hour raise. Isn’t life sweet. What they don’t tell you is that stretch of road just went from $20 mil to $30 mil and your gasoline tax will go up to compensate, taking your gas price from $3 per gal to $3.50 per gal. (I know you Europeans are crying crocodile tears over that considering how badly all your governments fleece you on petrol taxes – when I went to Britain for 3 years I first thought the petrol prices weren’t too bad, then I realized the price was per litre and quickly recalculated!) That increase in road fuel tax goes straight into the transportation cost of every product you buy, and thus increases the price of everything else!

DCA

Here in Kansas the independent candidate Greg Orman said if elected he would caucus with the majority party. Not many believed him and he lost to establishment republican Pat Roberts. Is there any chance the remaining independents will caucus with majority legislation? I do see some support.

joelobryan

Senator Angus King of Maine is in a tough spot. He will have to caucus with the minority Dems in the 114th Congress. He will not be very welcome if he switches caucus parties.

Alan Robertson

Orman is a slippery snake who wouldn’t answer direct questions about major issues, except for gun control, for which issue he let slip that he was for “more” gun control. He was a Democrat, through and through.
Bernie Sanders is a Senator from Vermont, calling himself both an “Independent” and a Socialist.
Of course, he has and always will caucus with the Democrats.

@DCA – Especially after Biden said he would caucus with the democrats. Biden was the second best Campaigner for the republicans. The best was Obama – “Make no mistake, while I am not on the ballot this election, my policies are!” – The local representative ran that quote numerous times around here.

H.R.

There were three races on my ballot that had a Green Party candidate. I was surprised there were that many. For grins and giggles and if I get a spare minute, I’ll have to go see if they even registered a statistical blip in the election results.

H.R.

Well, I had a minute and the Green Party received 3.3% of the vote for Governor in my state. Interesting. That’s quite a blip. My guess is the college-age vote went to the Greens instead of the Democrats, based on the Green Party Platform document I read. Very appealing to young idealists.
Oh, and while I was looking for the results in my state, one Election Results site I clicked on showed that the total vote for Green candidates in all the elections was 0.3%. That sounds about right for the U.S. and was more in line with what I was expecting in our state’s race.

“The president will use his executive action to take some additional steps.” –Timothy Cama
Concerning the above quote, lifted from this posting, and made by Timothy Carna, may I quote the best statement I’ve heard in relation to this election: “It wasn’t an election, it was a restraining order.”

The Blue idiots followed IPCC off the cliff like Lemmings. Perhaps now the media will allow objective science and opinions to be shown to the uninformed public.

Perhaps now our government will put $ into preparations for the Little Ice Age and fire all the liars like Australia did.

othercoast

Imagine if Obama suddenly got a clue, realized and asserted what a non-issue climate change is, and turned all his related policies around. This would be his legacy – the first major in-power politician to realize he’s been had, and started the return to efficiency/ecology-based environmentalism (actual economy, and doing things for purely national-economic reasons would be too much to hope for).
Years down the road, most people (except the haters for whom he isn’t left enough) would remember only that.
(It’s a bit like the Red Dwarf time-travel episode where the protagonists accidentally knock out JKF’s assasin, thereby creating an alternate future where he lives, but his transgressions come to light, he is removed from office, the Russians take advantage of the gov’t vacuum, and parts of the US nearer Cuba are abandoned, etc. – After failing variously to undo this change, they visit him while being transported through JFK Airport while under arrest and convince him to travel back in time and be the gunman behind the grassy knoll…. they tell him that in the reality where he dies, rather than being disgraced, he is a “liberal icon” and that airport will be named after him. If Obama would let this piece of ideology die, his messiah reputation might actually live on.)
You’d think somebody *this* interest in his perception by the public would think ahead a little further. “Truth will out”, and all that.
However, it has been pointed out that all these people, from SecState up to POTUS, always very much depend on advisors to inform and advise. Unfortunately, they both have a particularly clueless set of people (from who to send as Ambassador to Norway up to making the oceans recede).

Mark from the Midwest

Interesting! But in order to admit that you were duped you need to be smart enough to recognize the nature of the con. That’s asking a lot from someone who can’t pronounce Marine Corps correctly.

george e. smith

Well you may have noticed that he has a speech impediment; he whistles when he lies. Well that is pretty much constantly.

Alan Robertson

Obama change his mind? His Mother and Grandparents were Communists. His principle mentor was an avowed Communist activist. The person most responsible for bringing Obama into Chicago politics was a violent radical Communist terrorist. L’Internationale was played at Obama campaign stops. Every move he has made has been to bring the US into line with his view of the world. Obama is likely the most blatant example one could find that Green is the new Red.

Mac the Knife

S’truth!

Catherine Ronconi

His dad was also a communist but culturally Muslim.

DirkH

othercoast
November 5, 2014 at 10:44 am
“Imagine if Obama suddenly got a clue”
“(It’s a bit like the Red Dwarf time-travel episode ”
It is also as likely as that.

hunter

Far from irrelevant, the climate obsessed are simply giong to seek non-democratic means to impose their will upon us.
We are in the period of maximum vulnerability: The media has not honestly reported on climate. The President and his small circle of extremist advisors feel embattled. The climate obsessed can feel things slipping away and for them this is a similar feeling as a fundamentalist seeing the Church losing to satan.
The President still feels enabled to continue abusing his Executive powers.
We are from done.

John West

I think you’re right; everything is more dangerous when it senses its survival is on the line. But the more they try to circumvent or even dismantle democracy to impose actions on climate change the more they’ll be seen as fanatics. The more fanatical they look the more people will abandon them. It’s like the 10:10 video disaster (for them) / boon (for us). Every time one of them disparages democracy or praises China’s “system” of government they’ll lose support. Hopefully one day in the not too distant future the grand majority of the populace will see these people for what they really are and stop funding them.