What happened in the meeting? Nobody knows for sure – but in the wake of a one hour meeting between Al Gore and Donald Trump, Gore has promised an “unprecedented” surge in climate activism, to protect a renewable energy revolution which he also claims will “happen anyway”.
Al Gore: climate change threat leaves ‘no time to despair’ over Trump victory
Former vice-president expects backlash from environmentalists against Trump and hopes Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will join fight.
The urgent threat of climate change means there is “no time to despair” over the election of Donald Trump, according to former vice-president Al Gore, who hopes that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will join an escalated climate campaign against the president-elect.
Gore told the Guardian he remained hopeful Trump would reverse some of his positions on climate change but predicted an unprecedented backlash from environmentalists over the next four years.
…
Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, has pledged to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord, dismantle the Clean Power Plan, slash renewable energy funding and somehow prop up the ailing US coal industry.
His advisers have also advocated cutting climate research at Nasa and completely exiting the international climate effort.
Gore said such threats mean there will “likely be a huge upsurge in climate activism. I’m encouraged that there are groups that are digging in to work even harder. Those groups working in the courts are even more important now; those organizing on campuses are even more important now.
“My message would be that despair is just another form of denial. There is no time to despair. We don’t have time to lick our wounds, to hope for a different election outcome.
“We have to win this struggle and we will win it; the only question is how fast we win. But more damaged is baked into the climate system every day, so it’s a race against time.”
On Monday, Gore spent around an hour meeting with Trump and his daughter Ivanka, who reportedly plans to speak out on climate change despite her father’s skepticism of the issue.
“I had a lengthy and very productive session with the president-elect,” Gore said, after emerging from the meeting at Trump Tower in New York City.
“It was a sincere search for areas of common ground. I had a meeting beforehand with Ivanka Trump. The bulk of the time was with the president-elect, Donald Trump. I found it an extremely interesting conversation, and to be continued, and I’m just going to leave it at that.”
…
“Regardless of what he does, a sustainable energy revolution is under way.”
…
My guess is Trump wants to find a way to defuse climate opposition, but I don’t think there is any room to manoeuvre. Any serious concessions to the climate movement would be treated by many of Trump’s supporters as a sell-out. The entrenched positions are simply too polarized.
You don’t “drain the swamp” by hiring swamp critters.
The assertions of the “inevitability” of the renewable energy revolution juxtaposed with promises of “unprecedented” climate action are noteworthy. If the green revolution is so “inevitable”, why the need for a hysterical activist response should the Trump administration cut federal support?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All Trump has to do is read the ruling of U.K judge Justice Burton on Gore’s movie, which he ruled was political propaganda with nine major scientific errors.
Preferably aloud, during a speech nationally broadcast live.
Yet they still brainwash our kids with that lunacy every single working school day.
No doubt the left will try to get it banned on the grounds of it being pornographic.
Just about the only type of porn they don’t support.
The science is settled and there is no need for debate … therefore, cut all funding to climate ‘science’.
Next.
New judges at all levels are imperative. Problem is many are life appointments. Injunctions are a favorite of the left and are very effective against progress in many areas of endeavor.
If Trump backs off his campaign climate change and immigration stands, he’ll be a one-term president and will lose much of his voter support.
I don’t think he’s going to do that. With his EPA transition team it’s perfectly clear he knows that agw is total bs. Also he’s a businessman and knows how damaging and costly the whole agw agenda is. He will get rid of it in so far as he’s able.
Bob,
On climate change: Really? I’m as gung-ho as you on eviscerating the EPA and rolling back these insane rules, but do you really think many Trump voters had climate in mind when they voted for him? Come on, man, get real. Few of those white working class voters in the rust belt even know what EPA stands for. Not a knock on them, I wish I myself could forget! But a majority of people polled still thinks, vaguely, that climate change is a threat. Sure, they rank is 32 of 32 in the list of worries, but still we have a lot of work to do to counter the MSM narrative that humans are causing global warming. I pray that Donald can “handle” Ivanka’s meddling. It’s scary that Ivanka thinks Al Gore is anything but a scam artist bilking $millions from people like her.
The unemployed rust belt worker probably does not know what the EPA is (although they should as it is part of the reason they are unemployed), but the unemployed coal miner in Appalachia sure know who they are.
I expect President-elect Donald Trump, the business man, to take a very rational approach to understanding all sides of the issue and positioning his administration’s policy agenda on Climate Change. It is ironic that so much focus is on misinformation of climate change when we are supposed to be focusing on objective pursuit of the scientific process. I am talking about the entrenched liberal bias built into the policy process.
Risk that is well understood can be quantified or at least estimated.
Un- or under-quantified risk is still uncertainty – at least some important aspects are not known or understood with sufficient levels of certainty. There are uncertainties in data and (especially in the case of climate change), uncertainty in model projections out one or two hundred years, which are used to characterize long term risk in order to set policy. It is reasonable that Trump would meet and talk about the issue with Al Gore. That he did it only one month after his election and before the inauguration informs that he considers this to be a very important policy issue, as he has stated in speeches, the debates, and yes, Tweets. Trump’s meeting with Gore served two purposes: 1) it allows Trump to be better informed, hearing the story from all sides of the issue, and 2) importantly, in rolling out his administration’s policy Trump can say he did so in order to develop his own well-informed, best policy ever.
Thomas Hobbs said that people only act in their own interests or values. The Climate Change debate since the late 1980s has been a debate on value systems and not science. Proponents from the beginning were determined to push the policy far ahead of the science, of course all justified in order to be mindful of the future of our planet … ah yes, the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE. In terms of Pascal’s wager – to avoid the worst case, fat tail outcome, which is built into such policy tools as the social cost of carbon (SCC), in which the “social” adjective has a nice warm feely feel good ring to it; however, it would be better called the FTWPCC – fat tail, worst possible case, cost of carbon.
The United Nations and the UNFCCC are political bodies, which are far left liberal in political philosophy. The Nobel Committee awarded themselves the prize, not Al Gore and the IPCC, for agreeing with their own value systems: note this was NOT a Nobel Prize in Science, but a Nobel Peace Prize.
We have been down this road many times over the years: Thomas Malthus’ “An Essay on the Principal of Population (1798)”; Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” (1968); and The Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” (1972). All had similar failings: faulty models used in making long-term projections of future consumption and production. Malthus might be forgiven for his projection of food vs. population, given the state of human development and scientific knowledge at the time; I am completely unsympathetic with Paul and Ehrlich (population) and The Club of Rome (minerals and other resource depletion and the subsequent collapse of the world economy) – they knew exactly what they were doing and were trying to make extreme points, however lacking in good judgment.
David Hume famously said, “What a peculiar privilege has this little agitation of the brain which we call ‘thought’…. when men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, and given to views of passion without proper deliberation, which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities.”
Liberal influence has resulted in huge built-in bias into the path to where we are today – engrained in our politics, mainstream media (read any issue of the NYT, WashPo, The Economist, etc.), and academia, from K-12 instruction to universities and private and publicly funded research. It is not just the cool thing to do, it is also very lucrative – in terms of funding grants and profit opportunities. It is also self reinforcing as the feedbacks encourage more and more of the same.
Oxford historian Norman Davis outlined five basic rules of propaganda in “Europe – a History,” Oxford Press, 1996, pp 500-501):
– Simplification – reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good vs. Bad’, ‘Friend vs. Foe’
– Disfiguration – discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies
– Transfusion – manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own end
– Unanimity – presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people; drawing the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of “star- performers,” by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’
– Orchestration- endlessly repeating the same message in different variations.
Gore asked for a meeting to beg for climate mercy. So Trump granted him a meeting to let him beg and to see what he was up to.
Afterward Trump and company laughed at the pathetic idiot.
er no… Ivanka arranged it.
What difference does that make? How do you know how it was initiated or came to be?
Griff knows all, sees all, tells all.
Or at least that’s what he keeps telling us.
My hope is that The Trump met with the Goracle in order to appease his daughter Ivanka, who is a liberal, and that nothing more will come of it. It is important to keep Ivanka out of the White House, though. Nepotism laws will help.
/Mr Lynn
Indeed it was Ivanka who arranged this meeting, based apparently on her understanding of and acceptance of the science. she thinks it is a real issue needing consideration.
One member of the transition who gets it…
Er no – we don’t know yet the extent of her brainwashing, misunderstanding and misplaced feelings on the subject, but hopefully it isn’t as bad as yours is.
She was moved by De Caprio’s movie.
Ivanka was born in 1981 and as such was an impressionable 9 year old at the time of the IPCC FAR. This was the time of the initial indoctrination of school children into the AGW faith. So there truly is no wondering why she shares the same belief that others her age do
Where did she get her degree in Climate Science?
And what is her personal email address?
Trump met with the President of Mexico too. What did that mean? Amnesty ahead?
Trump met with Al Sharpton, too. What does that mean? Is Trump going to become a Leftist rabblerouser and racebaiter now?
No, just *no* damnit!
Algore blew his LAST 10 yr prediction!!
Limbaugh had a countdown clock on his website to NOTE the passage time on Algore’s TEN-year-off (issued in 2006) deadline, and we blew past it just this last year (2016) in January without much climate fanfare or cataclysm!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/01/26/algore_countdown_final_hours
Most people who are unemployed and living with their parents are going to be climate activists. So they will have the time to organize and participate in climate rallies. Their climate activism elevates their sense of importance which is hurting when you don’t have a job and feel like others see you as a loser. Climate activism is also perfect for those who have feel let down by life because shutting down the oil industry would devastate the economy and bring a lot of people down to their level. When you can’t rise up to where others are you subconsciously (or consciously) want to bring others down to where you are, either way you are gaining. That is a harsh generalization, not all climate activists are unemployed drifters but there is a high enough percentage that there a lot of people with LOTS of time available to march in climate protests.
+1
@ur momisugly Steve: You are exactly correct. The so called “affordable care act” (ACA) is an avenue to increase unemployment. Large companies lowered the hours per week to 30 or less to avoid expense of providing mandatory health benefits. People lost wages, lost homes, filed bankruptcy, went of food stamp programs…trickle down economics killed jobs and opportunity for youth entering the work place. Thus the youth have plenty of free time to apply for a one time stifle to protest, break windows, burn cars, and create chaos to vent their anger they learned from the divide and conquer gurus.
Many large chains went from hiring a younger work force to retired folks who could use a few hours a week to get out of the house and supplement their fixed income. To make up for this travesty of ObamaCare, now we see people living with their parents and pushing for a higher minimum wage. The ACA promoted a welfare nation and subsequent health care disaster.
It’s also a good way to meet chicks who aren’t overly discerning.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/12/ivanka-trump-position-opinion-on-of-climate-change-global-warming-statement-belief-meeting-with-al-gore-leonardi-dicaprio-chinese-hoax-donald/
“Trump herself has said virtually nothing about climate change in public, instead focusing on childcare throughout the presidential campaign. The only thing that comes close is one tweet from six years ago where she seems to imply that cold weather contradicts the idea that climate change is taking place, though this is mainly just a joke and not some sort of firm policy stance on her part.
Ironic tidbit of the day…Senate global warming hearing canceled due to the blizzard. http://bit.ly/9nzHsE
— Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) February 10, 2010
But Politico recently reported that Ivanka Trump plans to make climate change one of her signature issues and to speak out on it as first daughter. Technically, they don’t specify if she plans to speak out for or against fighting climate change, though.”
“But Politico recently reported that Ivanka Trump plans to make climate change one of her signature issues and to speak out on it as first daughter. Technically, they don’t specify if she plans to speak out for or against fighting climate change, though.”
You should be suspicious of anything published in Politico. They are a Leftist organization with a leftist agenda. Their reporting on this subject sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Exactly. I won’t be the least bit surprised to read later that Ivanka is a staunch critic of all things Gore and AGW.
Going to be funny watching her response once she gets into the debates. Anyone with a pulse who actually looks at the data and not the model fantasia cannot fail to go skeptic.
Common ground has always been possible; a) nuclear power and b) adaptation instead of mitigation.
However the zealots always reject any such notions of common ground; they prefer instead to waste huge amounts of money for zero effect beyond virtue-signalling and self-aggrandizement.
As a business leader, I met with lots of people. Most I never met before or knew anything about. I was greatly entertaining to hear their stories and pitches. They all wanted something. And in the long run, some of their information/products/services was very useful. Thus, I do not worry too much about these meetings. As others have posted, I guarantee Trump was mused by the Algore visit and all the media hoopla.
Gore needs to go camp out at the pipeline protest camp in ND. A live cam of the site would be very popular.
Innit funny how they try to pretend the issue there is about “protecting the water” or some kind of “infringement on sacred grounds”, or some such nonsense, when everyone knows it’s about fossil fuels, and how they hate them. The very same fuels they are living from, especially now, with winter upon them. The hypocrites.
It’s also interesting how news coverage of the project is warped. No one builds a 1,200 mile pipeline only to wait and see how the permits go on the last 1,100 feet of the project. News warp is as much about what is not said or informed as it is about the conflict story.
WSJ…
Construction is almost complete on the Dakota Access, which aims to transport a half million barrels of oil each day from the Bakken Shale in North Dakota to Illinois for delivery to refiners on the East and Gulf coasts. About 99% of the pipeline doesn’t require federal permitting because it traverses private lands. But the Corps must sign off on an easement to drill under Lake Oahe that dams the Missouri River.
After an exhaustive consultation with Native American tribes, the Corps in July issued an environmental assessment of “no significant impact.” Construction is unlikely to harm tribal totems because the Dakota Access would parallel an existing gas pipeline. The route has been modified 140 times in North Dakota to avoid upsetting sacred cultural resources.
Speaking of some inconvenient facts:
The pipeline is not near any sacred tribal lands.
The pipeline is not on Native American property.
The pipeline doesn’t threaten the Standing Rock Sioux water supply or their new water treatment facility.
The pipeline’s Missouri River crossing will pass safely more than 90 feet underneath the river, and unless gravity fails, there is no threat to the river.
The pipeline company tried many, many times to meet with the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. For over seven years, the tribe never felt this project was important enough to participate in the planning.
The tribe has been and is being used by Globalist interests to create an “occupy” environmental protest movement.
The true goals of the organizers behind the “occupy” protest movement have nothing to do with the protection of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.
Ask how many rivers have petroleum products flowing under all those rivers that flow into the Pacific Ocean on the west coast. I’ll stick my neck out and claim 100% do.
Ask how many people die or are in some way “damaged” every year from petroleum pipelines that ruptured and spilled into a river versa the train accidents. No contest.
How many people choke to death on bread? Now there is something to protest against.
I don’t see Gore mobilizing a lot of activism. He doesn’t draw big crowds. Of course, if Trump abolishes the EPA they’ll be out in the streets Gore or no Gore.
That depends on your definition of abolish.
Leaked video of Al Gore’s presentation to Donald Trump.
It appears that it is being touted as a fad to add solar panels in the village nearest me.
http://thetelegraph.com/news/93251/godfrey-solarization-effort-hits-the-mark
Out of 18K residents, there are a whole 14 houses signed up to get solarized. At least the alderman is leading by example. The info given in the article is more like advertizing, biased and incomplete.
You don’t “drain the swamp” by hiring swamp critters.
—————————————————————–
good point
well made
cheers
chaamjamal
https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/
Does seem that Al Gore et al. will turn to engaging in and funding terrorism (destruction of public works facilities of their disliking) to promote their Climate Hysteria.
Well, I just finished my last bowl of Kellogg’s cereal. I like their cereals, but I can’t see myself paying for their radical Leftwing policies. So I’ll have to find myself something new to eat for breakfast. That shouldn’t be too difficult. 🙂
What will reinforce your opinion of Kellogs is “The Road to Wellville” on the foodie delusion that started the company. Nasty but funny movie.
Fox News is reporting the are evacuating the Dakota Access Pipeline protest camp. The weather there looks kinda bad. I think the reporter just said -21 degree F. Maybe that’s windchill.
Well, it sounds like it’s time for the pipeline company to get out there and lay some pipe! 🙂 I laid pipe once while it was snowing. It wasn’t that bad.
Trump’s “No!” and cuts to funding will spread around the world.
Like a significant change in the financial markets.
Trump’s favorability rating was 45 percent favorable today as reported by Fox News. Up about 10 points.
Now contrast that with Obama. Obama has a favorability rating of over 50 percent. He got that high because the Leftwing Media NEVER criticizes him.
Yet here Trump is within striking distance of Obama’s rating despite the biggest, longest running smear campaign by the Leftwing Media and the Left in history.
I hope the Leftwing Media’s hold on this nation’s thought process is broken. It’s starting to look like it is. That will be a very good thing for this nation. It’s hard to govern ourselves when surrounded by a sea of lies from the Leftwing Media. Ignoring the Leftwing/FakeNews Media is the most important thing the American people can do if they value their freedoms.
Listen to Donald instead.
You get what you pay for on the media. See snippet above from WSJ. It’s worth the subscription.
Smear campaigns are most effective against people the public knows little about.
After 30 something years in the public eye, most people have already formed their opinion of Trump.
Here is an interestingly ironic tidbit considering the legal issues involving ExxonMobil and CAGW/anti-fossil fues activists:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/06/news/tillerson-trump-secretary-state-exxonmobil/index.html.
“….President-elect Donald Trump is interviewing ExxonMobil (XOM) Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson on Tuesday to consider him for the secretary of state position, according to one Trump aide.
Tillerson is considered a long shot for the most prestigious Cabinet role, but the Trump aide told CNN that the president-elect is intrigued by the oil man’s view of the world……”
Although the piece says that Tillerson is a long-shot, it would be veeeery interesting if he got the job.
We need to set up cameras in GreenPeace headquarters for when that announcement is made.
Heads exploding will make great television.
CD in Wisconsin:
Well ExxonMobil (and Shell) have had “Carbon Reduction” programs in their work programs and their literature for years. So the head of Exxon should be well versed in skating around the Carbon Bubble issue – as noted in their own literature … and Shell and other oilcos as well. They have activist shareholders from all sides that need to have issues addressed, regardless of personal beliefs.
http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/fuelcell-energy-and-exxonmobil-announce-location-fuel-cell-carbon-capture-pilot-plant
https://local.exxonmobil.com/Benelux-English/energy_climate.aspx
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/exxon-leads-the-charge-on-the-carbon-bubble/article17652496/
It’s business.
So why wouldn’t the President Elect solicit information from someone with experience dealing with many diverse issues from their shareholders/electorate?
Interesting times.
I am very worried that Ivanka will influence Daddy to flip on climate. Donald has no core principles and does not study issues deeply. She is moving to DC and will always be by his side influencing him. I like Myron Ebell on the transition team but in the end I don’t see anyone having more influence than Ivanka.
Trump’s response should be to set up debates between Ivanka’s favorite warmists like DiCaprio and climate skeptics. Let her see what she hasn’t seen yet.
Exactly. When she learns that pops has been listening to hard-nosed scientists while she’s been swayed by a halfwit like DiCaprio who thinks a Chinook is global warming you can actually touch she won’t be counted amongst the faithful for much longer and will find another bandwagon.
“I am very worried that Ivanka will influence Daddy to flip on climate. Donald has no core principles and does not study issues deeply.”
Does this comment not strike you as counter-intuitive?
Hint: Re “study deeply” and “flip on climate”.
Considering his presumed sceptical stance and that he may no longer be if he “studies deeply”
PS: I would agree with the way that works of course.