"Republicans plan multi-billion dollar climate budget raid"

Guest post by David Middleton

climateraid

By Megan Darby in Marrakech

US Republicans are expected to axe billions of dollars in climate finance when they take the White House and Congress in January.

Funds to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of global warming and develop sustainably will be redirected to domestic priorities.

“We are going to cancel billions in payments to the UN climate change programmes and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure,” said President-elect Donald Trump in his 22 October Gettysburg address.1

With a Republican majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, there appears to be little standing in his way.

“That brings a fear to African countries,” Akabiwa Nyambe, a Zambian official, told Climate Home at a side meeting of COP22 climate talks in Marrakech. “We have been looking forward to the US bringing a lot of funding into projects… It drops our faces.”

[…]

Climate Home

How mentally deficient does one have to be to refer to the cancellation of billions of dollars of climate-related welfare payments as a “raid”?

Simple Definition of raid

  • : a surprise attack on an enemy by soldiers or other military forces

  • : an occurrence in which police suddenly enter a place in a forceful way to find criminals, illegal drugs, etc.

  • : an act of going into a place (such as a bank) in order to steal something

The ignorance of these people is mind boggling…

Rachel Kyte, head of the UN’s Sustainable Energy for All programme, said Trump did not have a mandate to reverse US climate finance commitments. “All developed countries made promises,” she said. “A promise made has to be a promise kept.”

The U.S. has no “climate finance commitments.”  Outgoing President Obama had a commitment.  He made the promise.  These United States did not make any promises or commitments.  The only ways in which this country could have made such a promise would have been through a treaty or legislation.  Furthermore, President-elect Trump has a mandate.

Simple Definition of mandate

  • : an official order to do something

  • : the power to act that voters give to their elected leaders

Merriam-Webster

Having won the Election, President Trump will have a mandate to carry out the duties outlined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, nothing more and nothing less.

Outside the UN processes, institutional inertia and a measure of Republican support is likely to keep some funding streams open.

[…]

Then there was President Obama’s personal championing of the cause. In 2014, he ordered all international development aid to be climate-proofed – the kind of precaution a sceptic administration could easily reverse.

And he channeled diplomatic efforts into persuading G20 allies, for example, to stump up. “We won’t have that and we won’t really have the administration leadership valuing that part of the picture,” said Peterson.

so-what

 “President Obama’s personal championing of the cause” and his channeling of “diplomatic efforts into persuading G20 allies, for example, to stump up” were his efforts and his alone.  The fact that virtually none of those efforts were sent to Congress for ratification or enabling legislation means that they will be null & void on January 20, 2017.
The Warmunists are literally left with nothing more than a lemming-like chant…
11 NOV 2016: ANALYSIS

What a Trump Win Means For the Global Climate Fight

Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency signals an end to American leadership on international climate policy. With the withdrawal of U.S. support, efforts to implement the Paris agreement and avoid the most devastating consequences of global warming have suffered a huge blow.

by David Victor

With the unexpected triumph of Donald Trump, what’s in store for U.S. climate and energy policies?

[…]
One thing is clear: The Trump administration will inflict more harm on global cooperation around climate than any prior president. After the successful Paris agreement last year, that cooperation was finally poised to make progress with decisive U.S. leadership. I doubt that a Trump presidency will kill the Paris process — too many other countries are too invested in its success. But it will shift the intellectual and political leadership of the process from the United States to other countries, most notably China.
[…]
If the U.S. leaves Paris and eliminates its leadership role, that leaves China to steer the ship.
[…]
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David Victor is a professor at the School of Global Policy and Strategy, University of California at San Diego and chairman of the Global Agenda Council on Governance for Sustainability at the World Economic Forum. He is also co-chair of the Brookings Initiative on Energy & Climate. Victor is author of Global Warming Gridlock and numerous essays on climate cooperation.

All that they are left with is, “If the U.S. leaves Paris and eliminates its leadership role, that leaves China to steer” the lemmings off a cliff.
359-black-sheep-lemming
http://justoutsidetheboxcartoon.com/tag/lemming/

Featured image source.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
221 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gamecock
November 14, 2016 11:45 am

‘Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency signals an end to American leadership on international climate policy.’
Au contraire. Trump will be a great leader on international climate policy. It will just be led in a direction they don’t want.

nankerphelge
Reply to  Gamecock
November 14, 2016 1:09 pm

Spot on! It will bring a focus on the other side that has been howled down by ex VP”s, actors and Public Servants. Last time I looked an argument could have two sides.

rocketscientist
Reply to  Gamecock
November 14, 2016 1:29 pm

+1
re: the other sentence of the paragraph:
“…avoid the most devastating consequences of global warming…” seems to be correct also, but for very different reasons, as the “most devastating effects of global warming”, such as forcing the world’s development back a century, appear to have been averted.

Pat Frank
Reply to  rocketscientist
November 14, 2016 5:14 pm

If you really are a rocket scientist, rocketscientist, you must be euphoric that NASA is being re-purposed back to aerospace technology and space science. No more political outreach.

Andrew
Reply to  rocketscientist
November 15, 2016 9:54 am

Wouldn’t it be great to see NASA focus on aeronautics and space? Perhaps one day they could develop the capability to take men into low earth orbit (currently only the Russian Soyuz mission can achieve that).

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Gamecock
November 14, 2016 1:54 pm

Well said!

Reply to  Gamecock
November 14, 2016 4:34 pm

Absolutely on the nail, Gamecock. +1000

Scott
Reply to  Gamecock
November 14, 2016 11:31 pm

+100!

Reply to  Gamecock
November 15, 2016 5:46 am

Brilliant

Reply to  Gamecock
November 16, 2016 3:55 pm

use the funds(money) to build the wall until Mexico pays us back

Marcus
November 14, 2016 11:47 am

As always, awesome post Dave…Reality is not something these people believe in…Weird…!

J McClure
Reply to  Marcus
November 14, 2016 12:46 pm

David M,

The only ways in which this country could have made such a promise would have been through a treaty or legislation.

Beyond the poorly stated comment, you’re right. The USA can redefine the UNFCCC in a NY minute or simply walk away from the table.
This is going to be fun!

November 14, 2016 11:48 am

If we could only get the lunkhead in Ottawa to stop giving away money we don’t have. Money that has been borrowed with interest, at a time when the Canadian Government is in record debt. But of course Trudeau is loved by the people receiving the money, they say so in the news, so it must be true. No doubt if he gave away even more money he would be liked even more.
Trudeau pledges $2.65B to help poor countries fight climate change
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeau-pledges-2-65b-to-help-poor-countries-fight-climate-change
http://www.debtclock.ca/

Ron
Reply to  ferdberple
November 14, 2016 3:22 pm

Money we Canadians can’t afford. Trudeau leads our Liberal party. He ran his election campaign promising to go into deficit by no more that 10B, so far he is up to 30B. It’s always easy to spend other people’s money!

Bryan A
Reply to  Ron
November 14, 2016 3:43 pm

You northerners are fortunate that your debt is measured in “Bs” the US debt is measured in “Ts”

Marcus
Reply to  Ron
November 14, 2016 5:35 pm

Bryan, we only have 36 million people…and 97% live within 200 miles of the U.S. border…

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Ron
November 14, 2016 7:06 pm

He learned from the Wynne government that you can be incompetent and corrupt, as long as you spend money like a drunken fool!

Bryan A
Reply to  Ron
November 14, 2016 7:21 pm

1/10 the population and 1/1000 the debt doesn’t sound too bad

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bryan A
November 14, 2016 7:50 pm

Don’t worry, Bryan, your debt will get there.

Bryan A
Reply to  Ron
November 15, 2016 12:05 am

I wish to pay off the debt, all U.S. citizens owe $62,500 each while Canadians owe $833 each. Much easier to afford to buy beer up there

Owen Suppes
Reply to  ferdberple
November 14, 2016 7:37 pm

That’s because Trudeau is a centrist. He’s like the Mac dude, prancing about feeling very educated and quietly superior, despite the fact that PC is a billionth the price and used by people who need oodles of power. He’s a mess when it comes to climate science, accept to say, “I follow the advice of the 97%”. Which amounts to flippidypuff. The cautionary principle is expensive and stupid, but that’s not the point is it? The point isn’t to establish safeguards against Co2 forcing. The point is to monetize a central global power. And finally America has a president who gets hives when he thinks of funding such a stupid thing

Klem
Reply to  Owen Suppes
November 15, 2016 5:14 am

It’s astonishing to me that so many Canadians want to pay more taxes. They already pay 45% of their annual incomes in taxes, they already pay about $2/gallon in carbon taxes on gasoline, yet they still want to pay more.
I always thought people wanted to pay less taxes, but not Canadians.
How did Canadians end up there?

MarkW
Reply to  Owen Suppes
November 15, 2016 7:43 am

flippidypuff????

MarkG
Reply to  Owen Suppes
November 15, 2016 11:25 am

“How did Canadians end up there?”
The liberals have been importing new liberal voters for decades.

David
Reply to  Owen Suppes
November 16, 2016 7:44 am

Ahh, the old, we can’t con other idiots into believing our bullshit so we’ll just import greater idiots from severely impoverished countries to bribe into voting for us con.
Seems to a be a strategy certain groups tend to use wherever they exist, and they do seem to exist in a lot of places too for some reason. Almost like they don’t have a country of their own to ruin.

Hivemind
Reply to  ferdberple
November 15, 2016 4:49 am

Only until such time as it becomes difficult for Paul to support them. For instance, if they want their money back.

November 14, 2016 11:51 am

This will devastate African and other leaders in the developing world. Where will they get the money to buy build palaces and monuments to themselves?

joel
Reply to  DVan
November 14, 2016 11:57 am

Well, they say China is going to take the lead in the fight to save the climate.
Let’s see the Chinese money flow.

TG
Reply to  joel
November 14, 2016 12:41 pm

There will be no money from China. (The art of the deal) They have Solar panels an wind mills to sell, and a 100000 Electric coal generating plant to build – But I assure you in 2035 they will recommit to the accord with lots of hand wringing and full emotional support, but still no money.
The Paris deal is the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement. … All it has succeeded in doing is kicking the can down the road for ….. Simultaneously, China who won’t stop their growth of CO2 emissions until 2035 and certainly NO CASH TO THE RENT SEEKERS!
Go President Trump you are holding 2 Aces, the green blob has 2 Threes.

Flyoverbob
Reply to  joel
November 14, 2016 12:51 pm

Excellent point! Also, how many coal fired electricity generating plants are going to build by 2030?

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  joel
November 14, 2016 1:34 pm

TG, I would like one of those Electric coal generators… 🙂

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  joel
November 14, 2016 5:53 pm

@David Middleton
That has a vaguely Enron-ish feel to it.

Anthony S
Reply to  joel
November 14, 2016 9:27 pm

flyoverbob:
Not too many, just going to increase the coal fleet by another 19% by 2025.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/chinas-five-year-electricity-plan-is-19.html

Reply to  joel
November 16, 2016 2:05 pm

They’ll just lie about the numbers, and arrest any Chinese citizen dumb enough to disagree publicly.

Paul belanger
Reply to  DVan
November 15, 2016 12:05 am

They may even have to temporarily tap into their offshore accounts. they will soon find another better scam.

Mikeyj
November 14, 2016 11:52 am

I have had a grin so big since last Tuesday’s election that the joker looks sad…. Sorry I had to stop to laugh. What a great country I guess we could always use the money to provide affordable, dependable energy and still have some left for clean drinking water.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Mikeyj
November 14, 2016 1:37 pm

BINGO! If the USA still wants to help Africa, they could use a fraction of that amount and build clean coal or natural gas fired electrical generation plants, and provide clean drinking water. But this strategy would not enrich Africa’s ruling elite as much as the Paris treaty.
Worth a read… ‘The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ by Alex Epstein

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 14, 2016 3:34 pm

Jeff in Calgary —
So right. In Africa the enrichment of the ruling elite comes first, middle and last. Any pennies they missed stealing might somehow make to the poor — but that is rare.
Eugene WR Gallun

Robert
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 14, 2016 5:31 pm

Spot on!

NW sage
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 14, 2016 6:11 pm

“…enrich the elite..” That is the real complaint. Without the Obama funds, where is the money for corruption going to come from?

John Teisen
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 14, 2016 11:45 pm

If the elite are no longer enriched by money they scam out of the West you can expect to see a few revolutions on the African continent in the years ahead.

Hivemind
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 15, 2016 5:09 am

” If the USA still wants to help Africa”
There was a case, many years ago in an Arab country, where a bunch of American do-gooders went in and asked what the natives needed. They were a nomadic people and largely self-sufficient and only wanted a place to bury their dead. This wasn’t good enough for the Americans, who promptly decided that they new better. So they dug a well for drinking water and installed the latest gleaming, shiny high-tech pump. It used lots of electric power, so they also had to install a diesel generator and lay a road for regular supplies of diesel fuel. All of this cost a motza. much more than it would have cost to build a simple graveyard.
Now, the natives, they didn’t want any of this. All they needed was a place to bury their dead. So after a few months, the latest gleaming, shiny high-tech pump needed maintenance. It didn’t like working in such a sandy place, after all. It needed specialized maintenance – skilled technicians and precision tools. But the Americans were long gone and there was nobody to repair it. The diesel stopped working when the fuel ran out. There were no Americans left to buy fuel, either. The road was quickly covered in sand and became unusable.
The moral of this story is that if the USA wants to help Africa, then they should let Africa alone to work out what it’s problems are for itself, instead of constantly preaching at them to adopt American philosophies.

Griff
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 15, 2016 5:51 am

Well, since the Second world War, no foreign aid or government programme has gone out and built gas and coal plant in Africa, let alone the necessary grid…
and many African countries do not have gas or coal or the means to import it… Morocco for example is Africa’s largest fossil fuel importer due to its limited resources, so it is using solar CSP and soalr panels to reduce the drain on its economy.
Kenya is getting electricity for all financed by the World Bank – but it is by increasing wind, solar and geo-thermal for the most part.
Renewables are delivering power at all levels in Africa where gas and coal haven’t and won’t.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2016 11:56 am

But not the kind of power needed for industrial development. Solar to a poverty stricken village still leaves a poverty stricken village.

TG
Reply to  Mikeyj
November 14, 2016 2:12 pm

Jeff in Calgary
November 14, 2016 at 1:34 pm
TG, I would like one of those Electric coal generators… 🙂
Hands off I just invented the term, know I getting busy on the design. Oh boy its a bit of a problem? OK back to the standard coal fired electricity generating plants.

November 14, 2016 11:54 am

It appears not all Canadians agree with ignoring promises made to Canadians.
Trudeau heckled, booed at youth labour forum in Ottawa
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/10/25/trudeau-heckled-booed-at-youth-labour-forum-in-ottawa.html
Trudeau booed at Calgary Stampede, Media Party says attendees adored him
July 16, 2016 — BC Blue
https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2016/07/16/trudeau-booed-at-calgary-stampede-media-party-says-attendees-adored-him/

Lance Wallace
November 14, 2016 11:56 am

The pledge was made almost exactly one year ago. Any word on whether money has actually been shipped out?

Reply to  David Middleton
November 14, 2016 12:28 pm

Now that would be a “raid.”

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  David Middleton
November 14, 2016 1:39 pm

+1! That would be correctly termed ‘A Raid’ (a state department budget raid)

November 14, 2016 11:56 am

While cancelling the foreign aid portion of the Paris Accord is a good thing, most of the money associated with the Paris Accords is in the US compliance promises. Eliminating “renewable energy” subsidies and madated purchase requirements will have a much larger effect, along with the cost to industry and consumers of Obama’s climate plan compliance.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 14, 2016 1:40 pm

That will be fixed with Trumps planned overhaul of the EPA.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 14, 2016 2:42 pm

That raises an intriguing point. Nixon created the EPA by means of executive order. I hope that means our next president has the authority to dismantle the EPA by means of executive order. I hope Mr. Trump takes a long, hard look at not overhauling but rather doing away with the EPA.

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 14, 2016 4:00 pm

The EPA was initially created with executive orders. However, over the years those executive orders have been backed up with numerous congressional bills. It would take an act of congress to break it up now.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2016 5:20 pm

President “The Donald” Trump’s FY 2018 Budget request for the EPA need not include all of the spending authority as that contained in the current FY 2017 Budget.
MarkW, please assure me that a Republican House and Senate would insist the President add back funding for the EPA.
Oh, BTW, precedent has it that all allocations need not be expended by the Executive.
Naivete abounds.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 15, 2016 3:16 pm

Dave, one of the beefs that the Democrats had with Nixon was Nixon’s insistence that he didn’t have to spend money on things that he (Nixon) deemed unnecessary. After he resigned, the new Congress in 1975 changed the rules. When Carter was elected, they made it so that the President had to spend it and brought in ‘baseline’ budgeting, if I am remembering correctly. Reagan tried to get a line-item veto. Congress didn’t agree with him. I think Reagan’s case went to court and failed.

Gandhi
November 14, 2016 11:57 am

Common sense is invading Washington DC! Finally – it hasn’t been there since at least the 1980s!

PiperPaul
Reply to  Gandhi
November 14, 2016 12:24 pm

Likely because the next occupant has actually lived in the real world. You know, where money doesn’t grow on trees and where there are consequences for effing-up.

Larry D
Reply to  PiperPaul
November 14, 2016 12:45 pm

That’s why I like this line (original Ghostbusters)
Dr. Raymond Stantz: “Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything! You’ve never been out of college! You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve WORKED in the private sector. They expect *results*.”

Logoswrench
November 14, 2016 11:57 am

The sheer hypocrisy of warmists denying the third world cheap available power then hitting Trump for pulling futile/wasteful “sustainability “funds is mind boggling.

November 14, 2016 11:59 am

seems like a case of fraud.. Tax payer money sent to a foreign country while money is sent back to the issuer through a back door…. Are you referring to Hillary Clinton? .. Oh I’m sorry, Yes for one who has been recently outed.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Scott Frasier
November 14, 2016 4:01 pm

Hillary? Outed? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

troe
November 14, 2016 12:01 pm

Take the money. Make huge public hay of spending it to replace lead lined water pipes in Flint Michigan and others cities that decades of Democrat rule have run into the ground. Fund a surge of policing in those same cities.
Out smart and out politic the left which promises heaven while delivering hell. Will some of the money be stolen by the politicians? Yes unfortunately. Better than throwing down the green hole it was headed for.
The UN enterprise is overdue for roots up reform. Pushing it physically out of the US is a good start. We do not desire the post of hegemon. We look for fair trade and friendship with those of goodwill. As to the rest…. our powder will be kept dry.

Madman2001
Reply to  troe
November 14, 2016 7:34 pm

>>Make huge public hay of spending it to replace lead lined water pipes in Flint Michigan <<
Kate, from SmallDeadAnimals.com, thinks that a rescue of Flint Michigan is in the offing. It would be great to see

November 14, 2016 12:04 pm

They are entirely correct to do so!.
Warming due to the accumulation of greenhouse gasses is an untested hypothesis, and the recent discovery that temporary increases in average global temperatures occur whenever there is a business recession (100% correlation since 1850) proves that there is another factor which can increase global land-ocean surface temperatures, other than greenhouse gasses..

Ed Zuiderwijk
November 14, 2016 12:12 pm

Bad news for the German economy.
(Fewer mercs being bought)

Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2016 12:13 pm

“We have been looking forward to the US bringing a lot of funding into projects… It drops our faces.”
Too bad, so sad. Not our problem. The good news is that China has agreed to take our place, so if you ask them nicely, I’m sure they will be happy to open their wallets up.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2016 3:06 pm

lol — good one, Mr. Cobb. 🙂

Funds to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of global warming and develop sustainably buy windmills, solar panels, and other like junk will be redirected …

As others have pointed out, such funds could be redirected to providing:
clean water, 24-hour electricity (coal-hydro-nuclear), non-polluting (as in real pollution) cooking appliances, decent roads, etc., …. and
MONEY in their pockets because they have a decent income thanks to IT facilities and factories powered reliably, so they can then buy reliable transportation and go to school! Or make it to a doctor in time! And there will be a dentist in their town!
And remember, wealth = true “green” as in public parks and clean rivers and lakes, etc..
Sigh. And, yes, as Mr. Penrose points out, they also need to ditch their socialist governments…. or they will be like Haiti, one of the most richly endowed countries in the world
and look what it has done for them. 🙁

MarkW
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 4:02 pm

While most of us will celebrate when these poor start getting reliable power and begin to lift themselves out of poverty.
Unfortunately once that happens the usual chorus will start screaming about another group of foreigners who are now competing with US workers.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 4:32 pm

Yes, I hear you, MarkW. And we will answer them with a big smile: “Oh, but, didn’t you know? THE PIE JUST GOT BIGGER!” iow: American workers will have more $$ to spend on what is made overseas and vice-versa and it is going to be GREAT for ALL! 🙂
“All ships rise with the tide.”
(someone, sometime)

November 14, 2016 12:15 pm

CO2 (ether vitae) is restored in the rigth place in Nature, fantastic

D. Carroll
November 14, 2016 12:17 pm

There’s been quite a lot of optimism at this site since the election victory of Donald Trump. But unless he works at addressing the science, they’ll continue to snap at his heels until it becomes too painful. Then he’ll start to conform.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  D. Carroll
November 14, 2016 1:19 pm

@D. Carroll: Exactly what I have been preaching here at WUWT repeatedly. Pulling out of the Paris Agreement and pulling the funding for the climate scare campaign isn’t enough. Unless he assembles a panel of scientists to show the American people, the U.N. and the world what the scientific problems are with the CAGW theory, Trump is going to get what I believe will be a sizeable and very painful backlash and demands for vengence from the Green Community, the U.N. and foreign governments who are looking to get the palms greased from the Green Fund.
If he caves in to the climate scare camp without demonstrating why their science is faulty, it will be a serious setback for sound and honest science. Religious cults of this size and scope will not go away quickly or easily without a great deal of effort.

Marinus
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 14, 2016 1:39 pm

Hopefully the raw temperature data is still around at NASA-GISS, that would be a good starting point.

Dave Fair
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 14, 2016 3:48 pm

No, President The Donald doesn’t need to “demonstrate” anything. A level playing field provided by Federal Executive Branch agencies will take care of the climate scare. Science will have to stand on its own.

Javert Chip
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 14, 2016 4:15 pm

Marinus
If the raw temp data is still around (kind of like Hillary Clinton’s Rose Law from billing records during Whitewater), Dr Mann will have some ‘splaining to do: he testified in a FIOA law suit that the records were destroyed in a fire…

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 14, 2016 6:29 pm

@Dave Fair November 14, 2016 at 3:48 pm
“No, President The Donald doesn’t need to “demonstrate” anything. A level playing field provided by Federal Executive Branch agencies will take care of the climate scare…….”
Dave, I sincerely hope you are right about that. I really do.
In my mind though, the U.N. has done a great deal of damage to climate science, and the Obama Administration has been complicit in the last 8 years with its riding on the the U.N. climate scare bandwagon. The politics and money of government can and does corrupt anything it get its hands on, and simply leveling the playing field here represents a failure of government to admit to the damage it has done to climate science. Does it not have an obligation to admit that it has done so?
If the leveling of the playing field is indeed enough, then fine. What I fear though is that the political, financial and other vested interests in climate alarmism are so great that it won’t be that easy. The socialist wealth redistributionists at the U.N. and the greenies can be a very determined and stubborn bunch, and I don’t dismiss the possibility that they will succeed in keeping the climate alarmist faith alive indefinitely unless they are discredited by the contrary evidence that is presented to the American people and the world.
And a complicit MSM doesn’t help either.

Dave Fair
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 14, 2016 7:22 pm

Well, CD, you are probably right about the MSM spin. I am, however, as concerned as much about “conservative” science as I am about “liberal” science.
It has been documented that media outlets coordinated their messaging with the Obama administration and green NGO activists. I believe that existing MSM will not be coordinating messaging with Trumpistas, though. I assume the MSM would still hew to the watermelon line.
It has also been documented that the IPCC has been populated with watermelons. U.S. staffing of its IPCC positions have followed that pattern.
If we do not withdraw from the IPCC completely (see the Palestinian issue, among others), and assuming a Trump administration put skeptics in its IPCC positions, IPCC SPMs would arguably look vastly different.
It will take 5 to 10 years for actual temperature, precipitation, etc. to tell us if the world is going to hell. Let us just see.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 15, 2016 5:38 am

The principle at Law is that the accuser, libeller or whatever must prove his case. The principle in science is that proof must first be shown, then any contradictions must be answered.
In this case, settled science says that AGW could raise the temperature by 1.7C. Which on its own will make scarcely any difference to the climate. The rest is unproven hypothesis, and is therefore not science. We don’t have to disprove claims which have yet to be proven.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  D. Carroll
November 14, 2016 1:50 pm

D. Carroll November 14, 2016 at 12:17 pm
Hello D. Carroll Why would you say that? He can instruct the Department of Education to notify all school districts and Federally funded Universities that if they do not have acceptable provisions to discuss and present all viewpoints on claim change they will receive no federal funding. The can totally remove any reference to the subject from the curriculum until said time that all scientific explanations are taught and permitted on campus.
In other words simply to get funding they will have to make available courses on natural climate variation.
michael

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 14, 2016 1:53 pm

climate change not claim change but then again when it comes to CAGW I may have had it right the first time
michael :->

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 14, 2016 3:51 pm

Riiiight, Mike. The Feds defining science, again?
Keep the government out of my bed (science)!

Johna Till Johnson
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 14, 2016 8:33 pm

“He can instruct the Department of Education to notify all school districts and Federally funded Universities ..” That presupposes there’s a Department of Education left standing. What are the odds?

MarkW
November 14, 2016 12:42 pm

Leftists view everything as belonging to them.
By that measure, when they get less than they wanted, you have stolen something from them.

Larry D
Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2016 12:46 pm

Criminal mentality.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2016 1:35 pm

Very true. Most people don’t understand this.

Freedom Monger
Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2016 2:26 pm

Here is a quote that seems to confirm your statement, although, I have been unable to independently verify it:
“Theoretically there is nothing that could stop the government from taxing 100% percent of income so long as the benefit is commensurate with their income that is taxed.” Barack Obama Sr. ” Problems Facing Our Socialism” East Africa Journal (1965)”
This would go along with that egregious phrase uttered by any given number of Congressional Democrats during budget negotiations – “pay for tax cuts”.
One thing I hope Trump will address is Baseline Budgeting, where the US automatically grows government expenditures by 4% (?) every year. The Government is growing at a faster rate than the US economy.

MarkW
Reply to  Freedom Monger
November 14, 2016 4:05 pm

I wish I could remember the actual numbers (so I’ll just make up some). I believe it was Newt Gingrich who once calculated that if we could slow the growth of government to just 1% less than the growth rate of the economy, we could eliminate the deficit in 20 years.
Of course that was using the 1980 deficit.

commieBob
November 14, 2016 12:50 pm

Most of the world doesn’t understand how constrained is the POTUS. They will thus be surprised to find out that Obama’s ‘commitments’ aren’t worth very much.

Editor
November 14, 2016 1:05 pm

Will China start cutting emissions immediately? – NO
Will China start handing out tens of billions in aid to third world countries (instead of being the recipient)? – NO
What sort of “leadership” do they suggest?

Reasonable Skeptic
November 14, 2016 1:14 pm

Who here wants to buy stock in Tesla?
…. anybody??
…. anybody??

MarkW
Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
November 14, 2016 1:35 pm

Can it be used as wallpaper?

Felflames
Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2016 2:27 pm

Well, you might be able to use it in the smallest room in the house, if you get my drift.

Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
November 14, 2016 3:24 pm

TSLA has dropped again today. It is now down 15 dollars since the election, while at the same time the Dow is at a record high over the same period. The low of today was 3 dollars lower than at the close. I would say that Musk is going to face troubled waters ahead, especially as he continues to work to merge Solar City with Tesla. Solar City along with other solar related companies are in for hard times ahead now that Hillary lost.

Janice Moore
Reply to  goldminor
November 14, 2016 3:46 pm

Bye, bye, bird fryers!
http://animatedviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/rescuers02.jpg
(still from Disney’s “The Rescuers”)
(and with a mighty silence: the joyous sight of DERELICT WINDMILLS!! — good bye bird and bat slayers!… don’t worry about the ugliness, it won’t last long, along will come the FREE MARKET TO THE RESCUE 🙂 …. Joe’s Contractor’s Salvage, Jane’s Pre-owned Metal Corp., etc.. 🙂 )

michael hart
Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
November 14, 2016 4:45 pm

The BBC pension fund, that’s who.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/bbcs-compromising-investment-in-tesla/
But I’m sure that has nothing to do with the many puff-pieces the BBC has written for Tesla.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  michael hart
November 14, 2016 7:38 pm

A stock like Tesla is inherently speculative and has no place in a pension fund. Except perhaps a retirement plan for Socialists, as per the old saw about fools and their monies.

Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
November 16, 2016 3:29 pm

Take a look at FSLR, solar panel company. They dropped right after the election, then came back a bit, and now they are dropping again…http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/FSLR

WBrowning
November 14, 2016 1:22 pm

I hope he rescinds the ridiculous EPA vehicle mileage requirements that Obama approved.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  WBrowning
November 14, 2016 4:27 pm

Give me REAL light bulbs! None of those mercury-laden spirochete things.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 14, 2016 4:47 pm

YES PLEASE!

MarkW
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 15, 2016 8:00 am

I’ve been voluntarily switching to LED, in my opinion they have reached the point where they are cheaper than incandescent bulbs.

Reply to  MarkW
November 16, 2016 12:45 pm

Or as cheap as far as that website is concerned. The exception to using LEDs is if you have an easy bake oven.

G Lambert
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 16, 2016 12:47 pm

I switched out our entire house to LED (the range and performance of LED’s is now such that it’s cheap enough and they put out a better quality of light than tungsten). I never ever used the hideous mercury laden CFL’s as the light from them made me feel ill.
I didn’t switch to LED for any overriding sense of greenness, but to save money, which I have, in spades. When they jack the electricity rates in the UK by 10% this year, all due to new green taxes, of course, we’ll be laughing a fair bit.

Reply to  G Lambert
November 17, 2016 12:56 pm

We briefly replaced some incandescent with the CFLs, but fortunately we had enough of the Incandescent hoarded that as any lights need replacing, I go LED. Still a bit pricey, but as you said, the quality is a lot better and they do save a lot in electrical cost!

G Lambert
Reply to  philjourdan
November 20, 2016 5:54 am

Yes, I did the same thing initially when it was announced in the early 2010’s that incandescents would be banned from sale in the UK (which wasn’t exactly 100% true in practice, but enough to make things slightly inconvenient).
Having seen some of the (very expensive) high output tactical torches/flashlights in the late 2000’s, I had an idea that general LED’s were going places, but didn’t know how long that would take – e.g. some of the earlier LED cluster spots were abysmally poor. So I bought a bulk box of bayonet 100w tungstens and stuck them in the attic. Didn’t cost very much buying them online, but it seemed like a reasonable backup plan. As luck would have it, LED’s matured really fast and I am now left with around 30 incandescents I don’t need. Oh well, Hi Ho, so it goes.
I don’t know about LED’s being pricey though… I bought the “STATUS” brand from a local cheap shop and they have worked flawlessly for over a year now and the light quality is superb. They ranged in price from £2.50 – £3.50, with only a couple of very specialist spotlights (LED imitation PAR’s) costing around £6 – spent around £60 total converting the whole house. Worked up an EXCEL spreadsheet (sad, I know) with the old and new wattages and usage (I have 3 daughters who think they need 1000w of lighting every waking hour they are not at school) and calculated that my payback time just for power savings alone was about 3-4 months. With the cost of the LED’s taken into account, I saved about £190 just in the first year on power. If the “cheapo” LED’s only lasted 6 months they would have more than paid for themselves, but we’re over a year now and no failures.

Reply to  G Lambert
November 28, 2016 10:33 am

@G. Lambert – When I say “pricey”, I meant the initial outlay. I have not really calculated the energy savings (although my electric bills have definitely gone down!) to see a pay back. I just prefer the light given off over the CFLs, so did not worry about the initial outlay.

Kamikazedave
November 14, 2016 1:24 pm

How about we use at least part of that money to help poor African countries wean themselves from government corruption and empty socialist promises that have kept them in abject poverty for decades.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Kamikazedave
November 14, 2016 1:40 pm

It’s a nice dream to buy them freedom and democratic governance, but it is not possible. They will have to get it the same way we did; they will have to earn it for themselves. The best we can do is to stop enabling their oppressors and to treat them fairly in the global marketplace.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Kamikazedave
November 14, 2016 4:23 pm

Kamikazedave
Say what? We can “give” other nations freedom from socialists & government corruption? Where exactly has this rich people giving “giving” nations freedom actually worked (other than, arguably, Japan & Nazi Germany after WW2)?
What you been smoking, boy?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Javert Chip
November 15, 2016 11:36 am

And they were occupied forcefully with a large contingent of US forces for how long/

Kamikazedave
Reply to  Javert Chip
November 16, 2016 7:13 am

Paul, Javert, Marcus, You guys are absolutely right, though what was written was not what was going through my head at the moment. My thoughts were to help them help themselves, not give them anything. We’ve done way too much of that already and to no avail. After re-reading what I wrote, I thought it sounded like something Griff would post. Sorry about that. I wasn’t smoking anything, Javert but was sipping on some really fine Scotch, Ardbeg Uigeadail.

Marcus
Reply to  Kamikazedave
November 14, 2016 5:56 pm

..No one can BUY freedom…It must be fought for…

David S
November 14, 2016 1:51 pm

Agree with some of the comments above. Pulling out of Paris only part of the solution. The main game is to reprogram the billions of people globally who have been indoctrinated by the AGW fanatics. The need is now to explain to people the science ( or non science) of the AGW religion. Senator Roberts is taking the right approach in asking for debate or discussion on the science. Give me some empirical proof of your position . We need to make everyone realise the emperor has no clothes. The attack has to be on the compliant media and compromised academe to force them to listen, observe, debate and discuss. Trump gives us the opportunity but it has to be actively grabbed it won’t just happen.

Reply to  David S
November 14, 2016 5:54 pm

I wish I could agree, unfortunately the same (phony) graphs and (misplaced) logic will just be drawn out again and again. Look the ‘line’ goes up, it must be ‘bad’. Unfortunately it will take years to organically undue, if it can be undone at all.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  David S
November 14, 2016 7:48 pm

I agree that Trump will need to attack the AGW “consensus” in order to build some credibility against what has been an overwhelming narrative on the evils of warming. The good news is it’s way down most people’s list, even after years of propaganda (lies).

MarkW
Reply to  David S
November 15, 2016 8:02 am

According to the UN’s Ban, Climate change action has become unstoppable.
He also hinted that countries will start to tax US exports if we don’t go along with their insanity.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
November 15, 2016 12:13 pm

Real smart on his part: We will just tax theirs. And so on.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  David S
November 15, 2016 8:34 am

I agree with many voices here that the bad science needs to be addressed while the climate hustle gets rooted out. If it is not, we will simply see a shrill media spend four years calling him and others names. While I have no illusions that this is easy or even possible with many true believers, but it should be undertaken for the benefit of those who simply have only ever seen the media’s version of the world.

Paul Hanlon
Reply to  David S
November 16, 2016 5:01 pm

Surely the way to do this is to not ratify the existing Paris agreement, and place a moratorium on all new grants for solar / wind turbines *until* a Congressional Hearing (like the hokey stick one) comes to a conclusion on the science.
That would force the climate opportunists to show their science quickly, and have a decision in place, so that it doesn’t affect the 2018 elections negatively for the Republicans.

Robber
November 14, 2016 2:21 pm

Hilary has plenty of money in the Clinton Foundation to give to poor countries.

Nigel S
Reply to  Robber
November 15, 2016 12:06 am

That’s where she got it from (Haiti for a start).

Barbara Skolaut
November 14, 2016 2:24 pm

“US Republicans are expected to axe billions of dollars in climate finance when they take the White House and Congress in January”
We can but hope!

RWturner
November 14, 2016 2:26 pm

I have a feeling that Trump will make investing in America look so easy that the Dems will be in full panic mode in four years.

fthoma2014
November 14, 2016 2:30 pm

Perhaps the EU economy would not be in the ditch the way it is if they had spent that trillion plus dollars they have spent on renewable energy and crippling their industry and impoverishing the citizenry on solving real problems. Trump can legally cancel climate “commitments” made by Obama, and can kill the Iran deal by complaining to the UN about violations of the agreement such as manufacturing too much heavy water. I wonder what future all those bright, gleaming climate mitigation college graduates have now, with the grant money drying up and the subsidies going away. They might have to be like Bob and get a real job.(thanks George Thorogood)

OJ
November 14, 2016 2:40 pm

I drive a Tesla, and would happily buy shares had I had any money left… 😉 Byline: Where is the toot for replication of the climate science on these pages? If you believe half of what you write, and claim that the peer-review has failed (of which I might partly agree), there is only one path ahead: To get free-minded scientists try to replicate the IPCC et Co’s finds – and see where that ends up. Oh, forget it. You all seem as camped up as that other camp. Have a happy camping! 😛

AndyG55
Reply to  OJ
November 14, 2016 8:52 pm

Real Scientists would much rather investigate NATURAL climate change, rather than be forced to hunt for just human causes like the IPCC was by its very inception.
Remember that it was form ONLY to find human causes of the very slight global warming we have thankfully had out of the LIA. Hamstrung into propaganda rather than science, from the very start.

Richard G
Reply to  OJ
November 15, 2016 1:04 am

OJ, you have just made the argument for the sceptics. There hasn’t been proof of CAGW and not one penny should have been spent on mitigation until there was. No one can prove something that doesn’t exists.

troe
November 14, 2016 2:50 pm

Elite European and US College campuses are the the incubators of Green thought. Money flows to poor country elites who use it to pay full tuition for thier children at these same universities. A nice little racket if you can get in on it.
Obama giving press conference now pleading for his legacy. The appointment of Steve Bannon indicates that Obama’s plea will fall on deaf ears.

Gamecock
Reply to  troe
November 14, 2016 5:40 pm

I expect Obama to be very NICE to Trump, as Trump holds Obama’s legacy in his hands, and Obama knows it.

Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 2:53 pm

The Trump administration will inflict more harm on global cooperation around climate than any prior president.

YES!!!

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 6:05 pm

+1000

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 10:15 pm

The notion that bureaucrats can set the thermostat of the planet is audacity without precedent.

Tom in Florida
November 14, 2016 2:55 pm

So now it looks like the Hollywood stars, liberals, progressives, the Clintons, Algore and anyone else who have been so comfortable spending OPM will have to pony up their own cash to save the cause they so vehemently support with words.
(Apologies to anyone who gagged so hard that coffee is now on their screen)

Marcus
Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 14, 2016 6:06 pm

..Wait, I thought they were all moving to Canada ? ( Notice they didn’t say “Moving to Mexico” ?….LOL

November 14, 2016 3:01 pm

I have seen a lot of debate on how the US can get out of the Paris agreement. What most miss (for the non-natives, an understandable omission) is that since Obama did not want to subject it to debate in the Senate, all it is, is HIS agreement! And is not legally, morally or ethically binding on Trump.
But the important lesson here is that when you become a slave to anyone, you lose control over your welfare. The Climate cabal has been an arm of the Federal government for a long time. Now they have to learn to make an honest living.

Janice Moore
Reply to  philjourdan
November 14, 2016 3:15 pm

Yes, Phil — a false debate contrived to create a false impression.
************************
He’ll just file it under: “Big 0’s Stuff”
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/69636/69636,1266967303,6/stock-photo-hand-tossing-a-crumpled-paper-in-trash-can-47335588.jpg

golf charlie
November 14, 2016 3:14 pm

How are the ruling elite in developing countries supposed to buy European Luxury cars without Climate Relief Aid?

Janice Moore
Reply to  golf charlie
November 14, 2016 3:16 pm

Maybe they can ask for a refund of their Clinton Foundation donation (less a 30% handling fee, of course).

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 7:52 pm

Email requests for refund may be subject to deletion.

Nigel S
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 12:09 am

Handling fee discounted during the fire sale.

Gunga Din
November 14, 2016 3:20 pm

This reminds me a bit of this about GW Bush’s tax cuts.

Tax code explained in Beer
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12..
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

The Greens have been soaking up tax dollars for years. Now that those tax dollars they shouldn’t have been getting to begin with may be cut off, they call it “a raid”?!
Any tax dollars that go toward research should go to actual scientific research, not research for “politically-correct science”.
Flagpoles sway. To move the dollars from the left toward the center is not a “raid”.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 14, 2016 3:30 pm

(((APPLAUSE!)))
Now, if the federal government (just around the corner!! 🙂 ) will just repeal “climate ed.”
and replace with Econ 101 and 102 (Macro and Micro),
all the voters would eventually be economically literate and
vote accordingly and
this country will be perpetually GREAT!
🙂
🙂
🙂
Like you, Mikeyj, still smiling!!! 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 14, 2016 4:10 pm

I wish that many of our so called anti-free traders would notice the part about “might even choose to drink beer overseas”.
You want to fix the trade problems?
Step one, stop doing those things that drive companies over seas.

Reply to  Gunga Din
November 14, 2016 4:17 pm

+10

Scott Wilmot Bennett
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 14, 2016 8:22 pm

@ Gunga Din November 14, 2016 at 3:20 pm
Professor of Economics” well that explains the poor math skills! The original bill is 100 dollars and each are paying in dollars, so they are each paying in percentages* (Per hundred don’t you know!) It doesn’t matter what the total bill is (In any other case, after the initial setup of the story.), the proportion for each will be in exactly the same ratio! So a reduction in the total is a reduction for all, no less! The confusion in this misleading argument, comes from assuming the distribution was fair to begin with! 😉
*A percent is a ratio whose second term is 100. Percent means parts per hundred. The word comes from the Latin phrase per centum, which means per hundred.

Scott Wilmot Bennett
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 14, 2016 8:54 pm

Again, the “trick” here is hide the fact that the original distribution is a percentage. The original 100 dollar amount obscures this somewhat, when in fact is should be a helpful give-away for solving the problem. The second error is in attempting to convert the dollar amounts into percentage savings of the smaller ($80) discounted total. This is how it should look and each save 20% (-20% for those that pay nothing ;-):
1st – 4th 0.00
5th 0.80
6th 2.40
7th 5.60
8th 9.60
9th 14.40
10th 47.20
total $80.00

Janice Moore
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 14, 2016 9:22 pm

Dear Mr. Bennett,
The hypothetical’s facts included this: reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle {not the exact percentages} of the tax system they had been using, . They did not distribute the $20 savings per the original %’s. This was to mimic the new-and-“improved” %’s.
I think the professor’s hypothetical is internally consistent. You make some very valid points, though, about math/percentages.
Anyway. We can, at least agree (I think!), that the POINT of the beer — tax hypothetical was right on the money. 🙂
Janice (still praying ….. and I realize you consider that a waste of time 🙂 )

Bryan A
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 15, 2016 12:15 am

But. But. But. Scott, you missed the point entirely. What should have been done was to pay the $20 to the 4 poor soles who already get the free beer. They get to drink the beer and take home an additional $5 each

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bryan A
November 15, 2016 11:21 am

Bryan, you have described a number of U.S. tax provisions, including the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Scott Wilmot Bennett
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 15, 2016 1:53 am

Hi Janice,
I’ve never said you are wasting your time, by the way! 😉
“My people suffer from lack of knowledge” is a biblical quote that a like.
And your god – that also made me – would want me speak my truth, wrong or right!
I’m sorry and in the friendliest way possible, I have to say that the “Beer Tax” trope is just a “trick” of poor logic. You are asking me to accept an absurdity! I would not be honest if I did not try to warn people that they are being duped by this math myth!
I should be doing other things, as I’m going OS in a few days for a long time! 😉
I don’t have the time to explicate in english, a treatment that might make it easier to understand.
The point you make: “reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was” is exactly what occurs in very truth!
My figures below lay it out based on the solution that the “tax” is distributed as a percentage. It should be clear that the poorest did get the largest percentage discount contrary to the muddled headed professor (Who I suspect is a myth also, as I’ve seen this math puzzle before!)

 #       $ Paid      % saved    $ paid       % saved        % saved of $20
1st - 4th 0.00    100%
5th    1.00          99%         0.80            99.2 %            19.84 %
6th    3.00          97%         2.40            97.6 %            19.52 %
7th    7.00          93%         5.60            94.4 %            18.89 %
8th   12.00         88%         9.60            90.4 %            18.08 %
9th   18.00         82%        14.40           85.6 %            17.12%
10th  59.00        41%        47.20           52.8 %            10.56%

Peace be with you.
Sincerely,
Scott

Scott Wilmot Bennett
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 15, 2016 3:18 am

@ Janice Moore
I meant to say: “My people suffer from lack of knowledge” is a biblical saying that I like! (Hosea 4:6)

Janice Moore
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 15, 2016 7:58 am

Dear Scott,
Thank you for taking the time to explain. That was kind of you, especially in view of your busyness right now.
I’ll carefully look it over again, but, I’m seeing that the %’s listed are not a % of the $20 but of each person’s tax bill, thus, the %’s in your table are not what, I think, the “professor,” intended us to use? Well. I defer to you, in the meantime.
And, good! Glad you do not consider my talking to God about you a waste of time. 🙂 Yes, lol, that verse, lifted wholesale out of its context, is, even so, a good one, esp. vis a vis AGW. 🙂
Thanks again for such a courteous and thoughtful reply. What a treat to have someone “talk” to me! May you have a lovely time overseas — then, safely home, once again.
Take care,
Janice

James Fosser
November 14, 2016 3:31 pm

Can see it now. 200,000 tonne coal fired aircraft carrier USS D TRUMP.

Janice Moore
Reply to  James Fosser
November 14, 2016 3:54 pm

Yes!
And nuclear power plants with “TRUMP TOWER” on them. Like? 🙂
Got the plane!comment image
Oh, boy, oh, boy, oh, BOY! THAT IS AMERICA TAKING OFF!!! (and all the rest of the world, too! — Go Italia! Go, Brexit!)

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 4:56 pm

And “Wait for me!” (a small cry from Australia). “I want to come too…”

CodeTech
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 8:21 pm

Wait until you see the new Air Force 1… they bought three 747-800s that are expected to be in service in 2018. They make the current AF1s look like toys.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 5:33 am

Isn’t that a DC3? I would walk away from one of those…

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 12:28 pm

727

James Fosser
November 14, 2016 3:33 pm

Or better still, 250,00 tonne oar propelled aircraft carrier USS D TRUMP powered by scores of naked chained liberals.

Janice Moore
Reply to  James Fosser
November 14, 2016 3:57 pm

lol, the “sustainable” version. Or, bicycle powered. No irons required. Just tell them they are saving the planet by riding their bicycles. And feed them ONLY vegetables. And they will be happy. That’s about all they do now (the true believers, I mean).

MarkW
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 4:11 pm

Feed them only vegetables? Make sure that the ship is WELL ventilated.

Bryan A
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 12:18 am

Just insert the necessary tubing to collect the methane and use it to power the desalination facility

Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 3:47 pm

Note to self (and you, too, perhaps? sigh): do not spell $layer$ properly.

pkatt
November 14, 2016 4:01 pm

We have a procedure for treaties and international agreements.. if it did not follow this procedure then it is a hollow promise with no backing. It does not matter what Kerry is promising, or what Obama has promised the congress did not ratify anything as per our law.

November 14, 2016 4:02 pm

The Left feels it is a “raid” because they feel entitled to whatever funds they demand.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  joelobryan
November 14, 2016 6:19 pm

They have the same attitude the Russians have: “What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable.”

November 14, 2016 4:17 pm

As a long time observer of the American culture and a longtime believer of never assuming an American that lost will be happy to standby while you celebrate; PlLEASE STOP SPIKING THE FOOTBALL! Pass the problem on to the ACGW, as ladies and gentlemen should, please.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bill Korp
November 14, 2016 5:04 pm

Dear Mr. Korp,
Begging your pardon and asking you to, if you would, please, hold onto your tea cup with both hands,
….. watch out, ‘cuz, cuz (I’m 3/4 English), we Americans are going to keep right on
SPIKING THAT FOOTBALL!!!

Because we are OPTIMISTIC — all will be well!!!
Still as optimistic as all of our immigrant ancestors were,
standing on the decks of all those ships, straining their eyes to catch a glimpse of the east coast;
wiping the sweat off their brows with a grin, yelling, “Wagons, ho!” as the oxen gave a mighty pull and started the long trek across the continent; and
as their descendants were,
gazing up in wonder as as THE ROCKET — TOOK — OFF!
Hold on Tight to Your Dreams!!!

Yeeeee — haw! We — can — DO — it! 🙂
Okay. You can set the tea cup down on the doily, now. 🙂 Enjoy your quieter life over there. Aren’t you glad we left? 🙂
Janice the American (in case that wasn’t clear, heh)

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 5:14 pm

And……….. HERE COMES AUSTRALIA! That GREAT land full of hope and hard work and OPTIMISM!

(“Waltzing Mathilda” -rock)
Time to….. DANCE!!! 🙂
Good things are ahead!!!
Your American friend!

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 5:14 pm

I agree, and it hasn’t even been a week yet. Next year sometime will be an appropriate time to stop the celebration.

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 6:11 pm

Tom Halla – Or the year after that. 🙂 And Thanks, Janice! Good stuff.

Reply to  Bill Korp
November 14, 2016 7:15 pm

+1000 on your selections, etc. JPP

Janice Moore
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 14, 2016 8:18 pm

Thank you! (JPP and A.D.) Thanks for telling me! 🙂

November 14, 2016 4:28 pm

I’ve not seen anything about future funding for NASA (and GISS). How has it been done in the past, and what plans does the administration elect for any changes? Have I missed something important?

Reply to  Robin
November 14, 2016 7:22 pm

I doubt if the new admin will give the Muslims/Arabs/Caliphate/Muslim-Brotherhood any say in what NASA does…
I sure hope so.

Dave Fair
November 14, 2016 4:37 pm

Not just the U.S. liberal elite, but the entire establishment world did not see the American voter moving away from the politically correct meme. The U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, State governors and State houses have been moving conservative/populist for years. It is not like the 2016 elections should have been a surprise, had people been listening to American discontent. Obama policies truly did divide the populace. There was and is an obvious backlash against his social justice and climate warriors.
World governments and NGOs convinced themselves that U.S. climate policy would forever be defined by Obama, his appointees and Congressional and State house fellow travelers. They assumed that American voters would be forever in thrall of globalist ideals. They misinterpreted Obama heartthrob by some for progressive zeal by a majority.
America will not be pulling the CAGW bandwagon for a few years. I doubt China will want to make the substantive commitments required for it to take the lead. The EU is fracturing. Your guess as to the future of “climate commitments” is as good as mine.

Analitik
November 14, 2016 4:55 pm

Like Canada, Australia’s government is forging ahead with committing the country to further debt and reduction in economic activity,
When all those protesting liberal celebraties carry through with their threats to emigrate from a Trump led US, I’m going to look to getting a green card.

Joel Snider
November 14, 2016 5:22 pm

I guess when Barbara Boxer wanted four trillion in carbon tax revenue, that would have been a ‘down payment on the future’.
STOP that payment and it’s a raid.

F. Ross
November 14, 2016 5:57 pm

Rachel Kyte, … said Trump did not have a mandate to reverse US climate finance commitments. “All developed countries made promises,” she said. “A promise made has to be a promise kept.

+emphasis
In the history of the world, since when has any politician been held to keep his/her promises. That’s a pipe dream.
I venture, though, that President-elect Trump will do much better in this regard than the outgoing (“…if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”) president.

Janice Moore
Reply to  F. Ross
November 14, 2016 6:11 pm

Yes, F. Ross — AND remember who made the promise the Kyte is screeching about (O, not Trump and not the U.S.A., either — just O).

Richard G
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 1:24 am

Yes and Obama can get his bud Gore and the Clinton Foundation to help him pay for his promises.

November 14, 2016 6:16 pm

35% tax reductions for the middle class, I nearly cried when I heard that.
Because before Donald J Trump ever “raids” them of their billions for foreign interests, they raided us of our thousands.

Reply to  Zeke
November 14, 2016 10:20 pm

Crying can go with surges of guilt.

Reply to  subtle2
November 14, 2016 10:55 pm

I don’t know what that means.

November 14, 2016 6:21 pm

“That brings a fear to African countries,” Akabiwa Nyambe, a Zambian official, told Climate Home at a side meeting of COP22 climate talks in Marrakech. “We have been looking forward to the US bringing a lot of funding into projects… It drops our faces.”

Donald J Trump has emphasized that he will negotiate trade deals with individual countries. The UK is also going to be available to trade with the world. Trade, not aid, is much much better for the prosperity of these African countries.

Marcus
Reply to  Zeke
November 14, 2016 6:29 pm

Just think of the billions of dollars spent during this election..how many poor, would no longer be poor if those dollars were redirected.. ?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Marcus
November 15, 2016 11:30 am

Marcus, those billions went into the economy, where they went around and around at least five (5) times, enriching us all. Contrary to watermelon thinking, free economies are not zero-sum games. Watermelons reflect discredited Malthusian thought.

J Wurts
Reply to  Marcus
November 15, 2016 7:54 pm

Zeke
The 2014 midterm election cycle (2016 figures not yet available) is officially the most expensive in U.S. history, an impressive $3.67 billion being committed to both Republican and Democratic campaigns, according to estimates by the Center for Responsive Politics.
And yet U.S. consumers are currently spending about $6 billion annually on just potato chips, with Frito-Lay taking nearly 60% of total market share, according to figures published by Forbes.
“How many poor would no longer be poor if”… we just stopped eating potato chips?
J Wurts

Reply to  J Wurts
November 17, 2016 6:12 am

@J Wurts – Potato Chips are much more productive than politicians. The people making them are earning an honest dollar. And those eating them are getting enjoyment. Neither of which can be said for elections. 😉

J Wurts
Reply to  Zeke
November 15, 2016 7:55 pm

Sorry….should be Marcus

November 14, 2016 7:57 pm

“Funds to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of global warming and develop sustainably will be redirected to domestic priorities.”
The good news, but I think they might have a jaundiced view, is that there is no global warming to worry about and thus they do not need all those funds for adapting to something that is not happening. I am sure there will be a stunned silence when they realize that the freebies for no reason are going to stop coming. But, hey, they need to adult up and start working as if they were not dependent on largess.

CodeTech
November 14, 2016 8:18 pm

“A promise made”… you mean like the promise to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until they were stable? The promise not to abandon Israel? Those promises that the 0bama administration abandoned?

Janice Moore
Reply to  CodeTech
November 14, 2016 8:25 pm

Good one, I mean ones, CodeTech. Glad to see you comment. It’s been awhile. Hope all is well up there and the autumn/winter on the pond is as lovely as it usually is.
Sure wish we’d hear from some other “regulars” …. a bit concerned. It’s been over a year since I’ve seen several, including Andres Valencia, Brian H, and Jimbo (guess he’s just gone, now, 🙁 — someone saw him at Climate Audit about 6 months ago, I think). And others, like Pamela Gray, R. A. Cook, and D. B. Stealey (they have appeared within the past month or so, but, sadly, rarely comment, now).

Dave Fair
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 8:35 pm

Maybe, Janice, like Charlie Skeptic, they declared victory and went home to their real lives.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 9:10 pm

Bummer. For ME, WUWT is part of my real life! And a very good part. Well, better that than some of the other alternatives….
Was “Charlie Skeptic” Charles the Moderator?? Well, anyway, I have seen CS here within the past month or so — not worried about him.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 11:15 am

Charlie Skeptic was not Charles the Moderator, lovely Janice.
Charlie Skeptic had fun while conducting guerrilla warfare, especially in pointing out Mr. Mosher’s “Wandering in the Weeds” bad habits.
Charlie Skeptic, after helping win the final guerrilla battle on 11/08/2016 against overwhelming watermelon forces, returned home from his jungle hideout.
Charlie Skeptic resumed his prior identity and now spends a bit of time puncturing inflated CAGW egos.
Charlie Skeptic will, hopefully, not be needed back in the jungle for at least another 8 years.
Charlie Skeptic remains vigilant.
Dave Fair

Dave Fair
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 11:35 am

Janice, you will get a full explanation of Charlie Skeptic once it is out of moderation.

CodeTech
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 4:30 pm

I’ve been around, just not as much. I comment regularly on the facebook posts.

RockyRoad
November 14, 2016 8:55 pm

It’s not a budget raid if the money isn’t there in the first place.
The US is about $20 TRILLION in debt, which means we’d have to come up with that amount just to get back to “broke”.

Amber
November 14, 2016 9:22 pm

When the Swamp Gets Drained the Climate Changes . The con game global warming is in its death throws
and when the money gets cut off it’s finished . China is no have not country . What a joke .
Trump will put an end to the robbery of its citizens by the self dealing liberal global warming promoters .
If the FBI is standing down on the Clintons they should have time to investigate the transfer of $$ billions to the “renewable ” grant seekers who have ripped off tax payers .

November 14, 2016 10:09 pm

No, he’s not just pleased to see you, warmies. That really is an axe in Trump’s pocket.

andy in epsom
November 14, 2016 11:19 pm

Now what is needed is for Trump to make an executive order for all universities to release any untouched climate data that has been paid for with government funds.

Graham
November 15, 2016 3:39 am

“That brings a fear to African countries…We have been looking forward to the US bringing a lot of funding into projects… It drops our faces (sic).”
Pan African enemas so soon?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Graham
November 15, 2016 5:31 am

More like more money for rich people in poor countries!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Graham
November 15, 2016 11:51 am

Had African elites been following actual American political results for the past 6 years, they would not have been surprised that unpopular commitments by a lame duck President would not stand.
People ignore the fact that the thought of a $100 billion per year slush fund prompted many signatures on the Paris Accord. Only Europe and Obama actually put up hard economy-harming commitments.

n.n
November 15, 2016 6:34 am

A few billion dollars is a pathetic amount compared to half a trillion redistributed from Medicare to sustain an illusion of Obamacare, ironically, “viability”; And trillions more for his cronies from the multi-trillion dollar debt saved, created, and progressed. A down payment for his progressive wars and immigration “reform” including the refugee crises.

November 15, 2016 7:13 am

A “raid” is appropriate, since most of the money goes to thieves in the governments of the countries involved and thieves consider anyone standing in their way to be “raiding” their territory or stash.
As for poor countries, they can contact Tom Steyer, George Soros, Leo DeCaprio, most of Hollywood, Bill Gates— all these people fully believe in climate change, want to do their part and set a good example, and would be most happy to fund any needed projects. They can start their own company and build utopian villages in third world countries that show Americans the true way to live. For extra convincing power, it’s best if they move to these areas to showcase their achievements. We look forward to the wonderful transformation that these caring individuals while show all of us.
I think the writer means “election to” not “ascension to”. An easy mistake to make after eight years of King Obama.

November 15, 2016 7:56 am

In 20 years, they’ll be blaming the USA saying that if only we had been involved, there wouldn’t have been any warming; or something to that effect, just because we pulled out and don’t want to go bankrupt on the basis of statistical models.

November 15, 2016 7:56 am

“avoid the consequences”
Crushing poverty brought on by massive global regulation the likes of which we have never seen before and can only kind-of imagine? Government control of money? Hospital blackouts? Laws about the number of children you can have? Laws about what you can eat? Rationing of water and probably food?
that’s just the start. these people don’t care about the environment, they care about control.
Thank goodness we’ll be avoiding those consequences.

November 15, 2016 11:10 am

“One thing is clear: The Trump administration will inflict more harm on global cooperation around climate than any prior president. ”
I certainly hope so. The current administration has done serious harm to our economy and to science itself by pushing the demonstrably false narrative of CAGW arising from CO2 emissions. Luckily for us and the world, a Hillary president would have made this harm inextricable.

willhaas
November 15, 2016 12:49 pm

The Obama adminiatration is already years late with the budget cuts that were suppose to have gone along with the tax hike on the rich and the ACA taxes as part of the President’s balanced approach to deficit reductions. It is the Democrats that should have alrady reduced spending in this area.

KTM
November 15, 2016 8:39 pm

“The U.S. has no “climate finance commitments.” Outgoing President Obama had a commitment. He made the promise.”
Obama says he’s still fired up about his causes. If so, then I hope he spends all his time and effort convincing the like-minded half the country that they should uphold this commitment out of their own pockets.
Half the US is better than nothing, right? If they want to commit, what’s stopping them? They should join ranks with Obama and fund the entire amount needed to keep Obama’s promises to the world community.

Warren Latham
November 16, 2016 7:30 am

A splendid article: many thanks David.
“THIRD WORLD” ( ? ? ? )
If you really mean “poor countries” it is better to say so. There is no such thing as a third world.
Good to have these Marrakech Morons exposed:-
Megan Darby
[moron at “climate home” website]
Rachel Kyte
[Gravy Train head of the UN’s Sustainable Energy for All]
David Victor
[A “let’s keep the Global Warming Grants coming in” professor at the School of Global Policy and Strategy, University of California at San Diego and chairman of the Global Agenda Council on Governance for Sustainability at the World Economic Forum].
Regards,
WL

Newsel
November 17, 2016 7:37 pm

Zambia complains? Consider that Zimbabwe was once the breadbasket of Africa. And these plutocrats want the US to bail them out using the UN Green Fund as a vehicle … what next South Africa and Zuma crying foul as they work on destroying its economy and after Durban expecting the US to bail them out also? Think not…
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2010/07/24/zimbabwe_from_breadbasket_to_basket_case.html

Paul Callander
Reply to  Newsel
November 19, 2016 5:21 am

Much as I agree with the need for Africa to help itself rather than rip off Western “aid” and, more generally, the need to stop “climate” payments, it needs to be pointed out that actually Zambia is not Zimbabwe. Zambia has been independent since the mid 60s and has seen relatively free elections and no coups. One of the better African countries.

talldave2
November 18, 2016 8:57 pm

How much of this money will I, personally, receive?

%d bloggers like this: