Greens Blame Donald Trump for Crumbling Paris Climate Accord


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Never mind he’s not even President yet – greens are already trying to pin the blame for the embarrassing slow motion collapse of the Paris Climate Agreement on US Presidential Candidate Donald Trump.

Trump’s Climate Change Denial Is Already Complicating the Paris Climate Deal

If Donald Trump wins and pulls the U.S. out of its climate change commitments, some countries wonder, why should they keep their own?

Donald Trump first shared his analysis of the climate crisis in a now infamous 2012 tweet-rant: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” he claimed.

The Republican presidential hopeful has since dialed back the rhetoric, calling that earlier claim a joke. But — as in other areas of critical domestic and international concern — he’s fallen short when pressed for specifics on what a Trump presidency would mean for energy and the climate. It seemed his oft-repeated phrase “trust me, I’ll get the best people“ was as close as the American public was going to get to details.

Until now.

The best Trump could find turns out to be climate denier and staunch fossil fuel backer Kevin Cramer, a two-term Republican congressman from oil- and coal-rich North Dakota. As a newly tapped energy adviser, Cramer recently handed the Trump campaign a four-page policy paper urging the candidate to scrap the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, among other regulations introduced by the EPA to curb pollution from the energy sector.

Read more:

Trump promised to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement in an earlier speech.

Earlier this month, he told Reuters in an interview that he would renegotiate “at a minimum” the U.N. global climate accord agreed by 195 countries in Paris last December, saying he viewed the deal as bad for U.S. business.

He took that a step further in North Dakota. “We’re going to cancel the Paris climate agreement,” he said.

Read more:

Everyone knows the Paris agreement was dead on arrival. President Obama’s desperation to get China on board, by granting a joke size concession, the Chinese “commitment” not to do anything about CO2 emissions until 2030, created an intolerable structural economic advantage. Add the ongoing split with Russia about the implementation of the Paris Accord, it was only a matter of time before the agreement collapsed.

In my opinion, Greens are well aware that the agreement was doomed from the outset. Now they’re just trying to save face, by trying to pin the blame on someone else, for their own political blunders.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 28, 2016 5:53 am

100 stars as always Eric !

Dennis Kuzara
Reply to  Marcus
May 28, 2016 12:39 pm

Reply to  Dennis Kuzara
May 28, 2016 1:39 pm

Was a Cruz supporter, liked this edited video of Trump, but could have done without the creepy “music” track.
Liked his recent comments in his energy speech… Hope he acts a little more presidential and voices some more conservative principles in the near future. . (Maybe he should read the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution for starters), and maybe learn a few quotes from them.
He should be listening to some of Mark Livin’s suggestions…

Bryan A
Reply to  Dennis Kuzara
May 28, 2016 8:07 pm

Simple Climate Accord solution…No single country may be bound to a climate treaty until ALL countries are bound to it. NO WEASELS

george e. smith
Reply to  Dennis Kuzara
May 29, 2016 11:09 am

“””””….. Simple Climate Accord solution…No single country may be bound to a climate treaty ……”””””
That’s what it means to be a Country.
The UN is not a country; they don’t contribute anything to anyone.

Reply to  Dennis Kuzara
May 31, 2016 6:42 am

That reminds me of the so called Nuclear limitation talks the US was always having with the ex-soviet union.
The problem was that the US always abided by it’s obligations. The soviets never did, and nobody expected them to.

Reply to  Marcus
May 28, 2016 5:07 pm

Trump for President, Hillary for Prison – 2016

Reply to  Clive Hoskin
May 29, 2016 10:21 am

So the Greens are telling me to vote for Trump?
Well, with that endorsement, I guess I have to say O.K.

Proud Skeptic
May 28, 2016 6:01 am

Not a big fan of Donald Trump by any means but based on this, I am warming up to him a little!

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
May 28, 2016 7:18 am

“…by any means..” and this one issue has you “warming up”? HA

Tom Judd
Reply to  skinsgame
May 28, 2016 8:38 am

Are you laughing at the pun, “warming up”?
For anybody who thinks that no one of intellect would willingly support the Donald I’ve chosen to produce evidence countering such a belief. It’s called the ‘Journal of American Greatness.’ (Just Google that name to find it.) The well read, very serious, but oftentimes entertaining authors produce multiples of multiple compelling reasons to support the man. The writings remind me of the Federalist Papers (albeit with occasional great humor injected) which founded this Republican system. Perhaps there’s a reason for that?

Reply to  skinsgame
May 28, 2016 9:17 am

I’m no fan of Trump, and opposed him throughout the primaries, but now the issue has coalesced to just 2 serious possibilities. (unless the communist sneaks in, of course) And I don’t have to like Trump at all to still conclude that he’s going to be much better for me than someone who is loudly and proudly against everything I believe in.

Reply to  skinsgame
May 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Against any candidate but Clinton, I would never vote for Trump in a million years.
If he changes his tune in the past 6 months to something more respectable, and I am thoroughly convinced he won’t get into a shouting match with Putin using H-bombs, then I’ll consider voting for him.

Bryan A
Reply to  skinsgame
May 28, 2016 8:12 pm

Well Ben then I would suggest voting for Hillary or Bernie, whichever one wins the Democratic Nomination

Reply to  skinsgame
May 28, 2016 10:01 pm

benofhouston Trump is pretty much the only one who *doesn’t* want war with Putin

Tom Yoke
Reply to  skinsgame
May 29, 2016 12:20 am

You do know, don’t you, that that was overwhelmingly the MSM meme about Reagan in 1980?
All the deep thinkers were absolutely certain that Reagan was a madman who was going to blow up the world. He was horribly dangerous and must be stopped at any cost, or America and the world were doomed.

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
May 28, 2016 7:25 am

As they say, ‘Actions speak louder than words’; Trump has responded with Cramer as his energy adviser. There are many areas of concern, I view the GloBull Warming scam as the top issue. The laughably named ‘trade deals’, and U.S. bully tactics, such as regime change, are next in line. Watch what action Trump takes by appointments.

Reply to  kokoda
May 28, 2016 3:32 pm

Is that Cosmo Cramer?

Richard G
Reply to  kokoda
May 28, 2016 11:33 pm

Even Cosmo Cramer would be better than John Holden.

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
May 28, 2016 7:43 am

I’ve always viewed Donald Trump as Foghorn Leghorn. A loud mouthed snook. The similarities are too uncanny. The hair, the bombastic attitude, shooting his mouth off. You get the idea. I also am starting to like the guy. Given all the options I’m actually curious to see how and what he does.
The options are not inspiring. Hitlery Clinton ( I know I shouldn’t call her that because it’s rude and insulting … to Adolf) and Bernie “Trust me I’ll audit the fed even though I gutted Ron Paul’s bill 6 years ago” Sanders. More commonly known as “Free Stuff Sanders”.
What the heck. Foghorn Leghorn for President!!!

Reply to  TRM
May 28, 2016 9:45 am

Trump is more like Rodney Dangerfield, playing the rich guy in the movie, who goes into the local country club and shakes things up. The Old Guard at the Country Club hate him. He’s brash and blustery, and shows the hypocrits, at the Country Club, for what they are, and he gets done what he wants to get done, despite their oppostion. And he makes us laugh while he skewers those who oppose him.

Pat Frank
Reply to  TRM
May 28, 2016 10:20 am

I’ve talked with a couple of people who’ve met Trump. Apparently in person, he seems intelligent and reasonable. I can’t vouch for it, but that’s the story.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is a monster and Bernie Sanders is a totalitarian.
The fact that these are the only two choices that the Democrats could come up with merely shows the political and ethical bankruptcy of that party.
This election go-round, the Republican gallery has been obviously superior to the Democratic gallery.
I’ve usually been unable to vote for anyone in either party. Religious right vs. the Progressive left. Where’s the better option? They’re both ideological nutcases.
This year, there is a choice — forced perhaps more by the hubristic or tyrannical figures of the Democrats than by the quality of the Republicans. Say what one likes, but the Donald is actually patriotic and supports the Constitution. Hillary stops at callously and hyper-ambitiously out for herself, and Bernie isn’t and doesn’t.

Reply to  TRM
May 28, 2016 4:30 pm


Reply to  TRM
May 29, 2016 5:10 am

I think you mean schnook.

Saul from Montreal
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
May 28, 2016 7:53 am

the Chinese “commitment” not to do anything about CO2 emissions until 2030, created an intolerable structural economic advantage.

That quote may be a wee bit miserly with facts.

Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 28, 2016 9:01 am

Not really. From the report you linked:
“This means China’s INDC (and its national actions) are not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort than China.”
Eyeballing the chart, it appears that China has promised to reduce INTENSITY, while still increasing overall emissions about 25% from now until 2030.

Saul from Montreal
Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 28, 2016 9:28 am

Reading comprehension issues?
Worrall wrote ” President Obama’s desperation to get China on board, by granting a joke size concession,
the Chinese “commitment not to do anything about CO2 emissions until 2030.
That contradicts what you just wrote and I believe Worrall needs to correct this obvious misrepresentation of the truth.

Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 28, 2016 9:28 am

The difference between the Chinese and US policies are quite specific:
1. The Chinese will achieve their CO2 goals by increased efficiency.
2. The US will achieve their CO2 goals by increased regulation.
We have already seen where this is leading.
Approach 2 is similar to adding air pumps to cars, as US car makers did. You dilute the pollution while reducing fuel economy, US automakers go bankrupt, workers lose their jobs, property values crash, cities turn into ghost towns.
Approach 1 is similar to making engines more fuel efficient, as Foreign car makers did. You reduce pollution by using less fuel, and Imports boom, foreign workers get the jobs that once were in the US, offshore investments skyrocket.

Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 28, 2016 9:33 am

the Chinese “commitment not to do anything about CO2 emissions until 2030.
the Chinese agreed to do what they had already decided to do in order to modernize their economy. to be “precise”, the above statement should read:
the Chinese “commitment not to do anything DIFFERENT about CO2 emissions until 2030.
In other words, they agreed to take no action that was in anyway different than what they would have done in the absence of any agreement. In other words, the Chinese agree to do what they were already doing.

Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 28, 2016 9:36 am

Furthermore, the U.S. has committed, while China has “intended”.
‘intended’ = toothless. For bragging rights. Not for real.

Saul from Montreal
Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 28, 2016 10:37 am

[snip. More of that and no more comments from you. -mod]
Thanks for providing genuine skeptics at JREF years of laughter from reading your inept imitation(s) of a skeptic.
from wiki

Non-binding commitments, lack of enforcement mechanisms
The Agreement will not become binding on its member states until 55 parties who produce over 55% of the world’s greenhouse gas have ratified the Agreement. There is doubt whether some countries, especially the United States will agree to do so.
Each country that ratifies the agreement will be required to set a target for emission reduction, but the amount will be voluntary. There will be neither a mechanism to force a country to set a target by a specific date nor enforcement measures if a set target is not met. There will be only a “name and shame” system or, as János Pásztor, the U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, told CBS News, a “name and encourage” plan.

From my previous link

China is implementing significant policies to address climate change, most recently aiming to restrict coal consumption. The CAT assesses that under a scenario with currently implemented policies, Chinese CO2 emissions are likely to peak around 2025, or shortly after, partly due to important restrictions on coal consumption in the period from now until 2020, as well as other policies.

I am sure the Donald will do his best to assure America misses out on the economic benefits that China is already reaping from the manufacture of hardware for solar and wind.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 28, 2016 11:07 am

Saul, you like Whoppers. You also have a weight problem. 20 Years ago you used to eat 2 of them day. Today you eat 10 of them a day. Consuming any more than 3 Whoppers per day will lead to weight gain. You commit to consuming no more than 15 Whoppers/day in the future. Victory is yours?
Stop with the Leftist math. Unfortunately for you a reduced growth rate is still a growth rate.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 28, 2016 11:17 am

I am sure the Donald will do his best to assure America misses out on the economic benefits that China is already reaping from the manufacture of hardware for solar and wind.

HAHAHAHA. I deeply hope that someone assures us that they will ensure America misses out on more subsidy boondoggles like Solyndra. China can reap all of the “benefits” they want from the endless subsidy pit that is Greed energy. That’s as much a loser as a Change Bank.

Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 28, 2016 6:30 pm

Saul, I am going to quote James Hansen. If you don’t want to read the article, the URL itself says it all.
If a true-blooded supporter and one of the founders of the climate change movement will say that, and you still are trusting blatant propaganda, then you are not worthy to call yourself a member of Mr. Randi’s group.
You can argue about trivial differences or ineffective changes versus “nothing”, but the effect is the same. No change. I can’t speak for everyone here, but as an engineer I use the terms interchangeably for that reason.

Reply to  Saul from Montreal
May 30, 2016 8:17 am

Saul: the statement in the article is exactly correct, but referring to a different agreement than you are. Here is a quote form the Whitehouse press office.
“Building on strong progress during the first six years of the Administration, today President Obama announced a new target to cut net greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. At the same time, President Xi Jinping of China announced targets to peak CO2 emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early, and to increase the non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20 percent by 2030.”
Indeed, China agreed to do nothing until 2030.

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
May 28, 2016 12:05 pm

A lot of people will be thinking that. If greens had any sense they wouldn’t be drawing attention to Trump’s anti-Paris stand.
Fortunately, they don’t.

patrick bols
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
May 28, 2016 1:19 pm

I may vote for him after all. He is the only one who dares to speak out about this issue and calls a spade a spade

george e. smith
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
May 29, 2016 11:17 am

If you had a choice between suicide, and ANY alternative; what would be your reason for rejecting the alternative ??
I can’t believe there actually are millions of people presently pondering that choice.
Fortunately for me (maybe unfortunately) I don’t get that choice.
So I’m totally dependent on those who ARE contemplating that choice.

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
May 29, 2016 9:28 pm

Please don’t use the word warming. It has connotations…………

May 28, 2016 6:03 am

What’s to worry. Just ask Gina McCarthy, America has take a “leadership position” by calling for programs that really won’t help the climate.

Reply to  Neo
May 28, 2016 7:20 am

I hope he starts by sacking Gina McCarthy,

Brian B
Reply to  Greg
May 28, 2016 7:40 am

I hope he starts by prosecuting her.

Reply to  Greg
May 28, 2016 7:41 am

Not enough. He must shut down the EPA in totality. They are irredeemable.

Reply to  Greg
May 29, 2016 6:39 am

“He must shut down the EPA in totality.”
Obviously that animal has generalized cancer and cannot be cured (immorality tipping point passed long ago), however, a federal emission control organisation doesn’t look like a crazy idea to me (sulfur doesn’t stop at the state frontier).
It seems to me that there was such reasonable emission control, a long time ago. What tipped and when?

Reply to  Greg
May 30, 2016 8:22 am

Well simple-touriste, when an organization has a single goal, when it is met they must either die or find a new one. This is the problem with the environmental movement everywhere. Once they got real pollution legislation passed, they moved on to other silly things. Through a bunch of crazy theories against the wall and see what sticks. CO2 is just the one that caught on.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Neo
May 28, 2016 8:48 am

There’s the rub – even if the Climastrologists were right about “Climate Change, er Global Warming,” all of their proposals wouldn’t change a thing in any measurable way anyhow.

Tom Judd
Reply to  AGW is not Science
May 28, 2016 9:07 am

I beg to disagree. Their proposals certainly would “change a thing.” They would absolutely obliterate our life styles..
…but not their’s.

Reply to  AGW is not Science
May 28, 2016 9:37 am

They would absolutely obliterate our life styles
compare the Washington beltway to Detroit. billions of dollars sucked out of local economies and transferred to the elites in Washington to support their lavish lifestyles. none of this came from building wealth by creating goods and services. rather it came by taking food out of the mouths of the poor and giving it to the rich, all done in the name of “helping” make the world a “better place”.

Reply to  AGW is not Science
May 28, 2016 9:53 am

The richest counties in the U.S. mostly surround the Washington D.C. area.

Reply to  AGW is not Science
May 28, 2016 2:57 pm

While there are certainly some leeches in the federal government, there are also a fair amount of workers who are doing their best to keep the country on a somewhat even keel. They are usually underpaid (compared to what they might earn in the private sector), not in exceptionally high positions, and spend a lot of time dealing with the crap that none of us want to touch. Many, if not most, do not get overtime. The overpaid government workers actually tend to be “support staff” (secretaries/administrative assistants, etc.) and cronies of appointed government staff. Think your company has internal politics? Try working in the executive branch.
Think about all the nuisance lawsuits from various interest groups (especially so-called environmentalists). Guess who has to deal with those, and try to get über liberal judges to do the sane legal thing? There are a fair number of scientists working in the government who are upfront and honest about “climate change” and/or the limitations of predictions based on AGW, but they still have to deal with the nonsense regulations and requirements forced on them by the EPA and other idiots. Agencies are supposed to detail how any actions they may take will affect local/global climate change. Some scientists in the Forest Service (not sure how many) are open about the fact that even if AGW is happening, effects cannot be predicted on such small scales. How long do you think they have before some higher up tells them to come up with something anyway?
It is easy to pick on the people in the DC area, but the existence of a whole lot of money-sucking amoral (if not immoral) “elites” does not cancel out all the middle class people who are trying to do the right thing. There is waste in the government, but we do not need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Also, it is really expensive here. That higher paycheck does not have the spending power many people think it does.

Reply to  AGW is not Science
May 28, 2016 3:33 pm

Yes, the U.S. gov. is bloated through the fault of no one person, so I guess that means it will take much more than one person to put it on a reducing diet.

george e. smith
Reply to  AGW is not Science
May 29, 2016 11:33 am

“””””….. AllyKat
May 28, 2016 at 2:57 pm
While there are certainly some leeches in the federal government, there are also a fair amount of workers who are doing their best to keep the country on a somewhat even keel. …..”””””
Well the NON- Leeches are limited to those persons who are being paid by the taxpayers to do the 18 things that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to make laws for and vote funding for. (The Constitution doesn’t authorize anybody else besides the Congress to pass (Federal) laws.)
The Military being the first of those things.
Well there’s also Article IV section 4; but that is NOT something the government is authorized to do; it is something they are told they MUST DO.
Namely protect the 57 sovereign States from Invasion.

Reply to  AGW is not Science
May 30, 2016 12:38 am

Pretty much every government in the US (federal to local) needs some pruning. I am all for it. I just wish people were more aware of the difficult conditions facing many workers. A fair number of government workers would like to see the size and scope of the federal government slashed, especially since they see the redundancy and overreach firsthand.
The real problem is those 57 states. Some of them even think they have rights!

May 28, 2016 6:08 am

The greens attitude towards the Paris accords reminds me of the old stag play “Peter Pan”, where the audience is urged to clap to “save” Tinkerbell to demonstrate their belief in her. No matter what, I still won’t clap for a fundamentally bad deal, no matter how dim the spotlight gets.

May 28, 2016 6:22 am

Pinning the blame on “the Donald” is surely seen as a compliment by the man.

Reply to  sean2829
May 28, 2016 6:41 am

Trump will wear this as a badge of honor. And rightfully so! 🙂
If Trump gets elected expect some big changes. For the better, IMO.
The Alarmists are *really* going to be alarmed in the future. Trump the Destroyer!
Trump is going to turn the Alarmist world upside down, just like the Alarmists turned the surface temperature record upside down.
We are heading in a new direction.

Reply to  TA
May 28, 2016 8:41 am

Yes. The ‘Greens’ probably just gave Trump another million votes.

Reply to  TA
May 28, 2016 3:58 pm

Trump’s Climate Change Denial Is Already Complicating the Paris Climate Deal – Oh so sad a green crocodile tear just rolled down my face.
Please if there’s is any justice in this world make Trump president!

May 28, 2016 6:33 am

Feel the turn!

Reply to  rogerknights
May 28, 2016 7:26 am

+ 10

May 28, 2016 6:42 am

This 4 minute and 15 second clip by Trump is well worth watching!

Reply to  Werner Brozek
May 28, 2016 1:30 pm

Very good clip. Skeptics of the man-made global warming scare should watch at least the first minute.
Also, I was for Ted Cruz early on. But he got steamrollered by the Trump tsunami. For the folks who wanted Cruz (or anyone else), there are other reasons to oppose the Obama/Hillary dynasty:

Reply to  dbstealey
May 28, 2016 2:40 pm

Also, I was for Ted Cruz early on. But he got steamrollered by the Trump tsunami.

Either Cruz or Trump would have been fine with me. Not that I can vote any way since I am a Canadian. I wonder if Trump or his present adviser reads WUWT. Or is it that great minds think alike? With Trump’s IQ of 156, greater than 99.99% of the population, I doubt that many people would want to debate him on this point.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 30, 2016 3:23 pm

I was for Cruz also but will vote for Donald. More often than not elections are about voting against someone and not necessarily for someone. This former SF soldier detests Hillary and cannot bear the thought of her becoming POTUS. So the only real choice I have is to vote for Trump and hope he means what he is has been saying.

NW sage
Reply to  Werner Brozek
May 28, 2016 3:59 pm

Werner, you really need to get yourself into position to vote: Vacation to Mexico, walk across the border, get a drivers license in California (no papers required if you speak Spanish – Si!) and you can register. Then sign up for a mail ballot.
You will be among millions doing just that.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  NW sage
May 28, 2016 7:01 pm

Wouldn’t be polite.

Reply to  NW sage
May 28, 2016 7:09 pm

Werner, you really need to get yourself into position to vote

But who would I vote for? I totally agree with Trump on global warming and on the Keystone pipeline.
However if he
abolishes failed Solyndras and
does not subsidize bird shredders and
reduces tons of unnecessary coal regulations and
helps coal miners keep their jobs,
energy will get very cheap again in the states.
With our green Canadian federal and provincial governments, we may have industries that could go to the states since their energy will then be cheaper.

Reply to  NW sage
May 29, 2016 6:45 am

Werner, Canada will just have to elect a government that will join Trump in the prosperity instead of trying to fight our way to green poverty.

Bob Lyman
May 28, 2016 6:42 am

In Canada, the federal and most provincial governments are taking the position that the Paris Agreement is a virtual blood oath and we must all do our bit to eliminate fossil fuel production and use by 2050. While we are at it, the green lobbies that seem to have enormous influence here want to eliminate nuclear energy, block all new new-renewables energy infrastructure, and electrify the entire transportation system. The fact that these goals are impossible in technical and economic terms is swept aside as climate change denialsm. The fact that, even if we all committed suicide on the altar of environmental extremism, global emissions would continue to rise significantly is ignored, too. The government of Ontario, having destroyed the province’s economic competitiveness by more than doubling electricity rates, has recently committed itself to eliminating the use of natural gas, our most abundant and economical fuel. The Paris Agreement is like a talisman of insanity; it has no legal effect, but has driven the political leaders here mad.

John Robertson
Reply to  Bob Lyman
May 28, 2016 7:11 am

Should be noted Bob, while they hold their hands over their hearts and pretend the Paris Agreement is Gold, they have broken damn near every other promise they have made.
Honouring their promises to canadians would seem to be their lowest priority.

Bob Lyman
Reply to  John Robertson
May 29, 2016 12:07 am

John, That is one of the strange aspects of all this. The previous GHG emission reduction targets under Kyoto and its successor agreements had some nominal status as treaty commitments, but they were always set far above what anyone could reasonably expect to achieve and everyone winked and went along with that to keep the green mob at bay. Now, without an internationally agreed target and without treaty commitments, the Trudeau Government and the Premiers of all provinces outside Saskatchewan are making extraordinarily unwise decisions and acting as though we all must kowtow to the goal of an all-renewables economy by 2050 regardless of the cost in dollars or personal choice. It is long past time for everyone who understands the consequences of these decisions to speak up and oppose them with every resource available.

Reply to  Bob Lyman
May 28, 2016 7:25 am

To continue Bob, Ontario generates most of it’s electricity from Nuclear and Hydro. We don’t have a single coal plant in operation. Nat-gas and renewables (very small %) make up the rest. We have too much generation capacity where we need to sell it off at a loss. We are as CO2 friendly as anyone in the world yet we have not done enough apparently. Stop the insanity, my rates have tripled in just a few years.
Great website to see where our power is coming from

Bob Lyman
Reply to  Duncan
May 29, 2016 12:14 am

Duncan, I think the Wynne government in Ontario tipped its hand when it announced yet another round of wind and solar procurement in the face of massive over-capacity. Having ended coal generation, the next step in the Ontario electricity policy plan is to phase out nuclear generation. This makes no sense in terms of mitigating alleged catastrophic global warming. It shows a political commitment to serve the broader environmentalist agenda.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Bob Lyman
May 28, 2016 8:49 am

@ Bob Lyman – The truth is that a lot of the greenies don’t care if a majority of you fall back into the 1800’s as long as you don’t drag them along, too. They don’t even care if a majority of you starve to death as the economy collapses. Many of the leaders of the “green movement” have been stating this since the 1970’s, but nobody took them seriously. Now people are starting to notice they are deadly serious about this and that they don’t care about the real consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, they have gotten politicians on board with their agenda and you are going to pay the price for letting them get away with their agenda.

NW sage
Reply to  Bob Lyman
May 28, 2016 4:01 pm

Read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand. You will discover the reason.

Reply to  NW sage
May 30, 2016 8:37 am

Agreed. I read Atlas Shrugged about 5 years ago and was shocked at how prescient Rand seams to have been. But now, looking at the ACGW movement, it seems about 10x more accurate. The ‘looters’ are desperate to destroy the source of their loot. It is a sick, slow, suicide.

Reply to  Bob Lyman
May 29, 2016 1:18 pm

Bob, Bob… ix-nay on the onesty-hay, okay? Jes’ don’t get quite, so, you know, *vocal* about the uth-thray. Know what I mean? Eh? Eh? Know-whatta-I-mean? Wink-wink-nudge-nudge? (See you in the camps.)

May 28, 2016 6:50 am

I am very uneasy with Mr. Trump and articles like don’t help. So, I made a point to listen to his speech in Bismark, ND:
He speaking style, meh! But, I liked what he said about coal, oil and natural gas.

Reply to  Diane
May 28, 2016 9:42 am

relying on the guardian for information on trump is similar to reading the Koran for information on Moses.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  ferdberple
May 28, 2016 10:23 am

+10 :<)

george e. smith
Reply to  ferdberple
May 29, 2016 11:40 am

Quote of the week Ferd. !!

Reply to  Diane
May 28, 2016 11:10 am

As a business man, Trump knows that you have to dish the ration of nonsense that the bureaucrats demand.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 28, 2016 7:12 pm

This is why the Chinese make all the right noises about limiting CO2 and then build coal fired plants at 50 a year. They have 300 million people in coastal cities that they are still building. They know more about climate than the West because their science is less contaminated with eco-looney politics. They know it’s nonsense and they are taking advantage of our self destructive stupidity.

Reply to  Diane
May 28, 2016 3:43 pm

“I liked what he said about coal, oil and natural gas.”
He also supports fracking, and is basically against subsidies for wind and solar. I paraphrase, but he said he likes solar but the payback is over 30 years, and solar panels only last about 10 years…He also mentioned that windmills kill ___ of eagles, but if you shoot one in Calif., you go to jail – not so with the windmill owners, etc….this was stated within the last 2 days…

Dr. Strangelove
May 28, 2016 6:50 am

Cancel the Paris agreement
Approve the Keystone pipeline
Rescind measures to cut US emissions
Those are good moves. I would add:
Remove subsidies to renewable energy
Build more nuclear plants
Promote fracking and increase natural gas production
Cancel regulations mandating use of bio ethanol fuel

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
May 28, 2016 7:28 am

One more on institutional reform:
Replace the activists in NASA, NOAA and EPA with honest scientists
(the geniuses at EPA defined CO2 as a pollutant)

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
May 28, 2016 9:24 am

Agree – all of the above.

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
May 28, 2016 9:58 am

The EPA is not reformable. (It will just regrow like Hydra.) Just abolish it.

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
May 28, 2016 10:12 am

There are honest scientists at the “no medical value” DEA? If Trump gets elected there will be some changes made.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
May 28, 2016 7:13 pm

Dr. Strangelove for president!

May 28, 2016 6:53 am

Does anyone seriously think that China and Russia are going to curb their economic development?

Reply to  Alex
May 28, 2016 7:23 am

Ditto – see my comment below, posted at the same time.
I didn’t intend to duplicate your sentiments. It was a case of simultaneous posting.

Reply to  Alex
May 28, 2016 10:31 pm

China will, unintentionally .. Their favorite socialist policy, the eugenics of one child per family will be coming home to roost soon enough with projections suggesting their rapidly aging population should see upward of 80% of their people passing into retirement within the next 20 years.
How can 20% of the population both care for the elderly and maintain a productive state? It cannot, and their economy will tumble, followed by their entire society and the world will see how effective such socialist policies have been.. the greens will rejoice and the world will be a poorer place as it stood by and watched an entire nation to suicide.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Karl
May 29, 2016 5:05 am

Since more than 2000 years the chinese elderly look for themselves till the eighties.
Since more than 30 years the chinese people are mitigating into the coming Situation.
Everyday a son or a daughter after work looks after the elderly.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Karl
May 29, 2016 5:12 am

When I read bare slogans like communist, socialism. …
I have to acknowledge there’s not the slightest political base to awake any interest.
as You like.

May 28, 2016 6:54 am

Ha ha, yes, it’s all Trumps fault that nobody is taking the unenforceable agreement to commit to a variety of economically self-defeating measures, seriously.
It’s because of the 30% chance that a man who also doesn’t take this agreement seriously may become president.
Because, as we all know Russia, China and India were all straining at the bit to destroy their own industrial base, cease exploiting their own fossil fuel reserves and to raise the price of energy for their factories and population.
They were just waiting for America to take the lead – then they really were going to do it too.
Because, they promised not to just sign the agreement and then do nothing.
But now, the thought of Trump in the Whitehouse has caused them all to lose interest in saving the planet and bringing a stop to global warming, weird weather and dangerous accelerating sea level rise.
It couldn’t possibly be that nobody really believes in any of this crap in the first place.
OMG – the world is a silly place, these days.
Clearly 99% moron.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 28, 2016 8:29 am

97% surely!

AGW is not Science
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 28, 2016 9:43 am

Yes, furthermore it doesn’t matter, because ONLY “Emperor Obama” agreed to it; no treaty is binding on the USA without the consent of the Senate, so it’s meaningless anyway. There is no way that Senators would agree to any BS “climate deal” if they have at least a few functioning brain cells. Even IF they were right about the science (which they’re NOT), this “deal” like every other similar “deal” will do nothing about the pseudo “climate doom” anyway – because it doesn’t bind EVERYONE. All it will do is cause economic destruction to no avail and make everything worse.

Tom Judd
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 28, 2016 12:02 pm

“It’s because of the 30% chance that a man who also doesn’t take this agreement seriously may become president.”
30% chance? Forgive me if I dispute that. Do you honestly (be honest!) believe that Crooked Hillary actually has a 300% greater chance of becoming POTUS? Really? Now, maybe the Mao style pantsuited fashion queen does win the prize in November but, right now, they’re polling even. And, don’t bet on all the Bernie supporters flocking over to her when (or if) Bernie tanks. I met one who supported both Bernie and … Trump. I thought he was an anomaly – NOT. In one exit poll (I don’t recall what state) 44% of the Bernie supporters would switch to Trump if the Bern doesn’t get the nomination. Nationally I believe it’s 14%. A significant chunk of the remainder may well stay home.
You sir, have the unique opportunity to observe an historic occasion. I’m certain the English, 200+ years ago, thought the puny American colonies had less than a 30% chance of breaking away, but break away they did. And, they didn’t have a billionaire to fund it. This is a genuine political revolution. Enjoy the ride!

Reply to  Tom Judd
May 28, 2016 3:46 pm

This is how I arrive at such specific odds for the presidency, as things currently stand.
For an explanation as to “why this beats polls” then click on the link with that title.
Anyway – this is the basis for my assertion.
However – I would be personally inclined to bet on Trump at these odds. Maybe I will.
It is legal for me to bet on the US election, because I am in the UK.
You may be right. I am tending to side with you on this.
I think that the rise of Trump has possibly only just begun.
We could certainly hit the election with 50/50 odds.
Lively times ahead. No easy ride for Clinton.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 28, 2016 3:46 pm

The warmists in the Australian Government couldn’t wait to ratify the agreement. They renewed subsidies to wind farms. They have sneaked in an ETS by pretending it only applies to the top 150 companies, who then lift charges to everyone else.
Lord Monckton warned they would remove the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbot, and they did. The current Prime Minister loves all liberal things. He admitted that he had stopped listening to sceptics over a decade ago. Then he says we should approach it as insurance in case bad things happen in the future.
Too bad he is insuring the wrong thing with cooling on the way and robbing us of adaptability iin the future.
Can wind dollar burners turn with ice on the blades?

Reply to  Jack
May 30, 2016 8:46 am

The wind industry is pure crony capitalism. Effectively a clever way of funneling massive quantities of public money and bill-payers money into the pockets of a few individuals who have leverage and connections with govt.
All supposedly legitimized under the banner of “saving the world” from “extreme weather”.
A small class of already super-rich will become even richer in the process.
And govt. ministers and ex govt. ministers will also mysteriously become very rich by offering their expensive consultancy services.
Of course govt. ministers are experts in wind technology and engineering. Haha.
At least that’s the situation here in the UK.
I expect that Australia is following our lead.
They will all get very rich – just watch.

May 28, 2016 6:59 am

The Masque of Paris, where the dancers unanimously agreed to say anything and do nothing. Ah, the peoples’ will.

May 28, 2016 7:00 am

No matter how they compliment him, I still don’t like him.

Reply to  Kb
May 28, 2016 7:14 am

No matter how they compliment him, I still don’t like him“…
Well who’s fault is that?
Just out of curiosity, did you find any reason at all to like the pathological lying Kenyan wetback?

Reply to  juandos
May 28, 2016 10:23 am

Racist insults don’t help the cause, just help to ruin public image, and makes me queasy about associating with this site. Anthony, surely the above breaks the rules?

Reply to  juandos
May 28, 2016 11:18 am

That’s Racist
Sorry Bub, didn’t you hear, the race card got played out.
{Trigger Warning}
Go back to your Safe Space.

Reply to  juandos
May 28, 2016 3:11 pm

@ juandos and TonyL:
That actually is a slur. Just because you have a right to say something does not mean you should. Using language like that only makes the user look bad, and yields the moral high ground. Obama has more than enough flaws, no one needs to use offensive terms.
I think the “race card”, trigger warnings (except for graphic sexual violence), and safe spaces are ridiculous, but that does not mean I think using a term that is MEANT to be offensive is ever appropriate. I spent fourth and fifth grade being called a racial slur by a white kid and an black kid, every school day, twice a day, while riding the school bus. Expecting to be treated civilly is not the same thing as expecting the world to cater to your every whim. Do unto others.
Alarmists do not need another excuse to dismiss or badmouth skeptics. We should avoid giving them ammunition.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Kb
May 28, 2016 1:47 pm

No matter how they ridicule him, I still like him.

May 28, 2016 7:04 am

Un accord Paris
Loons who could not agree on practically anything.
Kowtowed to a loony Kerry who insisted on a ‘deal’ that the POTUS could sign without getting a major rebuke from Congress. One that Obama could claim as his ‘legacy’; paltry, pitiful, shameful and downright false ‘Paris’ agreement legacy.
Somehow, I doubt he’ll fool the historians… Especially since the eco-loony knew walking out Paris, that the agreement was a step further back from Kyoto.

May 28, 2016 7:08 am

Anyways, the Congress did not intend to ratify the agreement. Then it is soooo easy to expose Trump as the culprit, the number one infamous global warming denialist.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Jack
May 28, 2016 8:59 am

Unfortunately for Warmists, the average voter doesn’t care about climate change. They are way more worried about putting food on the table. It does energize a lot of voters when he states he wants to put an end to the stupidity, tho. They see any change to the status quo as a good thing.

John Robertson
May 28, 2016 7:16 am

The only rational response to such wailing from the Emote-a-Cons is;”May the farce be with you”.
Watching the media parasites all breathlessly reporting, “Trump makes world leaders nervous.”
The Paris Agreement is a pretty clear signal of the quality of world leaders.
The success of the deliberate mass hysteria of CAGW being another.
If Trump gives creatures such as those the vapours, more power to him.
Of course being canadian I could be biased,our current offering is total vapourware.

May 28, 2016 7:22 am

Trump for president

Reply to  Paul
May 28, 2016 1:36 pm

Thanks for that link. If Donald Trump stops the hemorrhaging of our national wealth into the unaccountable, corrupt UN, that alone is worth a vote!
And despite the endless attempts to demonize The Donald, it’s worth keeping in mind that he’s always been a stand-up guy:
[click in image to enlarge. Click again to enlarge it more.]

Reply to  dbstealey
May 28, 2016 6:32 pm

Trump needs to publisize his human side more. Like the time Trump’s limo broke down on the side of the road, and a couple pulled over to help, and the next thing they know, Donald Trump shows up a little later and pays off their home mortgage as an expression of thanks for their help.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Paul
May 28, 2016 1:55 pm

Thank you for that. I know I’ve written this before on this thread but might I suggest checking out the ‘Journal of American Greatness’ (just Google that name to find it). It’s new and it’s composed of very well written articles in support of the Donald. The journal also proves that there is an intellectual base supporting him. Fancy that!

May 28, 2016 7:23 am

The wrong people are telling me to not vote for Trump…..

Reply to  Latitude
May 28, 2016 10:17 am

I have always considered his enemies to be one of the strongest endorsements for Trump. And that was back when I thought he was a clown.

Mark from the Midwest
May 28, 2016 7:31 am

Maybe if those wacky folks at the U.N. would enlist one George Ross to craft their agreements they wouldn’t be in such a predicament. In Mr. Trumps own words “George is the best, the absolute best, at making things win-win, his contributions are huge!”

Snarling Dolphin
May 28, 2016 7:33 am

When it comes to politicians, climate change is my litmus test; an indicator of rationale thought capability. Trump aces this one.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Snarling Dolphin
May 28, 2016 9:46 am

Think that should be “rational” thought capability. 😉

John Harmsworth
Reply to  AGW is not Science
May 28, 2016 7:49 pm

Let’s hope

Snarling Dolphin
Reply to  AGW is not Science
May 28, 2016 8:53 pm


May 28, 2016 7:33 am

If the USA doesn’t cooperate, most of the small rats will abandon ship because the promised “food supply” (money) will be gone. Does anyone really believe the leaders of most small, poor nations care about “global warming”? They took the $2.5B we pledged (Canada) and hired more than 100 new UN bureaucrats to “distribute” the wealth.

May 28, 2016 7:35 am

The UN basically admits that they are using the “climate agreement” route to push other socialist agendas.
Socialist agendas which they disguise as “justice” or “equality”
(This is the standard deception. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot used the same trojan attack on liberty).
Of course the people saying all of this are invariably paying themselves hundred’s of thousand of dollars a year – tax free. Plus various expenses claims for the ordinary costs of living.
That’s how we are solving the problems of injustice, by paying UN bureaucrats obscene salaries to talk bullshit all day. So here is what THEY say about their “climate action” agenda:
“Climate action is essential for transformative sustainable development. It is also a major opportunity to leverage desirable social transformations that will favour social inclusion and justice as well as safeguard the climatic and ecological systems on which we depend. It is high time to redirect our technology, science, finance and ingenuity to transform our economies, ensure equality and promote a sustainable future for all, including young people, women, and indigenous and ethnic minorities. This requires leadership from governments, international organizations, the private sector and civil society as well as the active involvement of the most affected groups.”

AGW is not Science
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 28, 2016 9:52 am

Every voter in every country needs to read what you just wrote, the quote you included, and a thorough “decoding” of what the real meaning of each of the “buzzwords” used really is. Too many otherwise intelligent people are just not cognizant of how wildly ridiculous this agenda really is.

Reply to  AGW is not Science
May 28, 2016 10:22 am

ensure equality = Venezuela.

May 28, 2016 7:38 am

We have known since about 1985 that global warming was scientifically wrong – a false crisis,
We have known with greater certainty since about 2002 that it was a deliberate fraud.
This post is from 2009:
Some of us always knew it was a trick.
Now it is absolutely clear that it was much more. It was not just bad scientific methodology; it was deliberate fraud, conspiracy and corruption.
These scoundrels have taken hundreds of millions in government grants and caused the waste of hundreds of billions in public funds.
I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
They belong in jail.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 28, 2016 9:52 am

Couldn’t agree more.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 28, 2016 1:58 pm


Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 28, 2016 8:28 pm

Here is our predictive track record, from an article that Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson and I published in 2002 in our debate with the Pembina Institute on the now-defunct Kyoto Accord.
Our eight-point Rebuttal includes predictions that have all materialized in those countries in Western Europe that have adopted the full measure of global warming mania. My country, Canada, was foolish enough to sign the Kyoto Protocol, but then was wise enough to ignore it.
[Our 2002 article is in “quotation marks”, followed by current commentary.]
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
NO net global warming has occurred for more than 18 years despite increasing atmospheric CO2.
2. “Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SOx, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.”
Note the extreme pollution of air, water and soil that still occurs in China and the Former Soviet Union.
3. “Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.”
Since the start of global warming mania, about 50 million children below the age of five have died from contaminated water, and trillions of dollars have been squandered on global warming nonsense.
4. “Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.”
Canada signed Kyoto but then most provinces wisely ignored it – the exception being now-depressed Ontario, where government adopted ineffective “green energy” schemes, drove up energy costs, and drove out manufacturing jobs.
5. “Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.”
Note the huge manufacturing growth and extremely polluted air in industrial regions of China.
6. “Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the Former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.”
Our government did not pay the FSU, but other governments did, bribing them to sign Kyoto.
7. “Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.”
If one believed the false climate models, one would conclude that we must cease using fossil fuels.
8. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Governments that adopted “green energy” schemes such as wind and solar power are finding these schemes are not green and produce little useful energy. Their energy costs are soaring and many of these governments are in retreat, dropping their green energy subsidies as fast as they politically can.
All the above predictions that we made in 2002 have proven correct in those states that fully adopted the Kyoto Accord, whereas none of the global warming alarmists’ scary warming projections have materialized.
I stated in my 2008 paper:
The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 (dCO2/dt) correlates closely and ~contemporaneously with global temperature, and its integral atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by about nine months in the modern data record. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale. Therefore, CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
Consider the implications of this evidence:
CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, so the global warming (CAGW) hypothesis suggests that the future is causing the past. 🙂
See Figures 1 to 4 in my 2008 icecap paper or this plot:
Warmists want to ignore this compelling evidence, or wave it off with the following specious claims:
“We KNOW that CO2 primarily drives temperature (that is a fundamental tenet of warmist religion), therefore:
1) The observed lag of CO2 after temperature must be a feedback effect; and/or
2) “There must be a time machine somewhere that causes this lag.”
Sorry folks, but I do not like your logic – although I do enjoy your time machine fantasy. 🙂
June 13, 2015
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
Cold weather kills. Throughout history and in modern times, many more people succumb to cold exposure than to hot weather, as evidenced in a wide range of cold and warm climates.
Evidence is provided from a study of 74 million deaths in thirteen cold and warm countries including Thailand and Brazil, and studies of the United Kingdom, Europe, the USA, Australia and Canada.
Contrary to popular belief, Earth is colder-than-optimum for human survival. A warmer world, such as was experienced during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, is expected to lower winter deaths and a colder world like the Little Ice Age will increase winter mortality, absent adaptive measures.
These conclusions have been known for many decades, based on national mortality statistics.
September 4, 2015
By Allan MacRae
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary

May 28, 2016 8:08 am

It is encouraging to see that Trump is ahead of the game. The IPCC – UNFCCC circus lemmings will head over the cliff by 2020 or thereabouts. See

Bruce Cobb
May 28, 2016 8:22 am

Bahahahaha! Poor Believers! My heart bleeds for them. And in their honor, here is the world’s smallest violin playing a sad tune. As far as voting for him, if people are having trouble with that, think of it as a vote against Hillary. If there was ever a time to vote on the basis of a single issue, this is it.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 28, 2016 10:00 am

Agreed – people can go on and on about what’s “bad” about Trump all they like – but until the Republicrats get some decent candidates WHO OPENLY OPPOSE “climate policy” BS, I’ll vote for the Trumps of the world, again and again. Time for AGW BS to be eradicated like an infestation of termites in your house.

William R
May 28, 2016 8:36 am

The UN has outlived its usefulness. Now it is nothing but a safe haven for despots, Marxists, and terrorists. Add dropping out of the UN to Trump’s to do list.

Reply to  William R
May 28, 2016 1:22 pm

Trump has never addressed the UN’s usefulness or lack thereof. Someone ought to ask him what he thinks. 🙂

Fred of Greenslopes
Reply to  William R
May 28, 2016 11:05 pm

Hear, hear. Go, Boris.

George Steiner
May 28, 2016 8:38 am

It is nonsense to place the blame on political leaders as Mr Lyman and others want to do. The moronised electorate is the only responsible party. In the US they have voted twice for the same wanderfully competent man. In Canada they have voted overwhelmingly for a totally empty suite. Well not even a suite.

Steve Lohr
May 28, 2016 9:01 am

Well the old saying:” when you need an excuse, anything will do”. That Trump is having an effect on the Paris agreement is certainly fine with me. If Trump doesn’t change things I think the prospect of a cooler batch of temperature data will. I am from the US and nothing offered during this election cycle rose above a clown act, in my opinion, but having someone who scares the living bejesus out of everyone is just fine with me, its about time someone in the office draws some kind of respect. I would certainly like to see the whole climate cadre go through a terrible night of fear and trembling on election night, and awake to their worst nightmare. That would satisfy me. I am also interested in someone to fertilize the Middle East Desert with ISIS fighters. That would really satisfy me.

Reply to  Steve Lohr
May 28, 2016 10:15 am

I think Trump will satisfy you on those points, Steve.
Trump throws out those over-the-top comments, like saying maybe Japan should develop nuclear weapons, as a way of shaking up the status quo. That’s his first offer on the subject/deal.
Trump says you always ask for more than you will settle for when first making a deal. And he says it is good to keep your oppostion off balance and guessing. It’s part of his “Art of the Deal”. Trump’s philosophy is playing out right before our eyes.

Reply to  TA
May 28, 2016 11:36 am

Trump saying maybe Japan should develop its own nuclear weapons is really a brilliant move, if you think about it. I know everyone and their brother was horrified when they heard Trump say this, but think about it this way:
What must the leaders of China be thinking after hearing Trump say Japan might be on the road to developing nuclear weapons? They are *horrified*! The LAST thing the Chinese want is for Japan to get nuclear weapons.
China remembers the last time Japan was a great threat to them and they don’t want to go through that again. The Chinese think they are in a position to handle an attack from Japan today, but in the back of their minds, they remember the past.
So, let’s say Trump eventually gets elected with this position still out there. Trump then goes to the Chinese and threatens them with Japan nukes, but then he tells them he will not force Japan to build its own nuclear weapons IF China will reign in that little dictator in North Korea, which means taking his nuclear playtoys away from him.
The Chinese don’t know if Trump is serious or not about facilitating nukes for Japan, but he just might be, so they pick the lesser of two evils and reign in that little murderous dictator. If the Chinese want to put the kabosh on Kim Jung Un, they can. Trump is going to tell them they have to.
China would probably be more cooperative on trade deals under such circumstances, since Trump has leverage over them. Trump likes leverage. He got it over them by speaking about two sentences about Japan and nukes.
It’s a brilliant move, that noone else in the world would do. Trump is thinking outside the box. Everyone else is inside the box.
And of course, Trump’s little speech has put Japan and South Koreans on notice too. You can bet all three, China, Japan and South Korea are reassessing their situations with regard to a Trump presidency. As is NATO: another briliiant ploy of Trump’s.
Trump puts pressure on China with an “off-hand” remark. Brilliant! If he is elected, he’s right where he wants to be when it comes to dealing with China. He has the upper hand.

Reply to  TA
May 28, 2016 6:42 pm

And Russia is not going to like the prospect of Japan going nuclear any more than China will. So Trump already has leverage on both Russia and China when he takes Office.
Another smart move Trump made: As the Transgender bathroom issue arose recently, the news media asked Trump what his policy was on transgender bathrooms, hoping that Trump would take a tough line, like North Carolina, so they could smear Trump as a bigot and homophobe.
But Trump fooled them. The press asked Trump what he would do if Caitlin Jenner came to Trump Tower to use the bathroom. Trump said Jenner could use any bathroom she desired, and completely disarmed the Left over this issue versus Trump. Trump shut them down with one sentence. You haven’t heard the press raise this issue with Trump since. Brilliant, again!

Reply to  TA
May 28, 2016 7:07 pm

After Trump is elected, he can get together with Japan’s Prime Minister Abe, and Trump and Abe can play “good cop, bad cop” with China and Russia.
Abe will say he is extremely worried about the murderous dictator of North Korea and his nuclear weapons, and is very concerned about China’s efforts to steal natural resources from other countries, including Japan, by building artificial islands in disputed waters and then trying to claim the natural resources that surround these artificial islands.
And because of all these worries and concerns, Abe feels Japan *must* develop its own nuclear weapons stockpile.
This will, of course, scare both China and Russia considerably, and then Trump comes in and plays “good cop” and says we can fix this situation if you guys in China and Russia just give us a little cooperation, like taking Kim Jung Un’s nuclear weapons away from him, or stepping aside and letting the U.S., and South Korea do the job, and China must stop its building of artificial islands until these matters are settled in an international court.
If China and Russia really thought Japan was going to go nuclear, they would do just about anything to keep that from happening, even to the point of cooperating with the U.S. Trump might just be able to convince them that that might just happen if they don’t cooperate.
Trump has set himself us in a very good postion with his ambiguous statements on Japan’s nuclear weapons future.
And notice, this action by Trump is aimed not at winning the election, it was done to give him some leverage after he is president. The fact is, this ambiguous position will be used to try to harm his election chances, and he has been roundly criticized for it already, but Trump is thinking way far ahead of the election.
Trump is already planning his first term and is setting himself up to be in the most powerful bargaining position he can manage with the rest of the world.

Reply to  Steve Lohr
May 28, 2016 8:51 pm

A good analysis of Trump for those whom he scares the living bejesus out of:

May 28, 2016 9:38 am

The Trump movement is a tidal wave. The Climate Change scam is only one of the artifacts of the “New World Order” that is going to be swept away. Because they are all busts.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Jeff Stanley
May 28, 2016 1:58 pm


May 28, 2016 9:43 am

Picking Cramer, a congressman from North Dakota with very little experience in the field, to be his “energy advisor” tells me that Trump’s campaign will be mostly about pandering without giving much thought to what comes after. I’m not impressed.
As for Paris, it has so many inconsistencies and such a poor structure, it’s a fairly meaningless piece of paper. I don’t think Clinton will make a difference, her main focus seems to be pandering to neocons and greens. She’s a terrible candidate, even worse than Trump.
I feel like I’m in the dying days of the Republic. The country can’t stand lousy president’s one right after the other after the other after the other like this.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
May 28, 2016 11:15 am

His work experience is entirely public service, which I don’t consider a “plus”. However, he did run the North Dakota Public Energy Commission, so he seems likely to know the in’s and out’s of the energy business to some extent, at least for oil and gas. If he’s a good administrator he’ll hire the brains he needs to get the job done.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
May 29, 2016 6:38 am

I’ve been in the oil and gas for over 40 years, and I consider the North Dakota energy commission a bunch of amateurs. Their understanding of the industry and regulatory issues rates at best a D. This is to be expected, they are political figures in a state with a population the size of Beaumont Texas. I’ve met several hundred individuals in my career who have much better credentials than Trump’s advisor. And since I’ve been overseas so much, I bet there must be thousands very qualified individuals who would do a better job. The choice is very revealing. I was seriously considering backing trump. But right now I’m going to simply look up a third party candidate.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
May 28, 2016 1:12 pm

You will be pleasantly surprised by a Trump presidency. None of the new-world-end-of-civilization totalitarian edifiice constructed by UN EU and Obama’s US will be too big to fail with Trump. Any other of the GOP “good guys”+ who were in the race, maybe with the exception of Cruz, are incapable of doing other than giving ground by shifting leftward, the strategy of republicans for some years now. Obama’s, Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’ constituentcy is outside the US – Trump is going to turn this back around.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 28, 2016 8:08 pm

Huh? Obama’s constituentcy is outside the US? What did I miss?
Lydia? Syria? Israel? Russia? Egypt? Saudia Arabia? Ukraine? Germany? Britain? Iran? Pakistan? Afganistan?
Exactly where is this constituency? My guess is nobody trusts the guy.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
May 28, 2016 8:03 pm

STOP! Don’t slit your wrists!
Obama had Steven “Solyndra” Chu, who is good at trapping atoms with lasers. but not so good at national energy policy. He also had Timothy “tax cheat” Geithner running Treasury, and Eric “gun runner” Holder at Justice.
Face it: A lot of political appointments (and politicians) are, shall we say, sub-optimal.

Reply to  Javert Chip
May 29, 2016 6:43 am

I consider Obama a failure. He’s decayed as time went by. This is why I wrote bad president one after the other after the other. Clinton was bad, Bush was awful, Obama seemed average and then went bad, is closing out almost as bad as Bush. The country simply can’t stand one bad performer right after the other for decades, coupled to another large group of fairly incompetent individuals in congress.

May 28, 2016 9:55 am

“Alarmists credit Donald Trump with exposing the truth about the Paris climate accord.”
There – I fixed it for you.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  dp
May 28, 2016 10:04 am

LOL I always love a good translation.

May 28, 2016 10:03 am

Democrats (esp. Reid, Pelosi and Obama) blamed the powerless Republican minority in both houses for their own inept failures, too. It was supposedly their bad attitudes that caused failure and not Democrat’s screwing things up with bad laws and policies.
Hmmm. I seem to recall Stalin, Mao and Castro used the same excuses.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  LarryFine
May 28, 2016 10:05 am

Every administration blames the last, it’s an on going game politicians play all over the world from the level of mayor to state senator to national or federal gov since forever, am pretty sure Consuls did this in Rome too and Roman senators

Reply to  LarryFine
May 28, 2016 10:19 am

LarryFine wrote: “Hmmm. I seem to recall Stalin, Mao and Castro used the same excuses.”
Yeah, it’s called lying.

May 28, 2016 10:30 am

I would look for the Alarmists to get politically active against Trump, now that he has officially come out against the Paris Peace Accords.
Along with the Mexicans, the Anarchists, and the general Loony Leftists who will be outside the Repubican National Convention demonstrating, we can add a bunch of Climate Alarmists.
Trump’s Reponse? Get ’em out! Get ’em out!
The Loony Left always has violent demonstrations against the Right. But you never see the Right raising hell outside the Democrat convention, now do you?
That would be because the Left is violence-prone and the Right is not. The Left will say that’s not true, but who are you going to believe, the Left, or your own eyes?

May 28, 2016 10:52 am

‘But the Obama administration also pledged that the United States would cut its emissions as part of the Paris climate deal, a treaty painstakingly negotiated with 194 other nations to avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change.’
It was NOT a treaty.
Obama’s pledges become null and void next January. So sorry.

May 28, 2016 11:47 am

Trump is potentially the best thing for America in a long time. Helping. Not intentially hurting. Refreshing. Exciting. The Greens know he would END their little Socialist party.

May 28, 2016 12:11 pm

“The Republican presidential hopeful has since dialed back the rhetoric, calling that earlier claim a joke”
I didn’t laugh.
Anyone here thought it was funny?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  simple-touriste
May 28, 2016 1:15 pm

May 28, 2016 at 12:11 pm
Trump will save you, too!!. It’s like the nile crocodile, while you are saving them they are trying to eat your A55 off.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 28, 2016 8:12 pm


May 28, 2016 12:17 pm

Since there is more than a 50% chance of the GW pause ending into cooling (following winding down in solar activity), the industrial countries may need all energy they can get their hands on. It will be down to the USA and its administration to lead the way in preparing for such a scenario, but it could be a long slog, it may take more than one or even two presidential terms to do it.
Perhaps Mr. Trump arrived to the right place at the right time, and if so, it is likely that after eight years of Trump senior, the USA may be tempted to follow with another eight years of Trump junior, there are two of them, and apparently they are gifted young man.

Reply to  vukcevic
May 28, 2016 1:31 pm

vukcevic wrote: ” it is likely that after eight years of Trump senior, the USA may be tempted to follow with another eight years of Trump junior, there are two of them, and apparently they are gifted young man.”
To tell you the truth, I am almost more impressed by Don Jr., than I am by Donald himself. Don Jr. has impressed me every time I have listened to him talk.

Tom Judd
Reply to  TA
May 28, 2016 5:41 pm

Then there’s Ivanka Trump; also very impressive. Perhaps she could follow the Don as the first woman president.

ben s
May 28, 2016 12:58 pm

Hilarious. He knows it is all mostly for show but the press eats it up right out of his hand. Please vote for this man he will infuriate and mock the liberals and elitists every day of their lives from here on and call them out on their BS and hypocrisy.

May 28, 2016 1:04 pm

Trying to pin the blame on someone else is what enviro-activists do. Responsibility is never theirs, as far as they are concerned.

Gary Pearse
May 28, 2016 1:21 pm

I’m pleasantly surprised to see the shifting towards Trump. I was promoting him through the period when most thoughtful people hear thought he was a joke. Now he’s “rattled” world leaders – just what we need more of to stop the horrible totalitarian end game that has been marching forward. The whole world knows that if America isn’t all in, then their scheme is dead in the water. Now America can join Russia and China at the top again and contain their ambitions.

May 28, 2016 1:36 pm

“Trump’s Climate Change Denial Is Already Complicating the Paris Climate Deal”
Denial my a*se. Climate realist.
Praise be that this is happening. It’s the light of truth shining in all those dark, danky, dirty depths of dubious so called climate science.

May 28, 2016 1:52 pm

I would not be too quick to count Trump out. See the video that starts 25 seconds after Rachel starts talking:

Reply to  Werner Brozek
May 28, 2016 8:42 pm
May 28, 2016 1:58 pm
Reply to  dbstealey
May 28, 2016 8:41 pm

+97% !!

May 28, 2016 1:58 pm

Donald Trump is the best candidate for President! This is just one more reason to vote for him! 🙂

Mike Ford
May 28, 2016 3:07 pm

Demo or Greenie playbook page 1, in good ol’ Basic:
10 A = LeadingRepublican
20 Blame = A
30 goto 10

May 28, 2016 3:19 pm

It is good to see that Trump changed his wording from “…renegotiating the Paris Agreement…” to this ““We’re going to cancel the Paris climate agreement,” he said.’ “. I much prefer the idea of outright canceling the Paris Agreement versus his original thought of renegotiating it.

DC Cowboy
May 28, 2016 3:41 pm

The Paris ‘Accord’ is a bureaucrats dream, everybody agrees that ‘something’ must be done, but nobody can tell anyone what each individual countries ‘something’ is; the individual ‘somethings’ are strictly voluntary; and there is no consequence for failing to meet the voluntary ‘something’. All there is is the creation of a very large bureaucracy to receive periodic reports about the progress (or lack thereof) in meeting the voluntary non-commitment ‘something’, not that the accord says what the bureaucrats are to do with the reports.

Tom Judd
May 28, 2016 4:59 pm

What a bang up, gosh darn, fun thread.
Here’s a thought: think of all the made up, deliberately misleading, deceptive, and therefore morally repugnant statements made over the last 25+ years wherein it was claimed that ‘the majority,’ the ‘vast majority,’ ‘97% of all climate scientists,’ or ‘99% of all climate scientists agree on AGW,’ yet no one ever produced one goddam survey to back up these claims. But everybody, at least in the media, believed it because, well, because…
Now, let’s think about the claims made about the Donald’s odds. He won’t last. He’ll shoot himself in the foot. He’ll go too far. He’s just an anomaly. “Low energy” Jeb’ll beat him. “Little Marco” Rubio will beat him. Ok, “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz’ll beat him. It’ll be a contested election. He won’t get 1,237 delegates: he just won’t. Ok, he’ll lose Indiana.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, & wrong.
Now, let’s think about the one big hurdle that all those who just know these things know will defeat him: Women don’t like him. Are we hearing that from women?…or, are we hearing that from?…men: Men who are, maybe, jealous? Now, I’m not transgender, and therefore haven’t changed sexes, so I can’t say what a young woman might fantasize about. But, I suspect any fantasies are unlikely to center around being a ward of the state such as in the vomit inducing Democrat cartoon of the life of Julia; and more likely to center around perhaps being a wealthy supermodel; maybe a supermodel married to a billionaire; maybe a supermodel married to a billionaire who’s President of the United States. But, of course, none of the supermodels he’s known like him. Wait a minute; they all like him!
But, the foregoing is just a thought experiment. Instead, just take a look at the crowds at his rallies. I’ll be damned if at least – at least – 50% appear to be women.
It’s gonna’ be a helluva’ ride in November!

Reply to  Tom Judd
May 28, 2016 6:27 pm

Thank you for saying it better than I can. This thread made my day.

Reply to  Tom Judd
May 28, 2016 8:01 pm

If I was still in high school today, I would say I feel like a woman so I could shower with the girls. But I think I would be found to be a lair because of my male “junk” noticeable effect…

Reply to  Tom Judd
May 28, 2016 8:40 pm

Funny Trump video releases of those saying he wasn’t going to win (don’t know why these aren’t on you tube yet):

May 28, 2016 5:54 pm

A vote for Hillary = 4 more years of “It’s all Bush’s fault.”
A vote for Trump = 4 years of “It’s all Trump’s fault.”

Reply to  H.R.
May 29, 2016 6:50 pm

That would be a welcome change.

Reply to  RockyRoad
May 30, 2016 10:34 am

Well, Rocky, you got my point. Since the Propaganda arm of the Democrat Party (MSM) is always going to place the blame on Republicans, in office or not, it would be nice to hear a different name for a change. 16 years of “It’s all Bush’s fault” has become wearisome.

May 29, 2016 1:11 am

Vote 1 the Don ,pity I’m an Aussie would rather vote for the Don than the idiots and lefties that we have .
Be proud America your choice is easier .

James Loux
May 29, 2016 4:54 am

I have to agree with the comment above that this thread is really very interesting, since I have not been a Trump supporter. And so I must add to the thread.
Many would agree that President Ronald Reagan’s most effective Foreign Policy action occurred when he fired the US Air Traffic Controllers who failed to return to work from their illegal strike after he gave them a 48 hour deadline. His actions rattled many foreign leaders because they then knew that he really would follow through on his decisions.
I once had a boss who often used rough language in (all male) corporate meetings to draw attention to his points. I suggested to him one time that this approach might be self defeating, but he stated that it sped things up, since the discussion got to the actual conflicts much quicker. No polite bantering around the real issues.
If the idea of Trump being President rattles foreign leaders, then that is definitely a good thing, just like with Reagan. Trump’s verbally coarse responses typically follow my ex-boss’s pattern of getting right to the crux of the issue without the PC dancing around them, although they sometimes do go to the point of just being nasty. But his commitment to rescinding the Paris stupidity and EPA climate related regulations seems very sincere. Compared to the choice of electing as President a documented criminal and serial liar who will clearly take multiple actions that I vehemently oppose, how can I not vote for Trump?

Reply to  James Loux
May 29, 2016 10:02 am

They’re in the same vein as our second president John Adams. While he didn’t fight on the battlefield during the Revolution, he was very much “in the trenches” politically, wheeling and dealing with the colonial governments and the Continental Congress. Very practical and pragmatic, with a real love for debate; it’s been said his favorite form of conversation was an argument. He disdained feel-good abstractions, even those held by friends (like Jefferson). Pushed through an unpopular political deal (Jay’s Treaty) that he knew was politically suicidal but firmly believed was in the best interests of the nation (history has since proved him right).
Pretty confident that if Adams were around today, he’d be voting for Trump.

Reply to  DredNicolson
May 29, 2016 8:35 pm

From early on, I noted that the internet was a wonderful place to disagree and argue without coming to blows, or, worse yet, agreement.

Ford Prefect
May 29, 2016 8:00 am

“America Energy First ” The money that will flood into the United States will be Huge. The problem this has for countries in Sand Land is just as Huge. This would be the start of an American Renaissance the spin of industries would also huge. The exploding heads in the Carbon Mafia would be Massive.

Reply to  Ford Prefect
May 30, 2016 3:21 am

The exploding heads in the Carbon Mafia would be Massive.

It would be a veritable Tunguska Event.
Bedtime Story – The First 100 Days of A Donald Trump Presidency

May 30, 2016 6:43 pm

Just FYI, I have seen several comments here and at other blogs regarding “Congress will never ratify the Paris Climate accord so it is meaningless”. Anyone who believes it is meaningless has been Grubered. Obama knows full well that the current Congress would never ratify the Paris Climate accord. That is why he put the enforcement mechanism in the TPP. The TPP is very likely to pass Congress because people like Paul Ryan Ted Cruz think is the best thing ever for the US. In reality, the TPP sets up a three person International Climate panel with full authority to levy fines amounting to billions per year if the Paris Climate accord and ALL EPA CO2 laws, including the CPP, are not strictly enforced in ALL 50 states. These billions would be payable to ANY member county that claims our CO2 is damaging their country or economy. Because Donald is steadfast AGAINST the TPP, that is why many of GOPe are NEVERTRUMPers.

Reply to  alcheson
May 30, 2016 6:46 pm

And since I can’t edit my comment… will also add that this Climate Panel was given VETO power over any future changes to our EPA regulations to prevent a TRUMP from gutting the regulations. In addition, this panel rules on a simple 2/3 vote, with only ONE person allowed to be from or representing the US position.

May 30, 2016 8:34 pm

Choice of candidate is actually simple. It depends which candidate is right about global warming. Having followed the science for some years now I can tell you that starting with Hansen all official predictions of warming have been false. This includes 26 years of failed climate models. A real science lab would have shut them down years ago but they are being kept alive at taxpayers’ expense for political purposes. Knowing this it is impossible to see how anyone could seriously side with this group but Clinton follows their line, Trump has adapted important features from Watts that I approve of. Clinton must know better what reality is but has decided to pander to climate change advocates. Clearly Trump wins on reality about climate and energy, no matter what you think of his other views.

jim heath
May 30, 2016 8:50 pm

When I got up this morning it was 11 Degrees, it’s now 1.30 pm and the temperature has risen to 24. I quickly made a graph of this and bugger me by Saturday I think we will all spontaneously combust.

May 31, 2016 2:14 pm

I see Donald is not just best friends with Putin he is also loved by the North Koreans now.
Who would have thought a Republican presidential candidate would be so loved by the commies?

Reply to  Simon
May 31, 2016 2:21 pm

As our resident commie, I’d think you would love the next president.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 31, 2016 3:40 pm

So you are telling me you are good with “Commie Donald?” Ain’t the world a funny place?

May 31, 2016 11:14 pm

Re: Chinese & CO2 —
CO2 doesn’t matter, but the US emissions are flat or declining, while the Chinese’ are surging. But CO2 is benefitting the world’s plants, on which we all depend. No worries, mate. NO warming has been observed reliably attributed to it, but would be welcome. Deal.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights