Climate: The Great Opportunity to Pull Down America

Flag_my_house

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Ever wondered why so many climate critiques of US policy emphasise that “the world” is moving to embrace climate measures, and America should keep up? As an Australian, an outsider, I have a theory. I believe the reason is the national desire to be liked and accepted by the global community is America’s greatest weakness – and the rest of the world knows it.

Consider this piece by Rolling Stone;

Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming

Only one major political party in the world denies climate change, and it’s in charge of the most important political body in the world

One day in 2009, Henry Waxman, the Democratic congressman representing Santa Monica and Malibu, paid a visit to one of his Republican counterparts, a ruddy-faced Texan named Joe Barton. After Democrats had won back the House of Representatives the previous year, Waxman staged an intraparty coup and seized the chairman’s gavel of the Energy and Commerce committee, which oversees most legislation on the environment. He vowed to address what he saw as the gravest threat facing the planet: climate change. As an opening gesture, Waxman approached Barton, the committee’s top Republican, about finding a way to work together on the new legislation.

With a catastrophic season of wildfires, megafloods and major hurricanes, the climate-change siege is fully upon us Barton, a guy who once called Al Gore “totally wrong” about global warming and advised people to “get shade” to adapt to rising temperatures, was incredulous. Waxman recalls Barton asking why he should work on a solution for a problem he didn’t believe existed. Waxman pressed on, but Barton wouldn’t budge. “It would be like me working with you to try to eliminate U.S. support for Israel,” the Texan finally said.

The comment stopped Waxman cold. Aid to Israel is, of course, an article of faith in both parties. You commit political seppuku to suggest otherwise.

The good news is this: Practically every nation on Earth grasps the severity of the problem. In Paris last year, 195 countries, including the biggest emitters on the planet – the United States, China and India – came together and offered real, substantive plans to curb their emissions of greenhouse gases. Long before Paris, the renewable-energy revolution was underway – Germany can now power up to 87 percent of the country using renewable sources, and in some areas of Australia wind power meets 100 percent of demand for electricity. In September, Chinese president Xi Jinping and President Barack Obama announced that their countries would ratify the Paris Agreement. The Chinese leader’s public comments at the event – “Our response to climate change bears on the future of our people and the well-being of mankind” – would’ve been unthinkable a decade ago.

In fact, about the only place left on Earth where lawmakers openly and avidly deny the science of climate change is the U.S. Congress. More to the point, says Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii and a leader on climate policy, “There is only one major political party in the world that denies the existence of climate change. And it happens to be in charge of the most important political body in the world.”

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-republicans-still-reject-the-science-of-global-warming-w448023

Why would even friends and allies of America pick on this weakness? There is no conspiracy. In the bully school yard of global politics, there doesn’t have to be a reason to pick on a weakness. That kid who is a little fat, or wants to be friends with people who reject him or her, or who wears clothes which are a little too nice – they’ll get picked on, just because people can.

Nobody wants to feel second best. Deep in their hearts, everyone in the world knows that America achieved greatness through hard work, commitment to fair laws, and through the wisdom of the constitution written by the founding fathers, which set important limits to government power. But politicians who spend their time resenting those who do better don’t see it that way. To admit that another country might have a better government, a better way of living, is to admit their own gross failings.

Lacking the energy or desire to build themselves up, instead they try to find ways to tear others down, to bring the great down to the level of their own miserable ineptitude.

The green obsession, Washington corruption, desire for international acceptance – all these are simply convenient levers, for extorting a little cash, for smearing America with a little of the mud and filth, which those who wallow in such excrement call home.

It doesn’t even matter that if America fell, most of the world would be worse off. What matters is that if America falls, the spiteful politicians who resent America wouldn’t have to be constantly reminded of America’s greatness. They wouldn’t have to face the unrest of their own people, the constant demands for a better life, because there would be no better life to aspire to. “See, that America you once thought was so great? You are better off accepting what you have. The greatness you thought you saw was just a mirage”.

Advertisements

199 thoughts on “Climate: The Great Opportunity to Pull Down America

  1. The fact that China is willing to stick two fingers up to the world ( or one finger, depending on cultural background) explains their attitude to cagw .

    • On target, Bloke. China plays the world using the climate change fiddle. They represent doing exactly what they want as leading the CAGW effort, by flooding the world with cheap solar panels and installing renewable where they have transmission line infrastructure issues. Then they sucker western nations along, as in that useless “agreement” Obama signed on to.

    • Practically every nation on Earth……..gets paid

      Whatever it takes to bring down capitalism and free countries…

      • In every country there is a group of activists who say “You are damaging our reputation in the rest of the world.” The only places this is true is amongst other activist groups. In fact in most countries, global warming is a low order issue well below the economy and almost no one cares what other countries’ stance is on global warming, let alone their own. If only politicians had the courage to listen to their people rather than noisy activists.

    • Yes, China needs to get its particulate, heavy metal, SOx, NOx discharges under control before it even thinks about telling anyone anything.

      China’s opportunistic competitive behavior is to simply economically sabotage the US.

  2. Eric, What really worries me is the outcome of a Clinton victory. I think that there are many Americans that will fight for their country and things may turn ugly.

    • You lefties are so brain-washed. What do you think the Trump supporters are coming out guns blazing the day after.

      What is more likely to happen is that the climate will get colder. Winter is coming.

      Wake up. Take the Red Pill next time.

      • @ Bill Illis, I am a Trump supporter for “f” sakes. But the statement I made was made as a sober assessment.
        I believe the USA and for that matter the West needs a Trump to hold it together. What I meant to say is that after all the corruption and the twisting of the truth that has been peddled by the Left and the MSM, the frustrations from some of his supporters may go overboard and then all you’ll have left is the MSM saying ” See we told you so” , ” Trump supporters are nut cases”
        I think you misread my comment.

    • The best outcome will be the effect of daylight as a disinfectant for the shady characters and worse whose influence and wealth have thrived under the tolerance of corrupt conduct.

      The worst outcome will be that the criminal element will learn how to better avoid detection.

      As the chinese proverb goes, we live in interesting times.

    • What worries me……is that any other person would be in jail right now

      Hillary lied under oath…..in spite of everything else…that’s a given

      • Creating a private e-mail server and using it for ALL of your official business would land a normal person in jail.
        Failing to turn over ALL of your e-mails to the IT team when you retire would land a normal person in jail.
        Removing confidential information from a secure site and putting it onto an unsecure site would land a normal person in jail.
        Destroying evidence that had been subpoenaed would land a normal person in jail.

      • Neither of them should be running. Clinton and Trump both crooks. Let’s not forget he boasted about sexually assaulting women and then the woman came out and confirmed that he did. Like i said you have two crooks running at the moment.

      • MarkW says: “Creating a private e-mail server and using it for ALL of your official business would land a normal person in jail.”
        ..
        .
        .
        So tell me Mark, why isn’t Colin Powell in jail?

      • Richard Baguley commented: “…So tell me Mark, why isn’t Colin Powell in jail?….”

        Mr. Powell used the government supplied system for security. Yes he still had a private account.

      • With reference to the juvenile boasting about grabbing women on the pussy. An assault must be a non-consensual touching. I took the point of the boast to be that women would consent to such touching.

        There is also some leeway in assault charges if an accused desists from the touching as soon as it should be obvious that the person touched does not consent. The accused would have to desist, for example, if the person touched pulled away before contact.

        If increasingly intimate touching is not manifestly unwelcome then it is not assault.

      • simon wrote: “Let’s not forget he boasted about sexually assaulting women and then the woman came out and confirmed that he did.”

        No woman has come out and “confirmed” anything. There are just a bunch of unproven allegations. Two of the women supposedly groped by Trump have come out and said the stories about them were all a pack of lies, and they love and respect Trump.

        A person is innocent until proven guilty, don’t you see.

        Don’t you find it a little strange that these women who claim Trump molested them never came out in public about it in all these years and now, a couple of weeks before the election, when the guilt or innocence cannot be proven before the election, they decide to make these public charges?

        We’ll see if their charges have any merit. Trump has said he is going to sue each and every one of them, so I guess we’ll hear their stories then and we can decide who is lying and who is not. I assume he is going to sue whether he wins the election or not.

      • Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

        [….] (f)
        Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

        Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. […]

        John Podesta’s Best Friend At The DOJ Will Be In Charge Of The DOJ’s Probe Into Huma Abedin Emails
        Kadzik… Kadzik… where have we heard that name?

      • TA “Don’t you find it a little strange that these women who claim Trump molested them never came out in public about it in all these years and now, a couple of weeks before the election, when the guilt or innocence cannot be proven before the election, they decide to make these public charges?”

        Not at all. They heard him bragging then denying. They were incensed by his lying.

        “We’ll see if their charges have any merit. Trump has said he is going to sue each and every one of them, so I guess we’ll hear their stories then and we can decide who is lying and who is not. I assume he is going to sue whether he wins the election or not.”

        He will sue no one. If he becomes president they may just “disappear” though, along with many of his other critics.

        “A person is innocent until proven guilty, don’t you see.”

        That’s true, except there is nothing to prove here. He admits he does it. In fact the sleezeball brags and laughs about it.

      • Oh, Simon, Trump isn’t the one who makes people “disappear”. One of the blogs recently published a list of over 40 whose lives ended in the wake of Whitewater and other Clinton affairs.

      • But if you have to have one then Clinton is the best bet for global stability. My advice is to vote her in then get rid of her in four years.

      • Simon commented: “…But if you have to have one then Clinton is the best bet for global stability. My advice is to vote her in then get rid of her in four years….”

        You’re talking about “global stability” when the world is experiencing upheaval not matched since WW II? The UN has slowly and methodically inched their way into a position of world governance and you think Clinton is a better means of stopping the hegemony? She openly supports anarchy as a means to an end. We can’t wait.

      • Markl
        “You’re talking about “global stability” when the world is experiencing upheaval not matched since WW II? The UN has slowly and methodically inched their way into a position of world governance….”
        Sorry, forgot about your ….issue. Look just use thicker tinfoil.

      • Simon: “Sorry, forgot about your ….issue. Look just use thicker tinfoil.”

        Simon, I think it is you that has issue problems – quite a few of them actually.

        If you really believe that Latitude is mistaken to that extent, I suggest you remove your head from your back passage and look around.

      • Simon commented: “…Sorry, forgot about your ….issue. ….”

        I know, “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” That’s part of the reason we’re in this mess.

      • Markl
        if you want to see the difference between a politician and mongrel, look at the incident that happened with the Trump supporter while Obama was speaking today. Obama quietened the crowd reminding everyone that free speech is important and that the guy was elderly and a war vet so deserved respect, irrespective of who he supported.
        What did Trump do. Attacked Obama getting the story completely wrong (saying Obama had ordered the old guy to sit down… he hadn’t he was talking to his own crowd) and so ended up looking like a complete buffoon. Trump has no filter for a situation. It is all BS and bluster. You can’t have someone like that in charge of the free world…. you just can’t.

  3. There is a faction of self-styled elitists in the US who really believe that they are deserving to rule purely because of their pure motives and superior education in politics.The great problem is that this group is mostly lawyers, congressional staffers with a degee in something “studies”, academics teaching “studies”–in short, the sort who would be the priesthood in a traditional society. Business and hard science is is praciced by nothing more than a bunch of technicians, whose purpose is to serve their betters.
    As explored by Robert Michel and Jerry Pournelle separately, those are unfortunately the type who tend to run bureacratic organizations, with the seemingly inevitable result that the organization neglects what its purported purpose was.
    I think that the only way to reform such an organization is outside pressure to meet real goals, which is veery difficult due to the temptation to be coopted used on any reform movement. Nastily, sometimes only a revolution of sorts is required, despite the downside of disorder. Continuing to play by their rules just does not result in change.

    • There is a faction of self-styled elitists in the US …

      Absolutely. The Democrat party has embraced a well graduated elite.

      This is modern liberalism in action: an unregulated virtue-exchange in which representatives of one class of humanity ritually forgive the sins of another class, all of it convened and facilitated by a vast army of well-graduated American professionals, their reassuring expertise propped up by bogus social science, while the unfortunate objects of their high and noble compassion sink slowly back into a preindustrial state. link

      These people will believe anything said by any other member of the well graduated elite. They believe that they, individually and as a group, are much smarter than everyone else. In other words, they hold the majority of Americans in contempt. They are immune from criticism from outside their various professions. Their mistakes are always forgotten. Once again, the emperor has no clothes.

    • Tom Halla …. where have you been hiding!! You just hit the ball outta da park!!
      Very interesting posting in Fabius Maximus blog on the subject of The Elites. Effectively, you Americans are looikng at a Meritocracy, if not an outright Plutocracy, if you vote-in the egregious Clitno-woman.
      Two thoughts:
      1. The French got it right in the 18th.C. (and that started over weights & measures if my [abysmal] knowledge of history is correct).
      2. My feeling that — as a general observation — to save one’s own personal skin, stick to a ‘middle-of-the-road’ position, philosophical & by life-style. When an ‘outlying’ segment of society gets big-enough, pissed-off-enough, and militant-enough, the machetes will come out, and there will be Revolution.

      Were I American, I wd have to hold my nose to vote for Trump, but I think he has interesting potential for a revolution that kicks The Establishment out. (Wdn’t it be nice if he could intelligently articulate this thesis, rather than rabble-rouse it?) My only concern is that he may be replace one Establishment with Another in his own Image (Heaven help us! Methinks we’d get another Putin.)

  4. Climate Armageddon….26 years (anyway) and still waiting. Time is running out, we need to act NOW.
    Assuming the U.S. CONgress does not pass any GloBull Warming legislation, in 24 more years those same tired, worn out phrases will have been used every year and it will not dawn on much of the liberal populace that 50 years have gone by without any significant change in the climate.

      • Griff — Yes, Ice is being reduced in the Arctic. What you’re missing is “significant”. This is another way to paint the phrase “worst in recorded history” while ignoring that the recorded history is so negligible as to be practically meaningless.

        Most of these “wildfires, megafloods and major hurricanes” are not evidence of a “climate-change siege”. They are normal. We all know they are normal. If it takes some sort of Chicken Little magnitude of catastrophic exaggeration to make your case, then you don’t have a case.

      • lorcan, how is the current level of ice reduction in the arctic not significant?

        its massively lower for the time of year: volume, thickness and age of the ice is lower than ever

      • DHR

        “After a reaching its maximum extent unusually early and then following a period of relatively unchanging overall extent, Antarctic sea ice extent started to decline in earnest. Daily sea ice extent levels have been at second lowest in the satellite record since October 20 and below the two standard deviation range. Only the 1986 austral spring extent is lower. Ice extent is particularly low on both sides of the Antarctic Peninsula.”

        http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

      • Griff,
        The problem with “EVER” is that it only truly represents the time since the beginning of the satellite ear, 1979. There are no other Annual/Monthly/Daily empirical measurements prior to that to justify the use of the word Significant. Recorded history is really only 38 years. The designated remainder is Proxy (someone’s interpretation of datasets) and anecdotal

      • “Most of these “wildfires, megafloods and major hurricanes” are not evidence of a “climate-change siege”. They are normal. We all know they are normal.”

        What is your evidence that the frequency, severity and duration of these are normal?

      • Trigger warning: some harsh language ahead.

        Climate science will have no credibility with me until it stops being a “Cause” with a capital C, a post-normal narrative, which has, for all intents and purposes, reduced down to a crock of propaganda bullshit. It’s offered up by a cabal of power-grabbing, trough-slurping, rent-seeking, teat-suckers. That’s a lot of pejorative adjectives and I probably should have edited for brevity. But I liked them all so much, I just couldn’t pick one to remove.

        What evidence of propaganda? Go listen to today’s John Hockenberry NPR show. Climate refugees in Louisiana, fleeing coastal erosion in the Mississippi delta. Jesus Christ, who believes this kind of crap? Griff, do you believe it? Really, not just as a knee jerk? Do you believe climate models are science? Talk to me.

      • Griff,
        You remind me of the small child experiencing it’s first strong thunderstorm, clutching at its parent’s body, terrified that the end of the world is near. Every crash of thunder, every powerful wind gust causes the child to shudder in fear. All the while the parent is trying to calm it, and reassure it that the storm will pass. Don’t panic.

      • Chris — The onus is on you to prove a link between “megafloods” and climate change. That is the hypothesis that you must support. It is much more challenging to prove a non-link. There is plenty of data on historical droughts and floods.

        For instance, long-term droughts — “Maps show the spatial extent of drought during the (left) twelfth- and (right) sixteenth-century megadroughts, showing (top) the single worst years within (bottom) the periods of drought. This analysis suggests that droughts earlier in the paleoclimatic record (some 600–1200 years ago) were much more severe and extensive than droughts of the twentieth century.” {B.I. Cook, et al multiple sources). Even this past century, droughts were more significant in the 1930s than they are now.

        Floods — “Trend analyses for the 572 eastern United States gaging stations provide little evidence at this point (2009) for increasing flood peak distributions associated with human-induced climate change.” (Villarini, et al, Journal of American Water Resources, 2009.) In general, these sources point out that any change in flooding is due to natural variation, water management (dams & levies), and land use changes — not climate change.

        These reports are consistent worldwide.

        Griff — When referring to the Arctic, you say it is “massively lower for the time of year” — I’m sure that is a scientific assessment. However, we’ve only had legitimate records on the Arctic since 1981 (It is not 1979, as the first two years were very poor numbers). It is not exactly a long record. (Your statement is not even true as 2016 is bottomed at 4.17 km2 vs. 2012 when it bottomed at 3.387 km2.) Even at that, my point is that the impact is negligible, despite the “massively lower” ice levels.

    • The great masterpiece of CAGW and Population Bomb hype, Soylent Green, was set 50 years in the future. In the distant year of… 2022.

      Only 6 years to go. ○¿●

  5. Part of the pathetic delusion of Climate Liars like Rolling Stone is their belief, which is based on nothing more than fervent need and desire, that their side is winning. I suppose it helps keep the troops’ spirits up.

    • Renewables work really well if you adapt your lifestyle to the production of renewable power, but this does make it a bit difficult to plan since you can never know very far in advance when you will have an unplanned two or three day holiday because it is calm and cloudy. Of course according to the elites, we know precisely what the temperature will be in 2100.

      • I have to agree with Leo, Renewables need oil to be made and don’t have enough output over their expected lifespan to power their own reproduction. They fit a niche in the market where conventional utility hookup is impossible or extremely costly. Wind and solar are only practical at the Consumer end of the grid. Using such inefficient and costly devices to power the grid is absurd, as seen with the giant turbines and Ivanpah. The “bigger hammer” approach used to apply it to the supply side of the grid is a huge ecological mistake.

      • Pop Piasa wrote: “Wind and solar are only practical at the Consumer end of the grid.”

        I agree. I hope the powers-that-be figure that out before they screw the whole works up for all of us.

    • Last year 32% of all German electricity was renewable.. not bad.

      And In your example I see at one point renewables supply 28GW out of about 80GW of demand. Not bad at all…

      • It was a good wind-year, half of the conventional power-stations had to idle and “renewable” was privileged und highly subsidized: There is nothing to boast about.

      • The link, which reflects current production in Germany, also demonstrates the underlying variability, which is why RE doesn’t work all that well.

      • 32% of electricity and 12.5% of total energy comes from renewable sources in Germany. As a result — their electricity costs 4-5x what it does in the United States. When you see your electricity bill each month, multiply it times 4. That is the economic impact of one-third of their energy coming from renewables. But don’t worry, the government subsidizes that cost, so it’s like being free.

        Biomass is also a major source of fuel in Germany. Biomass is a quadruple threat — it raises the cost of food, it eliminates natural forests, it raises the cost of fuel, and it increases the environmental impact compared to fossil fuels.

      • yes lorcan… and Germans use much less electricity than (e.g.) people in the US – plus they are very likely to have solar panels or be part of a renewable energy coop..

        Germans don’t import any biomass… what is not by product from forests is mostly manure.. yes, there is some crop input.

        Germans seem quite happy with this state of affairs: they are clearly getting ever more electricity from renewables…

      • yes lorcan… and Germans use much less electricity than (e.g.) people in the US – plus they are very likely to have solar panels or be part of a renewable energy coop..

        Germans don’t import any biomass… what is not by product from forests is mostly manure.. yes, there is some crop input.

        Germans seem quite happy with this state of affairs: they are clearly getting ever more electricity from renewables

        Kind of an oxy moronic statement
        It is obvious why they are using less and that is because they are getting more from uber expensive renewables so they have to use less or starve. It aint by choice

      • 12.5% according to the illustration, and half of that was biomass and synthetic gas. Both are combustible, and contribute to the CO2 balance. Why would you go to renewables at all? When oil and coal are much more affordable.

      • Yo Griff. I’ve lived in a place with prohibitively expensive electricity. You, obviously, have not. Our bungalow (hovel really) in Scotland had a coin box on the electricity supply. You had to keep dropping £1 coins to keep the heat on. In Scotland. In winter. Not a pleasant experience at all, at all.

      • Germans use much less electricity than (e.g.) people in the US
        ====================
        So do North Koreans. Wearing a hair shirt may make you feel noble, but it does not make you noble.

      • Griff you idiot, if renewables worked as the propaganda says, then the Germans would be able to use far more power than they do and it would cost less than in the US.

        Wake up.

    • The author, Andy Kroll, didn’t explain the 87%. Maybe he was referring to a sunny, windy electricity production day, when coal and gas have to throttle down to let the „renewables“ pass.
      In 2015 „renewables“ produced as much as 12.6 % of the gross primary energy demand in Germany and 31.6 % of the demand for electrical energy (188 of 646 TWhs (wind 12.3%, sun 6%, water 2.2%). I say „as much“ because superfluous wind-energy is exported – not consumed as produced. Everything else was produced by one half of the existing conventional power stations (the other half did nothing). If one thinks that the „renewables“ would actually not have been necessary, one would be right.

      In May 2016 overall net electrical energy capacity was 204 GW. „Renewables“ were 98 GW (wind and sun 84 GW) = 48 %. Up to 80 GW are necessary to power the grid (mostly around 60 GW).
      https://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie/Strommarkt-der-Zukunft/zahlen-fakten.html

      I f you need an article against republicans (or Hillary), Mr. Kroll is for hire. http://andy-kroll.com/contact-me/

    • The author, Andy Kroll, didn’t explain the 87%. Maybe he was referring to a sunny, windy day of electricity production, when coal and gas have to throttle down to let the „renewables“ pass.

      In 2015 „renewables“ produced as much as 12.6 % of the gross primary energy demand in Germany and 31.6 % of the demand for electrical energy (188 of 646 TWhs (wind 12.3%, sun 6%, water 2.2%). I say „as much“ because superflous wind-energy is exported – not consumed as produced. Everything else was produced by one half of the existing conventional power stations (the other half did nothing). If one thinks that the „renewables“ would actually not have been necessary, one would be right.

      In May 2016 overall net electrical energy capacity was 204 GW. „Renewables“ were 98 GW (wind and sun 84 GW) = 48 %.
      https://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie/Strommarkt-der-Zukunft/zahlen-fakten.html

      I f you need an article against republicans (or Hillary), Mr. Kroll is for hire.

  6. Long before Paris, the renewable-energy revolution was underway – Germany can now power up to 87 percent of the country using renewable sources,

    Not so fast …


    Germany Hits Delay With Climate-Change Plan Ahead of U.N. Meeting in Marrakesh

    Postponement marks latest stumble for Germany in cutting emissions since it decided to speed up phaseout of nuclear energy

    BERLIN—The German government is postponing approval of a wide-ranging set of measures to combat climate change less than a week before a high-profile international meeting on combating global warming.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/germany-hits-delay-with-climate-change-plan-ahead-of-u-n-meeting-in-marrakesh-1478113721

    • So, is Germany abandoning renewables?

      Removing them?

      Moving away from accepting climate change?

      No. It just has a problem getting its govt depts. to agree on its latest plans in a timely manner.

      • What does “accepting climate change” mean to you Griff?
        None of us here reject climate change. We can see that it has happened all through history and happens continually and continuously. We can also see from the record that for the most part, warming has occurred near the poles – during the winters, since 1980 or so. The lack of summer anomalies is what has falsified the predictions of a total melt. When it’s -20C instead of -35C like we have established “normal”, ice still remains ice.
        This is a phenomenon which has historic precedents (unless you adjust them away) and on a millennial scale would be considered a normal variation, particularly since the global temperature was nearly static for 18 years and there was some recovery of Arctic sea ice before this latest El Nino. We can expect that in the later interglacial there should be shrinkage of global ice volume.
        Will you accept that climate change is not human controlled if this solar minimum mimics the Dalton min and exerts negative changes to the global temperature?

      • Griff: “Moving away from accepting climate change?”

        You silly little tr0ll, EVERYBODY accepts that the climate changes, always has, always will.

        How many times must you be told that to get it into your thick head, you offensive little nitwit?

        Do you NEVER tire of making an utter fool of yourself?

      • No, Germany is not “abandoning renewables”. Neither is the United States for that matter. Is that the only choice? They are either 100% or zero?

        In Germany, off shore wind has been a disaster. They have not been successful in making it work. In addition, they are still faced with problems associated with the interruption of power. They need to run fossil fuel plants, even when they are supplying energy from wind power.

        Of course, the economics of this transition are easy to understand. As fossil fuel consumption declines, so does the price. That means that the cost impact of renewables compared to fossil fuels gets worse.

        That 87% number is nonsense. That was a momentary spike of renewables and not a practical figure for comparison.

  7. When otherwise serious people want to believe that colder winters are caused by “global warming”, or that water reservoirs are an “underappreciated source of greenhouse gases”, whatever we have, it is not science. Because all of the solutions suggested and demanded by advocates of “global warming” all converge to the same socialistic ones of bigger government, less liberty, less prosperity, lower personal energy use, this is far more an ideological issue than one of science.

    For me personally, as I write this comment, this very spot of ground some 50 thousand years ago was under a thousand or more feet of glacial ice. Only a moron would deny that the climate changes, that indeed it always is changing. So, what, exactly is meant by “climate change”? Is it the very valid question: is human activity changing the climate in a way that harms the biosphere? The related question must be: to that extent is any change that is qualifiable attributed to natural cycles apart from human activit? Is it really more a question of ideology than of science?

    Secular progressives demand every right to be skeptical of any claims there is a Creator God. I reserve the very same right to be skeptical of their claims that human activity is materially harming the present climate. If they can throw me in jail for being a denyer, then I can do likewise to them. Do we really want to go down that road?

  8. Good article on international psychology – and I believe it is accurate. The majority of the world’s governments are based on an authoritarian model. The success of the major republics proves the economic weakness of that system. The kings and dictators badly need something to blame besides their own system of government. America is the big target for that purpose.

    • “The kings and dictators badly need something to blame besides their own system of government. America is the big target for that purpose.”

      That’s true. The U.S. is a convenient whipping boy for all her enemies, foreign and domestic.

      I would have to argue with the author about Americans needing to be loved by other nations. I think that only pertains to those on the Left. I personally, don’t have a need to be loved, especially by dictators and tyrants.

      I want to get along with as many people as is possible, but I’m not going to go groveling and begging them for love. I don’t feel the need. I don’t feel a need to offer them money so they will be my friend. Giving away money is the only way the Left makes “friends”.

  9. It’s not about being liked — at least, not directly. It’s about invoking the well-known persuader, herd instinct. Get with the plan! Everybody else is doing it! This is what the ‘cool’ people are doing! 97% of scientists agree! Think about hula hoops and Cabbage-patch Dolls. The technique is a standard weapon in the advertising armoury because it works.

    The beauty of this argument is that, even if you turn out to be wrong, everybody else is, too, so you don’t have to endure the painful experience of being singled out for your stupidity. In fact, after periods of mass stupidity, there is generally a broad, tacit agreement to forget about it.

    In the absence of decent scientific arguments to support a predetermined outcome (and where the use of coercive power is impractical), it is necessary to use mass persuaders. There are others, but the most effective form of argument is an appeal to the prejudices of the target audience. (Who, out there, DOESN’T want to save the planet?) This is why many an orator will rehash some ‘facts’ or beliefs with which his audience will substantially agree, then hit them with his proposition, which turns out to be a natural extension of these indisputable beliefs.

    The only real defence is to be perpetually wary of all attempts to persuade — particularly from people you are inclined to like. This involves a level of scepticism (and willingness to fact-check) that is far beyond what most individuals are inclined to implement. So, brains in ‘neutral’, they coast along in comfortable association with like-minded colleagues.

    Maybe George Orwell had it all worked out: “Looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery. We may be heading, not for general breakdown, but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity.”

    • The whole of the article from which that Orwell quote is taken is most emphatically worth reading, and given the present – and, likely, future – direction in weapons technology, offers at least a faint glimmer of hope:

      “It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon – so long as there is no answer to it – gives claws to the weak.”

      • I would add, not just difficult to make, but difficult to master as well.
        For example, a staff is easy to make, it’s just a piece of wood. But mastering one takes time.

      • That quote is ridiculous. We overthrew a tyrant government in the age of muskets, yet atomic bombs arose in an era of democracy.

        The Orwell citation was a specific reaction to the atomic bombs dropping in Japan. Seventy years of history should temper that perception. Keep in mind that it was developed as a response to tyrants; it was not developed by tyrants.

      • Orwell’s point was an unintended bow to the Founders’ wisdom as effected in the 2nd Amendment. However, “democratic weapons” do not necessarily produce stability, as we see from the effectiveness of individual firearms and small bombs vs the too-big-to-use “tyrannical weapons” like nucs and other WMD. Indeed, even “tanks, battleships and bombing planes” have proved ineffective against lesser weapons in most cases since the ’60’s.

      • Don’t get carried away with modern assumptions. When the British marched against the armory at Concord, the militia weapons stored there (as I understand it) included artillery fieldpieces. And the Constitution, under the power of issuing letters of marque and reprisal implicitly recognized the legitimacy of private possession of warships, the most powerful weapon system of the time.

    • “It’s not about being liked — at least, not directly. It’s about invoking the well-known persuader, herd instinct. Get with the plan! Everybody else is doing it! This is what the ‘cool’ people are doing! 97% of scientists agree! Think about hula hoops and Cabbage-patch Dolls. The technique is a standard weapon in the advertising armoury because it works.”

      Exactly correct! Humans have an innate desire to fit in and be part of the larger group. I think it stems from the feeling that the group’s knowledge is superior to the individual. This would be a matter of survival in early humans. So it carries over into the modern era. But then, there are always a few non-conformists and skeptics in every group. Group think is not always the correct way of looking at things. Group think is what the controllers of modern society use to control that society. I’m reminded of the Japanese story about how the flooring nail that sticks up in the air, gets hammered down, sending the message that it is good to conform. Those who control society want you to conform. To their point of view. Or suffer the consequences.

    • “It’s not about being liked”

      As a wise man once said, “You can always judge a man not by his friends, but by the quality of his enemies”.

    • There was an old joke about an Australian PM and his wife who went to a fancy dress party naked except that she wore a lemon and he wore a potato.

      When asked who they had come as, the response was that he was a dictator and she was a sour puss.

      Sorry. I’ll now return you to normal programming.

      • Many years ago, what I enjoyed most about the ‘Stralians was their sense of humor. (Or “hurmour” — whatever). Then, they went all serious on us. No more jokes about World War One (“If we don’t fight in Europe, the Germans will take over Australia.” — “They can bloody have it, mate…”) or even accepting Terry Pratchett’s gentle ribbing about Aussie culture.

        When the heck did you loose the ability to laugh about living in a place where mammals lay eggs, giant spiders eat crocks and the worship of beer is an accepted aspect of the Church of England? And when did your whiney liberals decide that they would “move to New Zealand” if they didn’t get their way? (Here in the US, when the California social justice warriors threaten to move to Canada, the rest of us offer to pack their bags and drive them to the airport. Of course, the Canucks will probably refuse to let the in, but that’s another problem.)

        Come visit us in the Great North of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and the Dakotas. We’ll be happy to let you fire fully automatic weapons, make fun of politicians and say what you like.

        Science was built on the ideas of skeptics. That’s the whole bloody point, mate! (Sorry for cultural appropriation. I will drink three beers as my penance.)

        We’ll keep a whitetail deer on the barbie for you, mate.

  10. Mr. Worrall, you’re usually quite astute, but I’m afraid you’ve dropped the ball here. “[T]he national desire to be liked and accepted by the global community” is, at most, a minor consequence. America’s greatest weakness is that way too many Americans – to say nothing of the rest of the world – are far from “[knowing] deep in their hearts” that “America achieved greatness through hard work, commitment to fair laws, and through the wisdom of the constitution written by the founding fathers, which set important limits to government power” and, instead, either don’t understand or explicitly reject that idea.

    • I would not say that Eric had dropped the ball. That’s the wrong metaphor. I would say, though, that he underestimates America’s indifference to the rest of the world.

      I agree that we have indeed lost sight of what made America great. When was the last time you heard the phrase “protestant work ethic”?

      • You can’t talk about “work ethic” any more or you’ll be accused of committing racist microaggressions and shunned from polite (i.e., progressive) society.

    • commieBob @November 3, 2016 6:24 pm:
      You’re right about the metaphor, but that’s the only thing I could think of that didn’t seem too parochial. I was going to say something like: Outside policy wonk circles, “[T]he national desire to be liked and accepted by the global community” is on par with national desire to be liked and accepted by space aliens, and a goodly number of Americans are only sporadically even aware of the existence of the rest of the world; but since that wasn’t my main point I decided to just imply it.

      Doug @November 3, 2016 6:31 pm:
      Thanks. WRT the vid: Holy #*?*&!!?*! And if Mark Dice could bottle that poker face, he’d get rich selling it to pro players.

      • Mark Dice’s face in the corner is by far the best part of his videos. He should do the evening news here for us all. Love him.

  11. “the only place left on Earth where lawmakers openly and avidly deny the science of climate change is the U.S. Congress.”

    Makes me proud to be an American.

      • This Green ‘win’ is a good thing and should be supported by every AGW sceptic because, as I understand it, the ruling was based on particulate emissions, not CO2. Happy to be proven otherwise though.

        Particulates are nasty, the evidence is fairly conclusive as far as I can gather.

        The point is that if we sceptics celebrate the good things the greens do, we become more difficult to tar with the brush of ‘mad heretics’.

      • All depends on the size of the particulate.
        The nasty stuff was taken care of years and decades ago.
        The stuff they are trying to control now, hasn’t been proven to be harmful.

      • Some people just can’t bring themselves to admit that they aren’t the brightest person in the room. So they have to bring everyone else down to their level.

    • Me too, Walter, me too. The rest of the world is sharing a bit of our wake up. Britain and Australia are starting to reject climate alarmism insanity. Canada, while still reliably socialist, nevertheless remains committed to mining its oil sands and building common sense pipeline infrastructure. There IS a strong conservative religious aspect of the migratory Latinos. Maybe one day they will wake up to the fundamental hostility of world socialism toward religious freedom. When Greenpeace professional paid protesters finally lose their credibility, the environmental “movement” will take years to recover and reset. I only hope that day comes sooner rather than later. This will damage the broader One-world government socialist movement, but it will not destroy it, nor can that particular political malignancy ever be be destroyed. When a callow youth, I used to believe in the promise of a world-wide government. Now I see it as a horror to be avoided at all costs, at least until human economic, political, cultural, religious and ethnic divisions homogenize and harmonize to a vastly greater extent.

      • “There IS a strong conservative religious aspect of the migratory Latinos. Maybe one day they will wake up to the fundamental hostility of world socialism toward religious freedom.”

        That’s a good point. Let’s hope that happens.

    • There is a lot of noise but very little “science” in climate science. In fact it’s loaded with half-baked doomsday scenarios designed to scare the dependent underclass; 99% accomplished with models that
      use no empirical data even though its available. Hey if your data doesn’t give you the result you want, just change the data. You can argue all you want over scientific or statistical points with which you disagree, it means nothing. You are wasting time and energy; the warmist politicians simply invent another lie.

      Politicians cherry pick what they want, usually what will enrich them personally, and they attempt to make it policy and or law. They don’t care if its good or terrible science; you can’t avoid the fact its corruption.

  12. I liked that bit about parts of Australia being 100% powered by wind. No need to mention that this occurs infrequently, and definitely no need to mention the recent debacle caused by 300 MW of this purest of electricities suddenly disappearing from the grid.

  13. What you described is the American left not just other nations. It is the immature worldview that another’s achievement indicates my failure. It’s like the toddler that needs to get a present too even thought it’s his brother’s birthday. It’s pathetic. The whole of leftdom is like this. Always has been always will be.

    • Reminds me off my wife’s comment during the rain delay at the world series last night, “instead of all this stuff” . She said, “Why don’t they all give them ribbons, hug and go home?”
      I thought it was priceless!

    • These people are mentally functioning at the level of a 5 year old. They will say anything, tell any lie, eschew logic desperately seek attention and compete for it in any way.
      You cannot argue with them, they just need the naughty step, yet academia is giving them the attention that drives their disorder.

      – the internet

    • Yes, it’s the same basic premise that underlies all Malthusian thought, that the world’s resources are a zero sum game and one person getting more equates to them getting less. We need to look to our education systems, and to stop the institutional brainwashing of children in leftist ideology before anything will change. I personally would like the age of full political majority reduced back down to 18. No more Obamacare on your parents policy till age 26 and crap like that.

  14. The premise of the excerpted work is bogus from the start.
    Australia, Russia, Britain, and others have political parties, that to a greater or lesser extent dispute the climate consensus.
    Switzerland voted in large majority to NOT go down the climate consensus path.
    So as usual , the climate committed are not very committed to truth.

    • You are 100% correct. And if you tune in to the news in Australia, you’ll find that it’s the rest of the world that’s showing the way and we’re the agrarian simpletons. The same trick is done in every part of the world to bully people into following the message like sheep being led into an abattoir.

    • UK political parties don’t dispute the climate consensus.
      (Except UKIP, who are a joke and have no actual power)

      • Fortunately they are also aware of the expence of the costly renewable alternatives and what that will eventually do to the EU…thus part of the reason for the Brexit

  15. “I believe the reason is the national desire to be liked and accepted by the global community is America’s greatest weakness”

    Well, as applied to our politicians you have a good point. But for us “Regular Americans” I don’t think this applies. As an American whose family roots go back to before our revolution I really don’t remember very many family talks around the Thanksgiving table about why “some other country” does not like us. Most of us don’t really care.

    Don’t get me wrong, I have spend time on 6 of the 7 continents voluntarily. I loved my visits to Australia, beautiful country, very friendly folks, amazing history, breathtaking wildlife (gotta love those platypus, if I had not seen one in the wild I would never have believed it, all we got is a big fat crappy beaver in comparison).

    But I was just visiting and I tried to be polite and make some friends, but I really don’t give a fig if you all hate me because I think the USA should do what is good and proper for the USA first, all the while trying to help friendly nations as best we can.

    So if some folks don’t think that us Americans should worry about our own house first before we shed tears for others foolish beliefs that they can “regulate the climate” so be it.

    “There is only one major political party in the world that denies the existence of climate change. And it happens to be in charge of the most important political body in the world.”

    HUH??? If Americans are so stupid, how did our elected representatives (US House of Representatives and US Senate) become the “most important political body in the world”. Maybe all the other “political bodies” should just “stand down” and get out of the way ?

    Interesting post, thanks, KevinK

    • Easy on the Beaver, It provides food, housing and safety for its family. By its industry it provides food and shelter for it neighbor.

      • Yeah, I know, Beavers are really hard workers and I do admire them. I was just exaggerating about how some animals that spend most of their life in water behave.

        But, male platypus have venomous spines on their rear feet, how cool is that….. Boy I wish I had venomous spines anyplace on my body, that would be So cool……

        Cheers, KevinK

    • Here’s the elucidation: It is our globalist elite who are concerned that we are not “playing nice” with everyone else, because balking at warmunism creates a discord in the impending harmonization with the global World Order. People? What they think? Pah! Irrelevant. Feed them mental (media) mush, with empty intellectual calories.

  16. Cong. John Dingell, now retired was replaced by Waxman also now retired for whom the Waxman-Markey
    Cap-and-Trade bill was named.

    Dingell was a very strong advocate for the U.S. auto industry and keeping vehicle mileage requirements/ CAFE in check to protect U.S. auto jobs.

    Dingell out as Committee chair. and Waxman in and the rest is history.

  17. American foreign policy is an oxymoron and I don’t believe Americans care. The beat of our drum has sustained us very well and in a mere 200 years our society has progressed beyond most in terms of standard of living for all and acceptance of all. I think Australia is in the same category. The constant bombardment of failed and imaginary AGW hype in our press and from our government is recognized for what it is and nothing more. Americans care less, and believe less, about AGW than foreign policy.

    • Good to hear from proud Americans
      We downunder have homegrown critics who
      run the following lines (we call them “self loathing leftists”)
      ” I am ashamed to be an Australian”
      “I am thinking of emigrating to New Zealand”
      At this point I offer to pay $200 for a one way air ticket
      “Australia is a racist bigoted country”

      No use pointing out we have people from
      130 nationalities with very little racial strife
      We take up to 300000 immigrants pa from all over the world Europe Turkey South America India China Vietnam Africa
      We will now take near 20000 refugees pa plus 12000
      from Syria plus students from all over
      Hardly any race riots to speak of
      Laws against hate speech
      Walk down streets of any city to see many Asian faces and increasingly Sudanese Ethiopians Somalis -most refugees from war torn African nations riven by tribal and religious hatreds -and many now making their mark in Australian football and Basketball
      As we say here “give me a break”
      The late Robert Hughes former Australian born Art critic of the NYT
      entiltled a book he wrote “The Culture of Complaint” How right he was

      • When self-loathing lefties tell us they are ashamed of being (fill in the blank) or fell guilty because of (fill in the blank again), they are simply indulging in spiritual masturbation. Feeling guilty gives them a thrill, lets them know they are at the bleeding edge of caring for humanity, indulges their fantasies that they are on a higher plane altogether than those toiling idiots who merely get on with making the world go round. We should pity them really – there is so little of any substance in their lives.

      • It’s difficult to know how people in other countries view average Americans (that is, those of us who do not write for the New York Times or appear on network television). From here in the equivalent of the American “outback” (in my case, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan), we just try to get on with our lives. Good to know, Thomho, that you understand that at least some of the American people have retained our sanity.

        Whatever happens Tuesday (just four days!), at least I think that we’ve gained one thing from the past 18 months or so: (1) the standard “news” media have been entirely discredited, (2) as a result, the alternative forms of information, such as WUWT have gained a greater following and, certainly, (3) the lines have been more clearly drawn between those who believe in the power of the state and those who believe in local, even individual, control over their lives.

        I’m not sure that many people outside the United States really understand that this country was considered, from its very founding, as an “experiment.” When Benjamin Franklin left the Pennsylvania Hall on the morning of July 5, 1776, he was asked by a woman in the waiting crowd, “What type of government shall we have?” Franklin replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” Read what we call “The Founders” wrote in the months after the Declaration of Independence, and even after the Constitution: They were amazingly dark and pessimistic in their view of the long-term condition of a nation dedicated to individual freedom — and responsibility.

        Another Franklin quote: “Those who are willing to trade freedom for security will achieve neither.” (I may have gotten that slightly incorrect, but close enough for government work.)

        Well, those of us who live in the out-of-the-way places will probably hold onto our freedoms a little longer, but, in the long run, it will take a major shift in popular and political society to bring about an understanding of the balance between freedom and responsibility.

        Let’s see what happens on November 8th.

  18. Change America to Australia and you can see that argument being run here all the time as well. Others are doing something so we should too, we will fall behind (behind what is never said) or will will miss out, we aren’t ranked high enough on some league table produced by some dubious agency. More stuff to scare the citizens with.

  19. The desire to pull down America does not explain the origin of climate hysteria. Climate hysteria was made possible by the decay of science. The people most responsible for the decay of science are scientists themselves who failed to notice or do anything about the misuse of science generally within society. e.g. Misuse of statistics, especially in social psychology and cancer studies, misuse of models in economics. Misuse of science in medicine especially by pharmaceutical companies. Science envy in social sciences: especially economics and psychology. Instead of noticing the decay of science, scientists, perhaps saw its apparent extension to economics and social psychology as a triumph of science, or “evidence-based reasoning”. Where are the “Journal of Pseudoscience”, and “Journal of Scientific Misuse”? Looks like they’ve never been published.

    Who needs another article pointing the finger of blame? What can this article achieve?

  20. Well, the Paris Agreement came into force last night – ratifications even faster than expected.
    Which tells you something about how the world sees climate change – a real thing which needs addressing.

    I don’t see the point this article is making… US Republicans are the largest and in effect the only significant world body which does not accept the science of climate change. The rest of the world clearly does and will call US Republicans on this… that’s just the way the world is.

    If I was going to look for penguins, I’d head first to Antarctic… if I want climate deniers I’d look in the US Republican party. There are other populations, but there’s one place you find the most…

    Climate science rejection is in the main a political stance, advocated on the basis of political beliefs. It lives in the US Republican right, the alt right and those political groupings world wide which have a similar viewpoint (largely in the UK and Australia outside the US)

    • And climate science advocation is also a similar political stance simply on the Liberal side of the same coin. Despite what is written in the Liberal Media, weather events haven’t gotten “worse” only redefined with more horrific terminology like “Storm vs Super Storm” and “Tropical Storm vs Severe Tropical Storm”. Hurricane numbers haven’t increased and Major Hurricane intensities haven’t increased, in fact Major Hurricanes have decreased in occurance overall.

      As has been stated before, most of those that have already ratified the Paris Aggreement are those countries that stand to financially benefit from it, those which stand to receive Climate Reparation funds. Even China will benefit from it as it has no teeth with which to force them to create a burden on their economic growth.

    • Wow, a treaty with no enforcement mechanism, and that doesn’t require anything of most of the countries signing it.
      Gee whiz, doesn’t take much to get you excited.

    • Well, Damn.

      Someone actually came in here and brought down the IQ level. Thanks griffy! For nothing.

    • You can’t call it “the science” all you want, but it isn’t science, or most of it isn’t. If you mix a bit of apple sauce in pig shit, it doesn’t make the result apple sauce.

      • I was going to say something similar, but hat tip to you. He calls this “science” with a straight face. Which says more about his understanding of science, than his understanding of the dogma.

    • Climate science rejection is in the main a political stance, advocated on the basis of political beliefs

      Well Griff, as usual there is some truth in what you say. There are a significant number of such people, and we see plenty of them here (where ideas are freely exchanged; a feature that WUWT doesn’t share with a lot of alarmist sites).

      The reason that politically motivated sceptics have a voice that needs to be listened to, is due to the efforts of a relatively small group of (mostly) scientists who have looked at the colossal edifice of “climate science” and the policies that derive from it, and have found that the underlying hypotheses of “climate science” are really shaky and would not stand up to a serious and objective scrutiny. What we (I’m reasonably happy to be one of them) see when we look at “climate science” is a muddle of physics that nobody seems to have ever tested in a laboratory setting,cherry-picked data, “adjusted” data, computer simulations that appear to have input parameters that guarantee the outcomes, and poor logic. That’s actually a rather charitable description. Climate Science’s three big blind spots appear to be (1) not taking account of the role of water vapour in discussing the greenhouse effect, and not properly accounting for clouds, (2) asserting that natural climate change stopped some time around 1960 and (3) not even looking at the Sun, which is the source of essentially all the warmth that makes our planet liveable. And apparently not caring about these monstrous omissions.

      What I (as a geologist) see when I look at climate science is an inability, unwillingness (or possibly an outright and dogmatic refusal) to accept the following observations about earth history:

      1.. The earth’s climate over most of the last 550 million years (it gets too fuzzy before that because of the lack of fossils) has been stable over long periods, and much warmer than today.

      2. We are living in an ice age and global temperatures have been up and down like a toilet seat for several million years.

      3. within the ice age, glacial periods occupy about 90 percent of the time (based on data for the last 700,000 years) and those glacial periods have been really cold.

      4. We happen to live in an interglacial period (or more likely, we are who we are BECAUSE our civilisation became possible during an interglacial..

      5. Not all interglacials (actually, the 5 we have semi-reliable data on) have been equally warm. The present one that we call the Holocene appears to have been not as warm as the previous one (now called the Eemian), during which the Greenland icecap probably mostly melted.

      6. Within the current interglacial (the only one with high enough resolution of the data) there have been colder periods (stadials) and warmer periods (interstadials) that appear to have a roughly 1,000-year periodicity (based on eyeball analysis without benefit of Fourier transforms or deconvolution filters, which, in the interest of compete disclosure, are a bit beyond me).

      7. Not all interstadials have been equally warm. In fact, there appears to have been a progressive decline in maximum temperatures over all the interstadials since the Holocene Optimum. That the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago was warmer than today (the Modern Warm Period) is well documented by written records in China, written histories and archaeological evidence (no proxies needed thanks). Assertions to the contrary are just that – assertions that are only supported by selected data. Ice-core paleothermometry indicates that the previous two interstadials (Roman and Minoan Warm Periods) were both warmer than the MWP.

      8. We are now about 200 years into an interstadial. Whether or not we are at or near the peak will not be apparent until after the peak has passed. Since the start of the industrial age coincides closely with the transition from stadial to interstadial, it has got warmer by a degree or two.

      9. Within the current interstadial and probably during the latter part of the last stadial (called the Little Ice Age) there appears to be a 60-year cycle in global temperatures (eyeball deconvolution at work), which is widely accepted and equally widely attributed to the effects of the AMO and the different ways it controls the movement of hear from the Caribbean towards the Arctic. Before that the data just aren’t good enough, but there’s no reason to assume that the AMO wasn’t effective over long periods.

      10. Computer Simulations of climate (“models”) manage to attribute the slight cooling from 1949 to 1960 to industrial pollution and volcanic aerosols. They also depend on volcanoes to temper the post-1970 warming to only twice the actual measured warming. But their projections of accelerating warming from 2000 on (which REALLY don’t match observations) contain NO VOLCANOES. So we are asked to accept that, not only did natural climate change stop in 1960, but the volcanic activity ceased after Mt Pinatubo. Those positions are so obviously wrong that ridicule seems to be the only appropriate response.

      I look at all this and I think “what’s all the fuss about”. Quite possibly adding previously sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere may have a modest effect on climate. But I see no cause to worry about it. Really, what was wrong with farms in Greenland or vineyards in Yorkshire?). Climate alarmism does not answer those questions. Really: it’s a very important question – what was wrong with warmer climates in Medieval and Roman times? It’s a rhetorical question; no need to answer it.

      Scepticism is not an arrogant challenge to “accepted” theory or “settled” science. Scepticism is the proper attitude of all scientists to all theories, hypotheses and principles, however narrowly or however widely they may be accepted. That’s how science works, and that’s how science has given us the technologies that make our lives comfortable. The alarmist stance appears to regard that material comfort as somehow immoral, and in this it shares a lot with the humanity-hating movements like Calvinism, Wahabbism, Maoism, Pol-Pot-ism and all their more or less extreme variants. Like them, climate alarmism seems to want to take away joy and comfort from the world. (but slowly and incrementally, so we won’t feel it until it’s too late).

    • Oh good grief!!!!!

      So you believe that America achieved “cotton growing” greatness via the use of slavery?

      And I suppose that you also think the US Civil War was initiated solely for the purpose of doing away with and prohibiting “slavery” within the territories borders of the US, …….. right?

      • Cotton didn’t make America great. It made a number of Southernors rich, but that was it.
        And no, the civil war was not about eliminating slavery. It was fought to so that the North wouldn’t lose their colonies in the south.

      • Sorta, kinda true. The civil war, MarkW, was fought over what the South would do to defend slavery, namely seceed from the Union. Much of the opposition by the North was nationalistic originally, and the South could have temporarily preserved slavery with a compromise, as the Republicans never had the votes in 1860 to abolish it.
        De facto, though, the South won much of what they wanted in the destruction of Reconstruction after the sellout of the Hayes/Tilden election, and was not settled until the 1960’s.

      • Sorta, kinda true. The civil war, Tom Halla, was fought over the issue of State’s Rights, but more importantly, ….. high Tariff Rates, to wit:

        (Southern) Planters knew that when tariff rates go up, cotton prices go down. They also knew that, when in power, the Republicans would raise tariff rates. Cotton prices would consequently fall to ruinous levels. They would face poverty–certain and severe.

        The rise of tariff rates from the lowest at 15% to the highest at 55% causes cotton prices to fall from 35 cents per pound to about 5 cents per pound. That is an eighty-five percent (85%) drop in income for the southern cotton plantations.

        That would be a spectacular and ruinous drop in income for any business. Moreover, the planters would be unable to lay off their workers. Their workers, the slaves, still had to be fed, clothed, housed and provided with health care.

        Based on Representative George Smith Houston’s estimate of increased revenue to be gained by the increased tariff rates in the Morrill Tariff Bill of 1860 and the relationship shown above, each dollar ($1) of increased federal revenue by the tariff would cause the South more than three dollars ($3) in lost cotton and tobacco revenue alone.

        Read more @ http://civilwarcause.com/relationship.html or elsewhere iffen ya like.

        The Northern politicians didn’t give a “crapolla” about the Southern plantation owners facing ruination by going “belly up and broke” …….. and the “first shot” of the War of Cessation was fired …… and the rest is highly biased history.

      • Samuel, as long as the Southerners remained in the Federal government, the Republicans did not have a sufficient majority to pass anything. Lincoln was a minority president, remember. Largely, the South commited suicide politically.

      • MarkW is correct about cotton, but it isn’t even true that the South was more proficient at producing cotton (tons/acre/year). Look at the census statistics for 1850, for example. In all ways, the North was more proficient…but in the South, the profit accrued solely to the slaveowners. What cared they for efficiency?

        As for the cause of the Civil War, it was indeed slavery. I get this from family history passed down from my great-great-grandfather on my father’s side. It was clearly understood that this was a war to end slavery, and he urged his son (my great-grandfather) to enlist and continue the fight if he were fallen. All the political perspective comes to an end in the simple fact that the Confederacy existed for one reason, and only one reason: to perpetuate slavery, in defiance of the Union and God.

        The slave states were doomed. The North had higher productivity and was steadily effacing the South’s advantages. Slave expansion to the west was their only hope, but that stalled. They could see that it would only be a matter of time before slavery would be outlawed, and sought to secede in order to create a bastion in which to continue their practice.

      • Michael J. Dunn – November 4, 2016 at 3:03 pm

        As for the cause of the Civil War, it was indeed slavery. I get this from family history passed down from my great-great-grandfather on my father’s side. It was clearly understood that this was a war to end slavery, ……

        Well now, Michael J., iffen you and all your forefathers and foremothers actually believe/believed it was a war to end slavery, ….. then please explain to me why it wasn’t the Northern States that fired the 1st shots and launched an attack on the Southern slave states to “free” all the slaves.

        Or better yet, iffen the Northern States and their elected Politicians in Congress were actually determined to “end slavery” …… then why in hell didn’t they provide aid, arms, support and encouragement to John Brown and all of his followers …… instead of ignoring, badmouthing, berating, demonizing, etc., etc., all of his actions and then ordering the US Military to “hang” him and all of his followers for their “mission” to free the slaves. Geeze, why is not all the descendants of past slaves “touting” John Brown as their most honored “hero” of their “freedom from slavery”. HA, …… JB was hung long, long time before MLK was shot.

        Here Michael J., ….. read about your “original” hero.
        http://www.civilwar.org/150th-anniversary/john-browns-harpers-ferry.html

        And don’tja be forgettin that the Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863 … which was 1 year, 8 months and 19 days after the start of the Civil War, which was April 12, 1861.

        So, iffen the Civil War was indeed about slavery ……. then why in hell didn’t President Lincoln sign his Emancipation Proclamation either on or before April 12, 1861?

        But I can tell you why he wrote up the EP and signed it on January 1, 1863, ….. and it was because he (the North) was losing the War and Lincoln figured if he “freed the slaves” they would fight for the North and thus help him “win the War”. Lincoln also un-Constitutionally signed cessation documents on June 20, 1863, that permitted/authorized/dictated that Western Virginia was to become a separate and distinct State in the Union, …… and that action by Lincoln was also done in order for him to “win the War”.

        The Democrats are for the poor” …… and that is exactly why there are millions n’ millions of “poor folks” in the US of A. The Democrats know that if they can keep a large percentage of the population …… barefoot, hungry, poor and uneducated that they will believe anything and everything that the Democrats tell them …. and will vote for the Democrats again n’ again to get “more of the same” empty promises that they have been getting for the past hundred years or so.

      • Dear Samuel,

        Your first point is a logical fallacy. If someone provokes war, on the basis of perpetuating slavery, there is no contradiction in stamping out slavery to settle the issue.

        Your second point omits the fact that John Brown was an armed insurrectionist and murderer. No Congress is expected to abandon due process of law, or countenance insurrection and murder.

        Your third point is a recitation of fact, which is really not an argument at all. The sky is blue. Two plus two equals four. Sometimes practical politics have to catch up with the reality of events. Lincoln was trying only for restoration of the union to the status quo ante, but he could not have been insensible to the logical implication of how any such union could prevail. The future lay in freedom…as it always does.

        “The Democrats are for the poor” is not any quotation from me…but I do agree completely with what you say about Democrats.

        Eat all the corn pone you want, it carries no weight with me. I know what my family thought of the war that ultimately killed my great-great-grandfather of a wound that never fully healed, and why they thought so. I will say that maybe the North committed a great sin in agreeing to a union with states that practiced slavery, but that this sin was expiated in blood, as more Northerners were killed by far than Southerners.

    • America, as an entity, only had slavery from 1776 to 1865 … 89 years. Slavery has been abolished from 1865 to present 151 years. Not a single Slave is alive today and most decendants are more than 6 generations removed

    • “America achieved greatness via slavery?”

      Your country didn’t have slavery? There is no slavery in your country today? If you can answer no, then you are in the minority of countries.

  21. Rolling Stone have missed the fact that it is the governments of the nations that support global warming not the people. No nation that I know of has ever asked the people to vote on the subject. Polls rarely show it as being the most important issue they face. The UN poll has it at the bottom.

    • I’d refine the assertion that it is governments that support global warming (or whatever it’s called today) to assert that, it is, rather, politicians who support global warming, etc. The people largely couldn’t care less (unless they suffer negative consequences, such as $3 light bulbs and 45₵/kWh electricity).

      Politicians tend to support global warming (or whatever the latest fad is) because it affords them opportunity to get flattering face-time that helps their chances for re-election, all by using other peoples’ money and because, as politicians, they are usually insulated from any negative consequences for their support.

      Per my observation, nearly all politicians have a driving need to be loved/liked, especially by the media. In the US, having a “D” after one’s name alone is sufficient to be loved by the media. However, there is nothing that any politician with an “R” after his name can do to be loved/like by the media. Nonetheless, many “R” politicians keep turning handsprings (and betraying their principles and constituencies) vainly endeavoring to be an exception.

      This need to be loved/liked extends to wanting the nation to be like by the world since politicians self-inflate their importance to include personification of the nation and all of its inhabitants. I would prefer that the US be respected. If the US is loved/liked by any person or entity outside the US, that is gravy.

      • Just money scamming…
        Most people in the countries we surveyed say rich nations should do more than developing nations to address climate change. A median of 54% agree with the statement “Rich countries, such as the U.S., Japan and Germany, should do more than developing countries because they have produced most of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions so far.”

      • Griff. Iffen you polled 100% of the enrolled students on forty (40) of the US’s major college campuses ….. then I am sure that you would get similar results that ….. “climate change is a serious problem, and a college campus median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem”.

        So, whatsyer “point”, ….. Griff, …… that those young, 1st time away from mommy, non-experienced, un-educated teenagers and slightly older peers, …. knows more about and what’s best for the natural world we all live in/on, ….. than any other living group of people on the face of plant earth?

      • Sam, keep in mind that these “kids” will inherit the mess both you and I make. They are as naive an inexperienced as both you and I were when we were their age.

      • Interesting. But, as the graphic demonstrates, most of the “Green” countries that think Climate Change to be Serious are those that stand to financially gain from climate reparations. with the exception of 4 of the 28 Europe Union States (Spain, France, Germany, & Italy) which all suffer from the EU Orthodoxy

      • Argument by majority? The fact that most people are wrong about a subject doesn’t make it wise to accept their viewpoint. This is a classic fallacy in argument.

      • Richard Baguley, I would appreciate it if you did not include me as being “your partner” in the “messes” you were responsible for creating during your teenage and young-adult (under 24) years, …… or even your adult years.

        iffen you don’t put your “toys” and “playthings” down at an early adolescent “age” …… then you will still be carrying some of your “toys” throughout your adult years.

        And given the FACT that I was not responsible for “the making” of any of your said “messes” during my growing-up years, or during my College years, or during my working Career years and for sure not during my past few years of retirement ….. then the “blame” for all of those “messes” lies directly on the shoulders of you and your like-minded generational peers.

    • A lot of polls don’t even include it as a question, so I guess that helps frame it as a purely political creation with some scattering of data and unsupported publication efforts and talking heads.

  22. Quoting lead paragraph in article:

    Ever wondered why so many climate critiques of US policy emphasise that “the world” is moving to embrace climate measures, and America should keep up? As an Australian, an outsider, I have a theory. I believe the reason is the national desire to be liked and accepted by the global community is America’s greatest weakness – and the rest of the world knows it.

    Eric W, are all Australians afflicted with that same “national desire to be liked and accepted by the global community”?

    Or is it just the Academic Elites in all countries that are afflicted with that same “national desire ”?

    Or is it just the Political Elites in all countries that are afflicted with that same “national desire ”?

    Or maybe both the Academic Elites and the Political Elites are a “conjoined force” of that “national desire ” affliction?

    Eric W, me thinks you are mistaking the use of “Child Psychology” as being some sort of a grandiose affliction of the world’s populations of people all having “a national desire to be liked n’ loved by all other nations”.

    The “funded interest” proponents and the ”lefty liberal wackos” actually believe they are the guardian parents of the masses and thus, to wit:

    Most parents are familiar with the concept of using reverse [childish] psychology with children. After all, this is a form of discipline that is used very often when other methods of controlling bad or disobedient behavior in children fail.

  23. What you Yanks really need is Ozzie vision, entrepreneurship and investment in Green jobs-
    http://www.msn.com/en-au/money/company-news/vic-defends-millions-for-hazelwood-workers/ar-AAjRhK4?li=AA54Gb&ocid=spartandhp
    Yes some of we South Australians have wry grimaces at the news, given that with all our wind turbines, we have become somewhat reliant on the interconnector to Victoria’s La Trobe Valley brown coal thermal power of late.
    Spot the watermelon bullshit going on here? Why the sudden need for Gummint handouts and cash splash when all those lovely Green jobs are being created for these workers to transition to?

  24. Another way to bring America down: propagandize the kiddos. Here’s a video of children “lecturing” their parents about “climate change”. It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad;

    • I just threw up in my mouth watching this. The propaganda is beyond belief. We are f**ked. We are being over run by the this propaganda machine. I weep.

  25. There is a manufacturer of voodoo dolls that I’m familiar with. How do I know about this voodoo doll manufacturer? Well, from my sister, my older sister. I learned she has a voodoo doll of me that she constantly sticks pins in. It’s the reason I have fallen arches, a trick knee, erectile dysfunction, excessive methane production, a lisp, nervous tick; well, you get the idea. Anyway, my sister, my older sister’s a vampire, but with the unique ability to be out and about in the daylight. So, anytime, anywhere, she could just simply drain all the blood out of me and be done with her poor, innocent, terror wracked, younger brother. But, no, she prefers the voodoo doll torture.

    So I followed her and discovered where this voodoo manufacturer was. I think it moved out of ¥/;!’l]>~|€ after NAFTA. Anyway, I had a voodoo doll made with her likeness. Time to get even, I thought. But, the minute I walked out of the plant the voodoo doll instantly lighted up in the sunlight, burning down to ash, and scorching my hand. Fancy that! And, I’m still undergoing skin graphs.

    Where am I going with this? Heck if I know. But, it seemed to me that when I was in that off border voodoo plant I saw over voodoo pillows. Never heard of a voodoo pillow? Neither have I. But, there they were. Well over a hundred of them, all ready to ship. And, every single one of those voodoo pillows was made in the shape of? … two guesses … ok, one guess.

    The U.S. of A.

    Now, there were some gaps in the pillows. Coastal regions of California were missing. And, there seemed to be a hole where Washington D.C. is. And, while a pillow of Alaska was clearly attached, a representation of Hawaii was absent. A pointed these ‘flaws’ out to the plant manager and he said, looking quickly around and in hushed tones, “Those aren’t flaws.”

    I then asked the plant manager, who was now perspiring, if the pillows were being shipped to countries outside the U.S. He confirmed they were going to countries outside the U.S. that hated the U.S. and hoped to milk ’em dry. But, he said, almost trembling, some were going to the U.S. as well. “What” I exclaimed! He whispered, “shhhh; just where there’s gaps.”

    Then, instantly, he self combusted. Weird, there was no light and he wasn’t even a vampire. Trust me, I know vampires.

    Now, maybe the foregoing isn’t relevant to the discussion. But, for some weird reason I think it …

  26. The rest of the world or at least the free world had better pay attention because the de facto nuclear deterrent, global policeman, safe haven, global growth driver, and innovator, cannot keep up under the weight of policy hits. These range from rising and uncompetitive tax burden to rising and undo-able regulatory reach. The basic assumption that U.S. businesses and workers will just keep growing and paying for the political games and assorted existing commitments is false. Some allies like South Korea and Japan will find out sooner than others, but you will all get your turn at waking up.

    • Trump threatens to reawaken and cultivate the American giant economy, which will shake the world once it gets the cobwebs from its eyes and the chains from its limbs. All the powers that be don’t want this, because it means growth. Growth means change (rearrangement of economic strength). Change means an end to the powers that be (in the sense that they will be displaced).

  27. Sounds like a second grader trying to persuade Mommy to let her stay up late: “But Mommy! All my friends get to stay up until 10 o’clock!”

  28. Griff in full voice again! Thanks, you made my day, and got me sharpening my pencil — and salivating !!
    By ‘priority-sourcing’ Renewables over lower-cost alternatives, you drive the per kWh cost of electricity UP.
    Many low-income people can’t afford increased `power bills. THEY WILL HAVE TO FREEZE IN THE DARK.  Including widowed Grannies. Griff … what say you to Grannies freezing in the dark because of the policies you advocate???? Clearly you’re obviously so wealthy and/or invested in the Renewable Power Industry, that it matters not to you …..
    … The primary job of any modern state  is to facilitate the lowest-possible cost of ESSENTIALS …. food, water, warmth, shelter, security to its least able citizenry.
    Ahhh! you say, “But what about the externalites of low-cost power? I’ve got him!!”
    OK, Griff, let’s reason this through (if you’re capable of reason beyond your blind adherence to all things ‘Renewable’ — which I doubt):
    1. ‘Renewables’ have their externalities too. And their on-going repair & maintenance costs which you Conveniently Ignore (and if you haven’t, where is yr altruistic acceptance of this Inconvenient Truth?) And the massive bird-kills in Wind-Farms, added to which are externality costs of adversely affected livestock, health of proximate inhabitants, blights on property values?  C’mon Griff — let’s hear you on this!!
    2. ‘Surrender-by-Treaty’. So western industrial nations (stupidly) sign-on to the Paris Treaty.  Developing countries have no obligation to limit their CO2 emissions (or other NOXious substances & heavy-metals).  Thus, by artificially exponentiating the costs of power to uncompetitive levels, we cede basic manufacturing to these developing countries, eliminate our indigenous basic manufacturing abilities & skills, along with all the jobs & national economic benefits that are concomitant.  Griff — a man of your wealth & status, you will be unconcerned about funding massive Socail Security costs consequent upon massive unemployment, welfare-support, and re-training initiatives (paper-pushing?)
    And so, western advanced countries FLIP POSITIONS with the developing countries, busily burning fossil-fuel– without hindrance– spewing toxic particulates and turning themselves into the New World’s Industrial Colossi to whom we’ll all be beholden for manufactured goods … goods that we could compete with if unencumbered with the likes of you, and with a vote.
    And — post-Paris — will the World have mitigated the rise of CO2? 
    3. There is one solution to all these issues … Nuclear Power.  (My paper, covering a common-sense way of overcoming the past problems, is before the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee.)
    Griff — I look fwd with great relish to debating you further on yr obsession with Renewables.

  29. The diminishment of America and her influence is also consistent with Obama’s apology tour, his inability to call a spade a spade, a foreign dialogue that never includes a message of solitary strength and command, or even one of American exceptionalism.

  30. I’ve never understood the need for many individuals to be popular. Always seemed a huge waste of effort to me, but whatever – it’s their life and they are free to do with it what they wish. However, popularity has no place in international politics. Those who wish the US to change just to satisfy other nations are seriously misguided. They should know by now that playing the popularity game is always a losing proposition in the long run.

  31. I detest it when Know-it-alls’ like RS claim Republicans don’t understand or know science or how ever they described them in the above article. Not that I’m a Republican etc….but just the insinuation that they’re a bunch of bucked toothed idiots when I and many of the conservative, libertarian bent know damn well where the science lies and what is known, to what extent and what is not known as opposed to these pseudo intellectuals that have been hoodwinked by activist scientists and cherry picked, out of context observations and data.

  32. I just saw a really funny anti-Hillary commercial. It showed a Hillary look-alike taking various hammers, including a sledgehammer, to a smartphone, a server, and a laptop, while audio/video of Hillary played in which she professed her innocence.

    A good one!

    • That was released by Ted Cruz early on when he was still in the running for the Republican nomination.
      The viciousness and thoroughness of the server demolition is spot on

  33. It’s not really America that has put these “choice of the lesser evils” in front of us.

    Hillary is a product of her own ambition, used by the super rich to further their globalist agenda for ultimate political and economic control. Very few of her own supporters even like her, much less the secret service, her aides, her campaign manager. But she will do the bidding of the super rich, for now mainly by globalist plan of putting us in debt $17T to “fight carbon” which also gives them direct control and ability to transfer wealth over all energy sources (Paris Climate Agreement), and trade agreements which allow the super rich to sell any of their crap anywhere with no arguments.

    This takes away sovereignty of the “subject countries” which they intend to be “all of them”, especially USA, the toughest nut to crack, but well on the way to cracked, many people are already calling it the “silent coup” of America.

    A weakening of the overall people via no jobs, big debt, uncertainty, fear in addition to encouraging a slave class that EXPECTS and DEMANDs that free stuff be given to them, and a race war to solidify the dem voting base, has been successfully carried out. They amplified and encouraged the “slave mentality” rather than further freeing the blacks, they have created many upset, sometimes violent, black and minorities that expect and demand something for free. Michelle Obama with the famous “ I wake up in a house built by slaves everyday” and George Soros funding BLM with $100M to create ruckus.

    Today Obama told illegals that voting was the same as being a citizen, and that no government agency would be chasing them down because they voted. Indeed part of the plan from the beginning even though they are behind on legitimizing this, it still may play out at the election, especially with this last push. Hillary in place will ensure a large restriction on 2nd amendment (gun rights) to make it easier to force even more Globalist rules on the American people, this is not conjecture, she has stated the desire for more gun control.

    The clear cut stealing of the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders should make it very plain the level of corruption involved in pushing Clinton to the front.

    The clear cut control of almost ALL of the main stream media is even more telling.

    They have it all on the line, they either win with Hillary, or they stand a chance of their Global dreams being pushed back for several generations. Soros, Kissinger (both Jews by the way), Rothschilds, David Rockefeller (100 years old, and he has bought 6 human heart transplants to get that far) will all be dead before their dreams can be realized, decades in the making.

    The “New World Order” specifically mentioned by Soros and others was rolled out a little too quickly perhaps even a mistake by Soros, he is over 80. And it was scary to a lot of people, so they took a different tact create it de facto via energy and trade agreements and more similar things still too come.

    Trump is a product of the disgust that people feel ever since the financial and housing crisis, those who are watching more than the Kardashians, know much of what I write here, and so a bit of truth out of the Donald’s mouth is very refreshing. We need more than a minor tweak here, minor tweak there. Just like JFK, pretty likely the super rich of the world kill Trump too.

    Amazing to me that here we are. There is a lot more to support all of the above.

Comments are closed.