Chinese Climate Negotiator: Trump has "Softened His Tone" on Climate Change

Smog hangs over a construction site in Weifang city, Shandong province, Oct 16. 2015. Air quality went down in many parts of China since Oct 15 and most cities are shrounded by haze. [Photo/IC]
Smog hangs over a construction site in Weifang city, Shandong province, Oct 16. 2015. Air quality went down in many parts of China since Oct 15 and most cities are shrounded by haze. [Photo/IC]
Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Chinese Chief Climate Negotiator Xie Zhenhua has expressed skepticism about President-elect Trump’s commitment to keep his campaign promises, claiming that Trump has “softened his tone” on Climate Change, in the face of Chinese and international pressure.

Trump warming to reality of climate change, says senior Chinese official

Beijing’s chief climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, talks down fears that joint leadership shown by China and the US will be reversed under new president.

China’s chief climate negotiator has attempted to calm fears that Donald Trump’s arrival in the White House will spell disaster for the fight against climate change.

Trump, who has dismissed climate change as “bullshit” and a Chinese hoax, will become the first climate sceptic to occupy the highest office in the US when he is sworn in on Friday.

Climate scientists and campaigners have expressed alarm at the impact the presence of so many climate deniers and environmental enemies in Trump’s cabinet could have on efforts to prevent catastrophic and irreversible global warming.

But speaking to the government-run China Daily newspaper, China’s special representative for climate change, Xie Zhenhua, played down such concerns.

Xie reaffirmed Beijing’s “firm attitude” towards fighting global warming and noted that the incoming US president had “softened his tone on whether climate change is real” following his election in November.

In an interview with the New York Times after his shock victory Trump said he had an “open mind” about how he would approach the issue and conceded there was “some connectivity” between global warming and human activity.

Xie, a Communist party veteran who spent more than a decade at the helm of China’s environmental agency, told the China Daily the global momentum behind the push towards a low carbon future was now such that no one person was capable of halting progress.

“Industrial upgrades aiming for more sustainable growth is a global trend … It is not something that can be reversed by a single political leader,” he was quoted as saying.

Read more:

It is possible Xie Zhenhua is simply playing to his home audience, but I think it more likely the Chinese still don’t fully understand Western politics.

Everyone assumes the head of a dictatorship like China is all powerful, but in my opinion this is often not the case. Most Chinese leaders have very limited freedom to act. Leaders of dictatorships have no legitimacy, so they inspire no real loyalty – one misstep, and they are torn down and replaced by their ambitious underlings.

The American system doesn’t work this way. Trump is currently more powerful, and has more freedom to implement his policies, than any Chinese leader since Mao, because Trump has something which no mainland Chinese politician in living memory has ever experienced – a mandate from the people.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Jay
January 17, 2017 9:04 am

Two words: Scott Pruitt

Bryan A
Reply to  David Jay
January 17, 2017 10:09 am

Xie reaffirmed Beijing’s “firm attitude” towards fighting global warming

If China were so “FIRM” and less hipocrytical of others, they would “Walk the Talk” and not just spew out Biomass fodder

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  David Jay
January 17, 2017 10:20 am

A few more words:
Rex Tillerson: Secretary of State
Jeff Sessions: Attorney General
James Mattis: Secretary of Defense — no more “climate change is the greatest threat we face nonesense”.
Ryan Zinke: Interior Secretary
Wilbur Ross: Commerce Secretary
Rick Perry: Energy Secretary
Regardless of whether some of these nominees have in the past made statements supporting global warming theories, all across the board this is a huge improvement over what we would have gotten with a Clinton administration.

Roy Jones
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 17, 2017 11:15 am

Looking at that list, the grown ups are back in charge.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 17, 2017 5:54 pm

Sadly, indications are increasing by the day that the jury is still out on the new Administration’s position on climate change baloney, Alan. Tillerson especially is a real worry. He wants to affirm the plainly stupid Paris climate agreement about which Trump now has an “open mind”. That’s quite a climb down from describing climate change as “b……t”.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 17, 2017 11:00 pm

Ryan Zinke: Interior Secretary:
“I don’t believe it’s a hoax…”
Trump is as mercenary as they come. If it benefits him do the Climate Change Shuffle with China, he’ll dance.
There appears to be a serious effort in China to link their massive air pollution problem with CO2 hysteria. In a zero-sum approach (which I fear is Trump’s actual world-view), U.S. and China would love to see the other lose production to bad energy policies. My guess is China is going down the road toward cap-and-trade. If they do, they may well throw a good percentage of their gdp down the toilet. I just hope Trump sees this turkey for what it is before we join them in a big counter-clockwise swirly.

Reply to  David Jay
January 17, 2017 12:03 pm

China only supports the climate change efforts as it weakens the US. Duh. They have no intention of doing anything until 2030 anyhow. For them it’s absolutely no sacrifice while for us it’s all pain. I certainly hope Trump sticks to real science and reverses this train, or derails it for good.

DD More
Reply to  higley7
January 17, 2017 3:46 pm

No that is not actually What China did agreed to?
From the FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation
At the same time, President Xi Jinping of China announced targets to peak CO2 emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early, and to increase the non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20 percent by 2030.
In political spin talk, China will grow CO2 at the rate they want till 2030, then will increase the mix of non-fossil fuel (think nuclear power, thorium reactors & hydro growth of 3X the size of the Gorges Dam). Their planned growth doesn’t need what the West considers ‘renewables’. If you actually look at China Power future growth plan, Obama gave away the store to get exactly what China was planning to do anyway.
Even if they don’t change or make the targets, what is the penalty? Remember, as some have said, “Communists always lie.”
But how hard will China have to go to get to the vaunted 20% non-fossil fuel share?
According to the latest round of statistical data issued by CEC, China’s nation-wide electricity generation reached 5550TW hours in 2014, for year-on-year growth of 3.6%.
In 2014, nationwide hydropower generation breached the 1000 TW hour threshold for the first time in history to reach 1070TW hours, 1070 TW / 5550 TW = 19.23 %
Nationwide nuclear power generation in 2014 was 126.2 TW hours, for a year-on-year increase of 13.2% Usage times fell 385 hours year-on-year to 7489 hours on average. 126.2 TW/ 5550 TW = 02.28 %
Hydro + Nuc = 19.23% + 2.28% = 21.51% They are already over the 20 percent over now.

Reply to  higley7
January 18, 2017 1:06 pm

The link is to the [Obama] White House.
And even that tells us – as you say – “Obama gave away the store to get exactly what China was planning to do anyway.” !!
But the watermelons seem happy, because the current POTUS’s policy of – it seems – “Harm America Greatly Again” is reinforced.
Auto – possibly seeing your POTUS through a prism here in the UK.
But, they say that ‘Actions speak louder than words’.

Reply to  David Jay
January 17, 2017 12:12 pm

And, it should be noted that it would be wise for Trump not to go like a bull through this mess, not panic or polarize opponents, and steadily present case ofter case against the junk science, Take the mess apart piece by piece is the way to do it.

Reply to  higley7
January 17, 2017 12:42 pm

The reason why a lot of people voted for Trump is precisely because his first instinct is to be the bull in a china shop.

Reply to  higley7
January 17, 2017 12:51 pm

Similar thoughts I expressed in a previous post.
The best way to dismantle the scam is to force the alarmist scientists into something they flatly refuse to do.
Public debate!
Their own data and data they refuse to share with those scientists that question them and their “exclusive concensus” will unravel the scam at a very rapid pace.
Trump doesn’t have to do much other than remove the funding from each level of goverment as the myth is exposed for what it is. Use those scientists that have been vilified, persucuted and had their professional careers destroyed by the “global warming cartel” for daring to question. Force the alarmist click to answer questions they’ve refused to answer.

Reply to  higley7
January 17, 2017 2:44 pm

Mark: That may well be, but unless one wants a war (and I am assuming some really, really do) it’s not a good idea. The Dems are already unglued. Look at the threats about the inauguration. Trump’s not President yet and the threats and violence are already out there in the works. Rushing in a stomping all these people is a guarantee of violence and armed conflict for years to come.
Besides, no good businessman runs a bulldozer through his competition’s building. That’s crazy.

Reply to  higley7
January 17, 2017 2:53 pm

Mark W: Yes, that may have been the motivation. However, a bull in a china shop is a sure way to inspire armed conflict in this country. I believe there are those that really, really want that and simply need an excuse. I personally don’t want an internal war just to prove Trump is indeed a bully.
Besides, Trump is a business man and no business plan calling for bulldozing the competition ever pans out well. Only fools behave that way—look at the unhinged Dems at this point for examples. Now, we want Trump to do the same thing????
(If this duplicates, please blame cyberspace.)

Reply to  David Jay
January 17, 2017 12:20 pm

Two words: Scott Pruitt”
Well, there’s two counter words:
Rex Tillerson
Chamber softie Rex Tillerson, three months ago: “At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious… [and favor] the Paris agreeement.”
Rex Tillerson a week ago: “international cooperation is needed to address the threats of climate change, which do *require* a global response.” Climate change REQUIRES a global response??

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 17, 2017 1:28 pm

Because he was making Money off Climate Change. It was easy to agree when you benefit greatly.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 17, 2017 1:51 pm

davetherealist That could be part of it, but I think that’s mostly a rationalization for accepting without question an overt alarmist. Tillerson confirmed in his hearings that his leftist views on climate change are his own, not Exxon’s.
And Tillerson, a supporter of the warmist and amnesty sh – ll Jeb Bush for president, was himself responsible for dragging Exxon to the left on climate change. We don’t want him to drag Trump to the left.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 17, 2017 2:56 pm

Trump is concerned with results. He has said that all these words in front of the cameras are just that—words. If Tillerson or anyone can address climate change while increasing employment, business efficiency and without government handouts, great. If not, if Tillerson tries to take down the economy and businesses, he’ll be replaced.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 17, 2017 4:04 pm

Sheri “If Tillerson or anyone can address climate change…”
“Climate change” is leftist bs, not something that needs to be “addressed.” But Tillerson says he wants us to stay in the Paris Accord, and before that he advocated carbon taxes. If we want someone as Sec of State to “address climate change” we’ll keep John Kerry in the position.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  David Jay
January 17, 2017 12:24 pm

Will Happer

Reply to  Stephen Richards
January 17, 2017 12:53 pm

The civil service employees of these climate-concerned departments, who seem to be strongly oriented toward controlling AGW. These are the people who have to implement, or delay, policy formulated at the top.

Reply to  David Jay
January 17, 2017 12:43 pm

I doubt that Donald Trump has a fixed opinion on any subject. He goes with what his gut instinct tells him is right at any given moment. Thus, he may change his mind several times.
So, what approach his administration gives to many issues depends on how much he allows his appointees (like Scott Pruitt) to determine policy. Trump may change his mind several times on even that.

Jim Rose
Reply to  David Jay
January 17, 2017 1:00 pm

Two more words: Bill Happer

Reply to  David Jay
January 17, 2017 1:42 pm

Trump needs US$1T to implement an infrastructure upgrade. He will make noise about the recognition of Taiwan, move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, dramatically reduce the UN payments, invite Russia for talks in Washington, remove barriers for oil companies to export from the US in competition to the ME.
The $1T cannot come from taxes or tax/repatriation deals that will pay for company tax reduction. The Fed would just give any QE to its sponsors, the banks. So it must come from outside of the control of the bankers. Drama must be created to encourage others to lend the US the $1T at almost zero interest for 30 years.
All these measures will increase local employment but cannot solve the $20T, (and rapidly rising), debt problem. This can only be achieved with a debt for energy swap. The Saudi’s wanted to float Aramco this year but will delay till 2018. They bought the Clintons but Hilary failed to deliver. They have no hold, yet, on Trump. If they wait, the US debt will strangle Trump’s presidency and they can buy up what they want with the connivance of the bankers and their printer, the Fed. Trump must counter by driving down local oil production costs below US$40 per barrel. This will be difficult without technology the US does not own (but sub US$10/BOE oil tech is now known). His only currently known choice is a deal with Russia. Otherwise the Saudi’s will own a large chunk of the United States debt. A weak president would convert, Clinton would go to war. Trump will pick on China and negotiate with Russia.

Reply to  Geoff
January 17, 2017 5:54 pm

I suggest you take a closer look at Saudi sovereign finances. As we now know, their attempt to kill the fracking / “unconventional oil and gas” threat coming from the US by flooding the markets failed – instead US fracking showed that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. It’s the Saudi’s who have a monumental youth unemployment headache they don’t know how to solve and who are burning cash hand over fist in efforts to diversify their economic base. They won’t be buying up the US anytime soon.

Reply to  Geoff
January 18, 2017 6:28 am

The Saudi’s were trying to kill oil/tar sands, not frakking. To a large part, they succeeded.
However, now that oil prices are rising again, oil/tar sands are also ramping up again.

January 17, 2017 9:09 am

We are very used to it but what is a “Climate denier” is that a cousin to the :”imperialist running dog”
Only thought free hacks can write in the agitprop style without an apparent sense of irony.

Reply to  troe
January 17, 2017 10:26 am

Climate denier=green paper tiger?

January 17, 2017 9:09 am

Ah! . But there’s climate change .
And then there’s climate change.

Reply to  farmerbraun
January 17, 2017 11:36 am

it’s all about the chinese political climate. They are still building coal fired plants if they were so serious they would stop! Have you seen pictures of Beijing lately? You now have to wear a mask INSIDE your apartments on some days, yep sure they care!

Reply to  asybot
January 17, 2017 12:14 pm

I think the Chinese would really like to reduce pollution–the urban winter smogs are seriously unpopular. As a sign, theirs is the only gov seriously backing the redevelopment of safe, low-waste nuclear power from thorium fueled molten salt reactors. Our previous thicko “green” administration completely missed the boat on that one.

Reply to  asybot
January 17, 2017 12:42 pm

Thorium, safe? You believe that rubbish?

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  asybot
January 17, 2017 1:14 pm

Thorium is safe. If not, where are the bodies?
Stop making stuff up.

Reply to  asybot
January 18, 2017 6:29 am

I honestly don’t know if thorium is more or less safe than standard nuclear, however comparing bodies is not relevant since there are no production thorium units yet.

Reply to  asybot
January 18, 2017 9:00 am

For some reason the government stopped all research into molten salt reactors. I always wondered why they chose light water reactors when water has a very dangerous by product in an accident, hydrogen. However, it seems there was a plant operating north of Los Angeles that was molten salt and something happened. I think they buried the core on site. It was just recently a concern with the recent gas leak there. Trying to find out anything about it is next to impossible.
My primary statement about nuclear is that nuclear is safe, it’s the humans that can’t be trusted. Think about it, right next to the ocean, let’s put the back up generators that supply electricity to run the pumps in case of an emergency in the basement, along with the controls for it. What can go wrong ?

January 17, 2017 9:12 am

‘“Industrial upgrades aiming for more sustainable growth is a global trend … It is not something that can be reversed by a single political leader,” he was quoted as saying.’
Let’s think. Most of the rest of the world’s industry is hamstrung by low carbon regulations that stifle productivity and raise costs. Meanwhile US industries see reduced regulation leading to greater productivity and lower costs.
Sorry China, but any economist will tell you that under those conditions US industry will dominate the world economy.

Reply to  ddpalmer
January 17, 2017 9:23 am

The US might get rid of carbon regulations , but there will be no reduction in pollution regulations.
China is not constrained with respect to CO2 emissions .
And pollution regulation in China?
US economic domination is in no way assured.

Reply to  farmerbraun
January 17, 2017 12:45 pm

China is adding more pollution controls.
The leadership knows that an unhappy populace is a restive populace.
Admittedly they are only doing the bare minimum to keep the people from revolting, but they are moving.

Janice Moore
Reply to  ddpalmer
January 17, 2017 11:57 am

… under those conditions US industry will dominate the world economy

Nothing is as powerful as a free people following their dreams under ordered liberty. And this election proved that. In spite of how loudly the haters howled about the police or “racism” or “justice” or “climate change,” in spite of how often they were handed the big megaphone of the mass media, true America saw through it all.
And, by God’s amazing grace, this time the climate liars lost and

That is what official** China fears (because they do not want to simply be one of many great nations, they want to dominate the world economically).
**Unofficial, marvelously entrepreneurial, liberty-loving at heart, real China is REJOICING. A weaker Beijing is a stronger real China which doesn’t want to rule the world; they just want to have the same things all of us do in the free world: their own home, a decent job, and as many children as they want to have.
Real China is NOT behind AGW.
The ones pushing the AGW junk science in the west are official China (Communist party elite who, as is the case in any socialist system, are the ones who get wealthy). And, disgustingly, also behind it are the Benedict Arnolds of free nations such as the U.S., people who are making lots of money off the AGW sc@m in partnership with official China. One of them, a big BEST man, regularly posts snide pro-AGW remarks here on WUWT…. He has sneeringly boasted of his travels to and connections with China …. .
Re Farmer Braun’s concern: the U.S. being hampered by real pollution controls (e.g., on sulphur dioxide), which official China blasts away without, never fear — technology has made that a moot point. That is, we can (have been for a long time, now) do BOTH — be powerful in industry AND have clean air and water, etc..

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2017 12:01 pm

… to clarify (I just know someone will mis-read my slightly vague writing in that first paragraph — sorry for the poor proofreading), the election proved that true America REALIZES that what ddpalmer said is correct, that a free people under ordered liberty pursuing their dreams will be prosperous.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2017 12:47 pm

Real Chinese people don’t give a hoot about CO2 “emissions”. They do care about particulate matter though, much of which is due to the abundance of household use of coal briquettes for heat. Increasing electricity prices through “green” energy fandangles makes the situation worse, not better.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2017 1:42 pm

Hi Janice.
The article is what Chinese officials are saying Mr Trumps positions are. Need I remind everyone that the Chinese are going nuts over Mr Trump’s overtures to Taiwan and that he may go to a two china policy.
Its going to be fun. China has tried to bully Mr Trump as to our China policy-that did not go well. Guess the rest.
michael 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2017 4:46 pm

Hi, Mike,
Thanks for making sure I understood. Just so people don’t think I’m a moron (why I care I don’t know, feeling “small” today, I guess), here are parts of my 2 earlier comments (far below):
1. … Trump has not softened his position on “climate change.”
That he did is a LIE uttered by known thieves (of free world tech): the Chinese. …

Me, here: )
2. This is merely business world SOP. Paint a rosy picture to keep your stock price up/business venture profitable. …
Me, here:
Take care, down there. Thanks again for watching out for me.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2017 8:18 pm

Janice I was not sniping at you, China expected H. Clinton to win. Trump is their their worst nightmare.
This may seem odd to some here but Russia and the US have a long history of friendship. The communist stuff put them at odds with almost everyone. They much more want to be pals with us controlling the planet then trying to work with China.
People forget, Russia now has a population of only 146 millions. They are very vulnerable to China and Western Europe (If they get their act to gather.)
And no you are not a moron.
Its hard to put a “voice and face” behind the words people write thus we (me to) see a scowl and hear a snarl, when the truth is a smile and mirth
be of good cheer you are among friends

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2017 8:34 pm

Thanks, Mike. lol, well, I really did not hear a “snarl.” It was more a very kindly, “Here, little girl, let me explain this to you.” ANYWAY! 🙂 Onward.
(And I’m sorry I used the “moron” word. I’ve known people born with low IQ’s (whether due to brain damage or to a congenital defect). They were, almost without exception, not “morons” in the sense that I use that word. I use (I mean, used, trying to stop) “moron” to mean “stubbornly, willfully, ignorant.” )

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2017 9:36 pm

Janice Moore January 17, 2017 at 8:34 pm
Hi Janice
Poor word choice on my part. oops.
michael 🙂

Crispin in Waterloo
January 17, 2017 9:22 am

I wonder what he think a ‘climate denier’ is.
The decision to transition to a ‘low carbon [dioxide] economy’ is a political one. Saying it cannot be undone is perhaps not the most realistic interpretation of political history. As China, along wit the rest of the world, falls deeper and deeper into the coming global cooling cycle 全球冷却循环 the energy needs of the population will take priority over politically motivated agendas informed by earlier priorities.
The fact is that China is not moving rapidly to a low carbon economy, they are moving to a high carbon economy with lots and lots of windmills installed in the western regions and neighbouring countries (at least $11bn worth outside the country). There is nothing wrong with that provided the cost is bearable and the grid controllable. That assessment is political and technical. The Chinese have the wisdom to park their windmills in winter and use coal fired district heating systems which are amazingly efficient. Toronto should use a nuclear powered one instead of sending electricity from the other side of Oshawa.
In Ontario, Canada, the cost of energy is unbearable and the grid only barely controllable. Fortunately we already have a virtually carbon-free power generating system. Ignoring that has made the provincial premier the least popular leader in recent memory with an approval rating under 20%. With most of the national media completely in thrall with the national Liberal Party agendas, there is no guarantee that ‘the people’ will have much influence over the political decisions taken on their behalf. The media will tell us what to think.
Believe it or not we are still hearing about how Trump’s election was influenced by the Russians, and not a word about the planned terrorist gas attack on the press pavilion by Democratic Party supporters during the inauguration. To catch up, see the Veritas Project dot com. This is going to be an interesting week.

January 17, 2017 9:29 am

It sounds like Trump has just said what MOST Climate Skeptics have said, the CO2 has SOME effect on climate. The problem is that, as usual, the Climate Faithful are confusing Climate Change, Anthropogenic Climate Change, and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change. They treat it as if it’s all one and the same.
Add to this that a Chinese Climate Official is claiming that Trump is bowing to pressure from China on Climate Change. Ya, he’s not biased on this subject at all. ~¿~

Reply to  schitzree
January 17, 2017 9:35 am

” bowing to pressure ”
Showing due respect to China. Very good message.
China is a proud nation.

Reply to  farmerbraun
January 17, 2017 11:53 am

No, farmerbraun–China is an evil nation: They pollute, they treat their people like property, they have terrible human rights violations. They manipulate their currency, they steal our intellectual property and they wage a cyber war against us.
I can’t think of anything that’s good about them and I lived in China for two years.

Reply to  farmerbraun
January 17, 2017 12:47 pm

Evil and proud are not mutually exclusive.
It’s kind of like the old saying;
My brother may be an SOB, but if anyone but me calls him one, he will have to answer to me.
If you want China to change, insulting them is the worst way to do it.

Reply to  farmerbraun
January 17, 2017 5:14 pm

No, MarkW–I believe being accurate and honest is the best statecraft to employ. Reagan (to the horror of even his staff) called the Soviets an Evil Empire and that effected world-wide change.
China might take it as an insult to be called “evil”, but that’s what they are: I noticed you didn’t offer anything to refute my allegations–your ploy seems to be drop into political rhetoric, which seldom gets results.

Reply to  farmerbraun
January 18, 2017 6:32 am

If you want to start a war, calling China evil is the way to go.
If you want China to work with us, it’s the worst thing you can do.
Telling the truth may make you feel good about yourself, but that’s the only benefit of such a policy.

Reply to  farmerbraun
January 18, 2017 6:43 am

You must be a Democrat, Mark–avoid the truth, play games with your adversaries.
Reagan called the Soviets an Evil Empire and that empire crumbled without firing a shot (i.e., no war).
I suppose you can be like Chamberlain and lie about Germany; oh, that prevented WWII, for sure (i.e. BIG war).
There: I’ve just given you two historical facts that destroy your argument. By the way, we’re already at war with China: Check out their cyber war against us and their take-over of the South China Sea, their unflinching support of N. Korea.
People like you don’t see the real world: Let me guess, you’ve been brainwashed by Progressive/Marxist ideology at university and haven’t awakened to the fact that such ideology has caused the majority of the problems in the world today, stretching from Venezuela to Cuba to N. Korea, to China itself. Include Russia in the equation, too!
Go ahead; impugn my motives if you want, but you are on the wrong side of history!

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  schitzree
January 17, 2017 10:00 am

This incessant palaver about the variants of climate change, who’s to blame, etc. are like medieval theologians arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They don’t have enough science to identify the variables and their relative importance (solar variation? orbit wobble? CO2? cow farts?) so they get more agitated, create worst-case scenarios to keep the peasants riled and/or afraid, and indulge in a round robin flogging of scapegoats.
“Say I’ve got a swell idea! Let’s round up the usual suspects.”
Since the Myth of Prometheus, it’s been popular to blame the domestication of fire, and since the widespread adoption of fossil fuels, it’s been popular to blame Standard Oil, the coal barons, and so on. As long as SOMEONE gets blamed, and careerist reformers can get sainted for denouncing sin.
“It’s okay for me to burn wood for fun in my swish vacation home, and fly to Davos to pontificate on how the peons should subsist, because I’M MORALLY SUPERIOR.”
But if a Third World villager wants to switch from ox carts and dried cow flop to a pickup truck and a gas stove? “Oh no! We can’t have that. It would hurt the environment a hundred years from now.”
Then the next round of regulations looks even more like selling indulgences to get into heaven than the previous ones did.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
January 17, 2017 10:14 am

except it isn’t heaven thet is the goal, it is a Utopic Nirvana in this life that they promise

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
January 17, 2017 11:39 am

Then the next round of regulations looks even more like selling indulgences to get into heaven than the previous ones did.

Given the likely effects on the Third Worlder, such policies are likely to ensure he or she reaps said rewards sooner rather than later.

Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
January 17, 2017 11:52 am

I wonder if it going to change much at all, these people live in a bubble so thick nothing seems to faze them and after all as long , as in the case of the current Canadian government under Trudeau, it gets paid by the taxpayer I don’t see it change at all. Currently he is on a Canada wide holiday under the cloak of “Meeting ” the people in a series of country wide “Town Hall” meetings. In the 60’s we used to call them “Love fests”

John Boles
January 17, 2017 9:36 am

“climate negotiator” as if any one could negotiate the climate.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Boles
January 17, 2017 10:15 am

someone has to step over the puddles of drought

John Harmsworth
January 17, 2017 9:42 am

Western politicians lie constantly but with enough subtlety to avoid getting caught. Chinese politicians lie in support of the bigger lie- Communist Party rule. They don’t even worry about getting caught. This extends to their bureaucrats.

January 17, 2017 9:50 am

This is non-news. Trump has softened his tone on climate change…he is by necessity becoming a realist (it is always better to bet on reality than political rhetoric).
He never had any intention to roll back “Industrial upgrades aiming for more sustainable growth”…and never ever thought that he would or should reverse technological advances in energy production.
What he apparently opposed is the ridiculous ideas being floated that we can simply drop ofssil fuels over a few years and rely on “green energy” like wind and solar to power the developed world and bring advances to the developing world.
Trump’s active view will turn out to be something close to the ideas advanced by Andy Revkin — the Great Energy Quest — continuing with fossil fuels as long as they are economically cheaper than other technologies — and spending federal research dollars to develop new high yield, clean sources of power (advanced nuclear, fission and fusion). as wind and solar can add to the mix, without subsidies, we can expect them to gain some ground in the energy mix — but it will be a mix and will include petroleum and “cleaner” coal.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 17, 2017 10:01 am

I just hope you are right, Kip.

Reply to  Oldseadog
January 17, 2017 10:18 am

Trump may be a rude crude misogynist, a real jerk, and a kitty grabber, but he is ultimately a pragmatist.
Australia is mining coal by the ship load and selling it to SE Asia and China. China is building new coal fired power plants.
Trump is not going to shut down US coal plants while others reap the economic benefit of inexpensive power to out whit the US.
Coal plants should be converted to the latest technologies where economically feasible — of course they should. Old inefficient plants should be closed as they pass their “use by” dates and new efficient cleaner plants built.
And all those billions wasted on “climate science taxonomy” and “green energy subsidies” should be thrown into energy research — REAL energy research.
Trump will see this because his advisors are themselves pragmatists with reality based world views.

Reply to  Oldseadog
January 17, 2017 1:09 pm

Kip Hansen,
“Trump may be a rude crude misogynist, a real jerk, and a kitty grabber..”
So might you be, but what’s the point of such derogatory statements? What is the actual evidence you are basing that “may be” on?

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Oldseadog
January 17, 2017 1:38 pm

JohnKnight, I think Kip’s point is that Trump’s positives outweigh his negatives. Another way of putting that: I don’t want to be his friend, but I do like him as leader of the free world.
Obama appears to be a good dad. As a leader, he has clearly demonstrated he doesn’t have a clue. In the area of science – no clue. In the area of Constitutional law – no clue. He might make a good neighbor, but as a leader, other than an ability to stare off into the distance, he stunk worse than any president of this and the previous century, even managing to knock Carter up the ladder. That was an impressive feat.

Reply to  Oldseadog
January 17, 2017 2:42 pm

“I think Kip’s point is that Trump’s positives outweigh his negatives.”
I get that, but he made (in my native lingo) an accusation, that Mr. Trump hates/dislikes women, and I am asking for the evidence for that accusation.
Perhaps some don’t feel that we as a society are under psychological assault (including through the CAGW hysteria ) by ruthless people who wish to destroy Western civilization, but I do. And I will try to defend it (in part because it seems to me to be the one women as a class of people are most respected and benefited by), and that involves questioning things that are or are becoming “common knowledge” through casual repetition, such as I believe is going on here.
It’s not that I think Mr. Hansen in particular is being mean spirited or hateful towards Mr. Trump, but that I think he’s casually “playing along” with something that amounts to enforcement of PC insanity, which amounts to a divide and conquer tactic that renders us incapable of speaking freely honestly about what we experience and observe. In short, a slick way around to get around the first amendment, which will, if unchecked, will shatter our society, I believe.

Reply to  JohnKnight
January 17, 2017 2:49 pm

+1 Virtue signaling and moral shaming by the Left has become their go to tactic supported by the MSM and we shouldn’t put up with it.

Reply to  Oldseadog
January 17, 2017 2:46 pm

(I sure wish my comment wasn’t posted “unchecked” by Mr. Lazybones; )

Reply to  Oldseadog
January 17, 2017 4:16 pm

JohnKnight ==> “May” is a verb that “expresses possibility.”
“What is the actual evidence you are basing that “may be” on?” Have you been alseep or in a coma for the last six months? The video and audio evidence of at least the possibility of Trump being rude (no doubt about that, listen to the latest press conference) , crude (audio and video), misogynist (matter of opinion but a real possibility, especially if one is a feminist) ), jerk (matter of opinion, but again, plenty of video and audio to this effect, like press conferences and Twitter) , a kitty grabber (paraphrased for a general audience here, but the charge was a Trump self-admission)…..
But I do think that he is better than the alternative offered to US citizens in the election past.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Oldseadog
January 17, 2017 4:20 pm

Kip Hansen,
Australia selling coal to China has the benefit that it is high quality coal able to replace high sulphur stuff and give cleaner air all round the globe.
Australia is more troubled, with existing coal-fired generators like Hazelwood Vic slated for closure shortly. One for our largest. We have abundant coal but fewer generators to benefit from it.
We have abundant uranium, but a national policy that has never allowed domestic nuclear power stations. We export significant natural gas, but this raised domestic prices about 4 fold. Most States specifically now prohibit fracking, limiting new, cheap, local gas like the USA revolution did.
This week, we have unions pulling excess sickies to threaten production of electricity from another of the main coal fired stations. For ideology alone, as ordered.
We have national policies requiring preference for use of electricity from renewables, mainly windmill. We have seen recent demonstrated failure of renewables in Sth Aust and Tasmania, with only reviews, not actions, to make corrections.
Industries like aluminium smelting/alumina refining are in firm chance of departing after one suffered potline freeze from renewable failure and another was encouraged by cost threats to close its dedicated coal station.
Hard to think of a more stupid mess. Our own household electricity tarriff, under rather constant demand, has risen steadily at near 11% p.a. for the past 10 years. Higher increases for coming years are officially predicted.
Here I throw up my helpless hands and ask if anyone can suggest what to do the bring back the highest standard of living in the world that we older Australians once worked hard to create for the benefit and joy of our fellows.
The politics of all major parties have no promise, just more retardation for reasons seldom explained beyond the stage of bog ignorant ideology and green vote fishing?
Poor fella my country.
The creation of poverty from abundance through elected incompetence. Why us? Do we need Trump style swamp draining?

Reply to  Oldseadog
January 17, 2017 5:06 pm

I asked for the actual evidence, Mr. Hansen. Post some, please, so we can discuss it, rather than just offering vague impressions/remembrances. Those might be heavily influenced by the reactions of others, like TV talking heads and such, ya know?

Reply to  Oldseadog
January 17, 2017 5:37 pm

“JohnKnight ==> “May” is a verb that “expresses possibility.” ”
Not always, I’ve often heard the expression used to concede or assert something, before making a “but at least” sort of statement. That’s how I interpreted your use here, and from your further remarks I feel even more justified in that interpretation . . you were expressing your opinion/belief that Mr. Trump IS a misogynist and so on, not just your sense of it being a possibility, right?

Reply to  Oldseadog
January 18, 2017 9:18 am

JohnKnight, you asked for evidence of Trump’s misogyny.

Reply to  Oldseadog
January 18, 2017 3:50 pm

It seems incredibly obvious to me that what you refer to, is evidence that Mr. Trump is extremely fond of women, not evidence that he hates/dislikes them, which is what the term misogyny means . . It is precisely that (to my mind) schizophrenic sort of rubbery linguistic contradiction that (in part) provoked me to ask for some discussion on this matter.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 17, 2017 10:19 am

Regardless of any offhand recent remarks he may have made recently (you cite none and I have heard of none, just giving you, Mr. Hansen, the benefit of the doubt as to your assertion above about Donald Trump’s “tone”), Trump has not softened his position on “climate change.”
That he did is a LIE uttered by known thieves (of free world tech): the Chinese.
The issue, furthermore, is NOT “reversing technological advances.” As if. What’s known is known.
The issue is: will Trump’s actions end the subsidies/contrived-market-share-by-regulation which make the U.S. a patsy market for Chinese solar/wind junk products?
Answer (remains): YES.
Go suck eggs, Chinese. The U.S. is DONE playing your little con-game. SO done.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2017 10:24 am

Breaking News!….
People that get paid…are pissed they’re not getting paid
…film at 11

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 17, 2017 10:52 am

This is what makes sense to me. I put air source heat pumps on my house displacing much of my oil usage in my furnace. My electric generation, due to state mandates is 21% renewable, and with that caveat, it’s as cheap as I can find. It simply works out that running my heat pumps, at today’s oil rates is cheaper when it’s in the 30sF. I did not displace the oil because I hate it, nor do I think catastrophic GW is in our future. It’s cheaper for me, and it’s more efficient since I am just moving heat, not releasing it. Depending on oil and electric rates, I will use more or less oil. (I live in CT.) The trick should be getting our energy cheaper and cleaner. Who would be against that, regardless of what anyone thinks about Climate Change. Who cares, I saved 10% of the cost of my heat pumps in 1 year from heating alone, and more since they displaced through the wall AC units. They are rated to last 20 years with minimal maintenance. This makes sense.

Reply to  Mike_GenX (@MikeGenx)
January 17, 2017 11:01 am

Fine enough, but let us not forget the logistic curve and the law of diminishing returns. I say that we could roll back emissions regulations to the 1992 levels and no-one would be able to tell the difference. That’s how far into the land of the law of diminishing returns we are today. I say we’re just about as clean as we need to be, yesterday. We should also teach some basic chemistry. Chemistry runs on the law of mass action. Not enough mass, no action. From that, we get dose and route of administration make the medicine and the poison. A toxin is toxic conditionally. When the conditions are not met, the toxin is not toxic.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 17, 2017 12:28 pm

Anything that Revkin proposes will be a disaster. More Lomberg than Revkin

Reply to  Stephen Richards
January 17, 2017 4:22 pm

Stephen ==> Revkin is a smart guy — just misguided. He is, however absolutely right about the need for a Great Energy Quest — a sort of Manhattan Project to develop cheap dependable non-polluting electrical power for the developed world and suitable for the developing world.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
January 18, 2017 6:36 am

If your goal is zero pollution, there is no energy source that is non-polluting, and never will be.
If you want cheap and very low pollution, we already have that.
Both nuclear and coal qualify.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 17, 2017 12:52 pm

The federal research dollars ARE a subsidy. Coal is now and will always be the best form of energy for electric power due to the energy return on energy invested. Wind has no hope. That’s why windmills were replaced at the start of the industrial revolution.

J Mac
Reply to  AP
January 17, 2017 4:56 pm

Coal is stored solar energy!
We don’t need batteries… or solar panels, to harvest stored solar energy!

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 17, 2017 2:01 pm

Clean burning domestics coal stoves were introduced to China in July 2016 and emissions testing continues at the China Agricultural University’s College of Engineering. Results are very impressive. Domestic coal combustion is a major pollution source that something can be done about at no additional cost over traditional products. It has been demonstrated that PM2.5 emissions from this sector can be reduced to practically nil with existing designs and materials. These products are now being produced in four Asian countries. It is disruptive like this which we should seek and anticipate. It is long past time that we stopped pretending that everything that can be invented already was.

January 17, 2017 10:01 am

What would be the legal implications for the US gov’t if Trump revealed NASA/GISS had been tampering with data? Surely they’d be at the mercy of some of the largest legal claims in history from FF energy companies? It would probably be cheaper and less trouble for him to simply ‘shift policy’ a touch rather than admit gov’t liability malfeasance.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  CheshireRed
January 17, 2017 10:45 am

Tried suing the government lately? I wouldn’t recommend you waste the time.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  CheshireRed
January 17, 2017 11:44 am

You can’t sue the federal government without it’s permission. Says so in the Constitution.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  CheshireRed
January 17, 2017 4:14 pm

CheshireRed January 17, 2017 at 10:01 am
“What would be the legal implications for the US gov’t if Trump revealed NASA/GISS had been tampering with data?”
Depends Red, was it really NASA/GISS or was it individuals that all belonged to a Cult/NGO with its own agenda which they were working to impose.
This is one aspect of the recent actions by NASA/GISS that must be examined. Who were the management of these agencies really working for. Who did they owe their loyalties to.

January 17, 2017 10:02 am

Chinese are not oblivious to the effects of the climate controversy. They see the benefits of keeping the developing world in penury. I worry that China may be able to flex some economic muscle to further the agenda of 3rd world domination through energy starvation.

Reply to  rocketscientist
January 17, 2017 10:11 am

China is pumping out new coal fired electrical plants like mad….and has no intention of stopping.
It makes most of the solar panels for the world, and most (?) of the wind turbines — so they will continue to manufacture and sell them — as many as possible. They will support and encourage Europe and the US to buy buy buy — for their own economic advantage.
It has wind farms in its deserts that sit idle with no customers for the power and too few transmission lines to carry the power away when the winds blows.
There is no reason whatever that the US should want to be considered The World Leader in excessive green madness….let China have that dubious honor if it wants it.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 17, 2017 10:23 am


Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 17, 2017 11:45 am

google “river pollution in china” go to images..
China has FAR greater problems to fix that WASTING money and time on unreliable, unusable wind farms..

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 17, 2017 12:29 pm

China just announced the suspension of 100 coal power station builds.

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 17, 2017 1:46 pm

Stephen Richards – a link would have been nice.But assuming it is true (I couldn’t find it with a quick Google) 100 out 2400 planned new plants seems like a drop in the bucket. Likely they came up with a better tech for those “100” suspensions.

Janice Moore
January 17, 2017 10:05 am

This is merely business world SOP. Paint a rosy picture to keep your stock price up/business venture profitable.
Solar and wind and disaster insurance and electric/hybrid car producers see a very grim outlook (without U.S. taxpayer/power customer subsidies they will go bankrupt — or, at least, be forced to lug their junk into much higher risk markets).
So! What do we do when we want people to think “Everything is A-OK WITH ME”
(when it is far from it),
we put on a BIG GRIN — and lie.

Roger Graves
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2017 10:25 am

We may already be seeing the ‘Trump effect’ on renewable energy. Worldwide investment in 2016 was 18% less than in 2015 ($287.5B as opposed to $348.5B in 2015 – see Now let’s see if, hopefully, it falls even further in 2017 and beyond.
In the best of all worlds, a small fraction of this annual $300B currently spent on so-called renewable energy would go a long way to lifting Africa out of energy poverty if spent on conventional energy systems. We can only hope.

J Mac
Reply to  Roger Graves
January 17, 2017 5:03 pm

Mayhap it’s time to ‘short’ alternate energy, especially those that rely on massive government (read: ‘taxpayers’) subsidies to support their products.

Roger Knights
January 17, 2017 10:08 am

Xie is trying to “entrain” Trump.

Paul Penrose
January 17, 2017 10:10 am

What you are hearing about the president elect from the MSM and the entrenched political powers (mostly the left) is pure irrational fear. Donald Trump is not something they are used to dealing with. He is not the product of either dominant political party, and so he can’t be bought and controlled like all the presidents before him (in modern times). And what they don’t understand, they fear. And what they fear, they attempt to destroy. Expect this to continue until either the Trump administration grinds to a halt under the weight of the obstructionism and pressure brought by an army of paid lobbyists, or the opposition collapses and turns on itself in the face of Trump’s success and popularity. I’m betting on the latter.

Major Meteor
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 17, 2017 11:40 am

I’m praying for the latter.

Bruce Cobb
January 17, 2017 10:15 am

Wait, does this mean that China no longer wants the mantle of Climate Leader? After, like less than 2 months?
That was fast. What happened?

Pat Frank
January 17, 2017 10:34 am

Trump recently met with Will Happer. I take this as a sign of definitive opposition to AGW and its insane notions of “green,” “clean,” or “sustainable” energy.
No one, and I mean no one would win a debate with Will Happer about the so-called consensus view of CO2 and climate.
Will Happer has called AGW alarm cargo-cult science. He’s right. That would have been his message to DT. With information and such thorough-going knowledgeable reassurance like that, I see no prospect at all of Trump softening his stance on AGW.
Trump seems to have a very no-nonsense view of profit, loss, and prosperity. Wind and solar energy play no part in that.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 17, 2017 10:38 am


Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2017 11:51 am


Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 17, 2017 1:47 pm


Reply to  Janice Moore
January 18, 2017 6:38 am


Mumbles McGuirck
January 17, 2017 10:37 am

Trump “will become the first climate sceptic to occupy the highest office in the US when he is sworn in on Friday.” I thought that was George W. Bush. Oh, how the mighty have fallen!
I just love how the true believers are grasping at any and every straw that the coming storm surge of skepticism isn’t going to sweep them away. China has a vested interest in the US harming its economy while they burn coal like it’s hickory wood. Yet the goops at the Guardian will believe what the Red Chinese stooge says, because they NEED to.

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
January 18, 2017 9:21 am

China has deployed more solar and wind power than any other country, and their use of those is growing far faster than increases in coal use.

Ore-gonE Left
January 17, 2017 10:42 am

Relax Mr.Xie Zhenhua and take a deep breath. Now repeat after me, “Good to meet you Mr. Scott Pruitt.”
I think this is a tweet that will be forthcoming from PEOTUS.

Harry Passfield
January 17, 2017 10:43 am

Seems to me that all Trump has to do is tell China (and the US pro-Paris activists) that he is prepared to sign up to the same conditions agreed by China in that ‘accord’.) Let’s face it, if the AGW scam is not dead and buried by 2030….

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 18, 2017 3:22 am

Harry he could say CO2 doesn’t cause global warming and watch the Chinese blow a fuse.

January 17, 2017 10:50 am

Isn’t this exactly they message we got from Al Gore after his visit to Trump Tower ?
The next day Gore went into full battle mode.

Reply to  Neo
January 17, 2017 11:41 am

yep….they come out the door lying to make themselves look right
…then tell on themselves immediately after

Roger Knights
Reply to  Neo
January 17, 2017 2:03 pm

If Gore is following his advisor Hansen in advocating nuclear power, and if Trump hopefully is willing to consider nuclear as a “no-regrets” option, then there could have been a meeting of t minds on that topic.

Reply to  Roger Knights
January 18, 2017 6:39 am

Wouldn’t Gore need to have a mind, in order to engage in a meeting of the minds?

John Peter
January 17, 2017 10:56 am

“CheshireRed January 17, 2017 at 10:01 am
What would be the legal implications for the US gov’t if Trump revealed NASA/GISS had been tampering with data? Surely they’d be at the mercy of some of the largest legal claims in history from FF energy companies? It would probably be cheaper and less trouble for him to simply ‘shift policy’ a touch rather than admit gov’t liability malfeasance.”
An interesting point. NASA/GISS have not been sued so far if Tony Heller’s analysis of the adjustments is anywhere near reality. I don’t think the new Administration will not come out with a statement that GISS and NOAA have “fiddled” the figures. They will probably come out with a new version X to be followed by Y gradually increasing old temperatures and reducing current so that at some point Steinbeck’s thirties heat gradually returns. I don’t think it will be an instant change and first NASA/GISS surface temperature records will cease to be updated. Terminated by the Terminator. Will be interesting to watch.
It seems to me that the Chinese do not understand Trump. He makes it look as if he takes diverse advice, but in the end he will force through his own views. He is clearly building up a negotiation position against the Chinese. He has already stated that the one Chinese state is negotiable (Taiwan issue). He is building up demands and showing that the one way traffic of China getting their red lines all the time against Obama will end. It will be at least 50/50 on red lines or the deal is off. Trump will build up the military and close Chinese military expansion. I hope he will be backed by South Korea, Japan and Vietnam and maybe even the Philippines if finally they get the idea that currently China is eating them bit by bit. What about India joining as China is sitting on Indian territory? Maybe he can eventually persuade Putin that Russia’s real enemy is China in the long term.
Will all be interesting to watch unfold. I am with Trump and what he has said he will be doing.

Reply to  John Peter
January 17, 2017 11:05 am

These agencies have a form of sovereign immunity. They have to be allowed to be sued by Congress, which has Article I power over the scope of the Article 3 courts.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  John Peter
January 17, 2017 11:39 am

Yabut, now that China will be “taking the gloves” off, Trump better watch out!

January 17, 2017 11:00 am

The claims in the NYT article which seems to be the basis of the Chinese claim are disreputable. The transcript of the actual conversation that the NYT started the rumor with shows that once again major media was creating false news.

Reply to  hunter
January 17, 2017 11:12 am

You’re right. This was the interview before Trump made any of his Cabinet picks.

Reply to  hunter
January 17, 2017 11:24 am

Nice one, hunter. And so it goes in la-la land.

Reply to  hunter
January 17, 2017 12:03 pm

Nice find hunter! +many!

Janice Moore
Reply to  hunter
January 17, 2017 12:18 pm

Hunter’s great research needs to be emphasized:

{T}he NYT article which seems to be the basis of the Chinese claim {is inaccurate} …

Reply to  hunter
January 17, 2017 12:37 pm

Thanks. Here is the transcript.
WUWT covered this at the time, by the way.
The only group working hard to raise doubts about the recent election is the democratic party and their phony news media.

Bryan A
Reply to  hunter
January 17, 2017 2:05 pm

So the Dems are the True Merchants of Doubt

Reply to  hunter
January 17, 2017 3:42 pm

“So the Dems are the True Merchants of Doubt”
They always have been !

January 17, 2017 11:05 am

I think it’s safe to say that no matter what stand Trump finally takes on Climate Change, he is not going to pay for it.
So, it’s going to be on the cheap .. and all those folks at Davos can bank on the US not footing the bill for all of their “opportunities”.

J Mac
January 17, 2017 11:07 am

“Softening…..Hardening……Moderating….” Empty opinionated crap.
Reality begins after inauguration this Friday!

stas peterson BSME MAB MSMa
January 17, 2017 11:10 am

I hope Mr. Trump is as a progressive on Climate change and adopts the identical ‘progressive’ Chinese program.
Do absolutely NOTHING until 2035; and then decide if you want to do anything.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  stas peterson BSME MAB MSMa
January 17, 2017 2:09 pm

2030. Sounds reasonable. By then both could have running ThF reactors going and be suing each other over the patents.

Henry chance
January 17, 2017 11:25 am

Climate negotiator
Climate denier
Carbon pollution
Fighting global warming
All the jargon contains a tone of nonsense. My favorite that summarizes the most is “consensus” which is blatantly a political term.

January 17, 2017 11:27 am

Heh, Zhenhua reassures the Davos crowd that they can keep investing in Chinese green industry. I hope they are sufficiently reassured.

January 17, 2017 11:29 am

Trump’s trump card to revive the economy is to resume fossil fuel extraction and provide industry with competitive energy. He is not interested in global anything, especially wealth redistribution, unless it brings an advantage to America.

January 17, 2017 11:41 am

Trump has something which no mainland Chinese politician in living memory has ever experienced – a mandate from the people.

The Chinese people fear instability. Confucian culture is deeply ingrained in them. They will support their leaders unless the wheels really start coming off. Mind you, that could happen if President Trump keeps his promises about bringing jobs back to America.
More interesting than Trump’s CAGW policy is his policy on ‘one China’. In other words, he doesn’t support China absorbing Taiwan. Perhaps one reason he’s warm to Putin is that he seeks support in an eventual confrontation with China.

January 17, 2017 11:42 am

google “river pollution in china” go to images..
China has FAR greater problems to fix that WASTING money and time on unreliables.

Bryan A
Reply to  AndyG55
January 17, 2017 12:16 pm

Ah Yes…China…the great ANTI-Socialist experiment

Harry Passfield
Reply to  AndyG55
January 17, 2017 1:14 pm

Send the EPA over there…they could advise….they have form.

Bryan A
Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 17, 2017 2:07 pm

Well, If “Form follows Substance” the EPA’s Form will follow the Air in China as Substance

January 17, 2017 12:06 pm

China probably realizes that CO2 is a major card in the ill-conceived, USA fight-climate-change game, and they only conflate pollution and CO2 concentration in word games to make themselves look better, while continuing to be the worst offender, where REAL pollution is concerned.
Too many people seem to be failing to make distinctions between exactly what kinds of substances are in the air and HOW MUCH of these substances are really critical issues.
To include CO2 in the same breath (literally) as PM2.5 is about a 1 on the “stupidometer”, where a 10 is smartest. To include a small concentration of PM2.5 in the same context as China’s massive concentration of PM2.5 (as if a little is equally as bad as a lot) also registers pretty low.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
January 17, 2017 3:48 pm

First prove that PM 2.5 is a problem. So far it is a non-issue. It has a body count of zero so far.

January 17, 2017 12:09 pm

It is possible Xie Zhenhua is simply playing to his home audience, but I think it more likely the Chinese still don’t fully understand Western politics.

The Chinese don’t fully understand Hollywood either…

The First International School on Climate System And Climate Chang (ISCS)
Author:Yan Zhang,Yiming Liu 2004-11-19
The First International School on Climate System And Climate Chang (ISCS), sponsored by China Meteorological Administration (CMA) and co-sponsored by the Office of IPCC Working Group I, State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs and National Natural Science Foundation of China, was held in CMA from August 23 to September 1, 2004. It received extensive attention from the meteorological departments and relevant scientific research institutions. More than 16o students including young researchers, doctoral candidates and master degree candidates specialized in climate system and climate change research took part in the study. They are from over 40 organizations, such as the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Education as well as CMA National Climate Centre, Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences (CAMS) and eight meteorological institutes, National Satellite Meteorological Centre, seven Regional Meteorological Centres, provincial meteorological bureaus, etc.
This session of School includes 45 teaching hours altogether and most of them were conducted in English. The wonderful lectures given by Chinese and foreign experts attracted great interest of the participants. During the session, the students were also invited to watch the American scientific film ” the Day After Tomorrow”, which demonstrated “the breath-taking catastrophe brought to mankind by climate change”, and visit the GAW station in Shangdianzi, Miyun District, Beijing and the Great Walls in Simatai and Gubeikou.

J Mac
Reply to  David Middleton
January 17, 2017 4:50 pm

Climate Chang????
“The First International School on Climate System And Climate Chang (ISCS)”
(repeated in the 1st paragraph, as well)
Apparently authors Yan Zhang and Yiming Liu don’t understand English spelling either….

R. Shearer
Reply to  J Mac
January 17, 2017 8:23 pm

It’s a hope and chang thing.

Reply to  J Mac
January 18, 2017 6:40 am

I though Chang was the third author.

R. Shearer
Reply to  David Middleton
January 17, 2017 8:22 pm

Xie is his family name. Zhang and Liu are other family names. It’s often confusing with Chinese names as what would be our last name comes first.

January 17, 2017 12:14 pm

China must have found the missing data and processes that show humans are responsible for global warming and that it is reversible if we just do what they say.
Meanwhile cold arctic are is bludgeoning the lower latitudes, and that cold air is being replaced with warmer air (nature abhors a vacuum) and that energy is surely headed to the blackness of space (energy lost to space grows with the amount of energy available to lose), there being no energy source during winter to preserve it.

Reply to  dp
January 18, 2017 3:56 am

I think you need to check out the energy dynamics of the current arctic situation, where a string of storms has lead to warm and wet air over the pole for much of the winter so far… we have seen places in the dark of the arctic winter night with air temps at or just above freezing point, not many degrees below.
The ocean there is not shedding its warmth into space just now.

Reply to  Griff
January 18, 2017 6:41 am

So you admit, it has nothing to do with global warming.
Wind patterns are pushing warm air up their instead of allowing the cold air to sit in place.

Reply to  Griff
January 18, 2017 6:42 am

PS: Since you make a point of proving that you don’t know science.
The warmer the water is in the arctic, the more heat is being lost to space.

Reply to  Griff
January 18, 2017 8:20 am

Griff, you have not thought through your assertion about heat transfer. The Arctic is shedding huge amounts of energy. Where do you think the warmer air came from?

Reply to  Griff
January 18, 2017 12:33 pm

“The ocean there is not shedding its warmth into space just now.”
You truly don’t have the first clue, have you? Talk about scientific illiteracy!
Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for slandering her yet?

January 17, 2017 12:35 pm

AS firm as 2030 can be

Eric H
January 17, 2017 12:38 pm

“Climate scientists and campaigners have expressed alarm at the impact the presence of so many climate deniers…” How do you say “bite me” in Mandarin?

R. Shearer
Reply to  Eric H
January 17, 2017 8:28 pm

A most polite way would be: 咬我 pronounced yao wah. An impolite way would be: 他妈的 pronounced ta ma de.

Reply to  R. Shearer
January 18, 2017 6:42 am

Show off

January 17, 2017 12:44 pm

There is no global warming anymore. It looks most Chinese people dont understand the difference between AGW and pollution (fog)…

Reply to  henryp
January 17, 2017 12:55 pm

I meant

David L. Hagen
January 17, 2017 12:48 pm

China – promised to “only” increase CO2 by 50% to 100%
As the world’s largest CO2 “polluter” China demonstrated remarkable political acumen at Paris to be lauded for “only” increasing its CO2 emissions by 100% (or possibly by only 50%) while retaining its category of a “developing” nation! As such it exercises its privileged position and declares Trump to have “softened” his stance!
See: China’s Climate Plan, OCTOBER 27, 2015, By Paul Homewood

We can therefore arrive at a carbon dioxide intensity figure for 2014 of 50.31 MtC per trillion yuan. Given that the Chinese claim they have already cut intensity by 33.8% from 2005 levels, we can extrapolate an intensity of 76.00 for 2005, (ie 50.31/0.668).
Obviously, the actual level of emissions in 2030 depends on how fast GDP grows, so I have looked at two scenarios.
The first is based on annual growth rate of 8%, in line with the last four years, but much less than growth in the years leading up to 2010, which I don’t believe will return.
On this assumption, GDP in 2030, at 2010 prices, will more than have tripled to 187.2 trillion yuan.
As the intensity target for 2030 is 40% of 2005 levels, this equates to 30.4 MtC per trillion yuan, giving CO2 emissions of 5690 MtC. This, of course, more than doubles current emissions of 2747 MtC.
The second GDP scenario is a lower growth one, used by the IMF, of 6.6% till 2020, followed by 5.4%. Using this, we get GDP in 2030 of 135.4 trillion yuan, still more than double last year.
Running the same equation, we get CO2 emissions of 4116 MtC, which is an increase of 50% from current levels.
As China currently contributes 28% of global emissions, the two scenarios would add 30% and 14% to current global emissions respectively. Put another way, even the lower scenario would add more then the whole of the EU currently produces in total.

Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 17, 2017 2:47 pm

Thermalization of terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 and reverse thermalization, nearly all to the plethora of lower energy absorb/emit wavelength bands of water vapor, explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Discover what does cause climate change (98% match 1895-2015) at

January 17, 2017 12:51 pm
R. Shearer
Reply to  ossqss
January 17, 2017 8:29 pm


Reply to  ossqss
January 18, 2017 6:43 am

There’s a similar clip regarding Bush Sr. trying to open a locked door. It happens.

Reply to  ossqss
January 20, 2017 6:57 am

just hours now….

January 17, 2017 1:11 pm

Would someone with more than my bare-minimum knowledge show this moron the errors in his thinking.

January 17, 2017 2:48 pm

Mother Nature does not do politics.

Gary Pearse
January 17, 2017 2:56 pm

The proponents forget that sceptics will be heard and scientists who have been shut out of the trough or afraid to speak up will weigh in.

January 17, 2017 3:40 pm

What did China do hack Trumps Email sever in his basement ? Or perhaps the CIA told them ?
Trump hasn’t rewritten his 100 day plan so it seems odd for someone in China to be drawing conclusions .
Wishful thinking . Looks like China has stopped building new illegal islands in the South China Sea too . NOT .
Why would you be building new islands barely above sea level if you honestly thought global warming was
going to raise the sea and submerge them ? Lets face it is all about China laughing in the face of the USA
for being stupid enough to send them $$ Billions to do absolutely nothing . … Well maybe just build a few more illegal islands .
If Trump backs off his election promise commitments it won’t matter what he does after the first 100 days .

Reply to  Amber
January 18, 2017 6:45 am

Trump has been doing his obligatory calls to world leaders.
Whether he has called China yet, I don’t know.

January 17, 2017 8:09 pm

If you believe this you probably believe china’s claims about its economy.

Reply to  Rotor
January 18, 2017 6:46 am

The CIA was shocked to find out how bad their estimates of the Russian economy were, after the iron curtain fell.
They actually took the Russian claims seriously.

Reply to  MarkW
January 18, 2017 9:33 am

During the nuclear arms race, the Soviets were laughing at our intelligence community. The Soviets had a total, a grand total of 4 as in four. Anybody miss the war in Iraq? Let’s see we went in, along with the intelligence from other countries, that there were weapons of mass destruction there. Colin Powell was at the UN presenting the case. Anybody care to listen to Hans Bliks? Then they disassembled the government.
There are times when the leadership in this country is outstandingly stupid. Climate change anyone ?

January 17, 2017 8:45 pm

The Chinese negotiator is just passing along NYT/MSM fake news. The Chinese leadership and the western Elites share a lot of traits, like spinning false narratives to influence others. Propaganda, in other words. Be skeptical of anything you hear from these sources.
We’ll get a pretty good indication of where Scott Pruitt stands on the subject of CAGW tomorrow in the Senate hearings. Let’s see how hysterical the Democrats get over it. It ought to be good for a few laughs and insights.

January 17, 2017 10:33 pm

For the next 4 years, the MSM’s raison d’être is to utterly destroy Trump 24/7/365 x 4 years. PERIOD.
Every “news” (aka Fake News) item from here on needs to be viewed through that prism.
The purpose of this particular news story, is, as always, to hurt Trump and discourage his supporters.
Trump is NOT changing his views on CAGW. He’s playing head games … In business and politics, you don’t always show your hand.
Trump is most likely creating the impression that he’s changing his views on CAGW to provide cover while he and his team quietly devise ways to destroy it…
Leftist politicians have never seen anything like a Trump presidency, but they’ll soon find out.
Give Trump time, and remember Machiavelli’s famous line from The Prince, “For the vast majority of mankind accept appearances as though they were reality, and are influenced more by those things that seem than by those things that are.”
Trump is going to have a field day with Leftists and the MSM.
The next 4 years will be historic.
Make America Great Again!

January 17, 2017 11:43 pm

Best gift Trump can offer China is Clean Air Act and less manufacturing in China.

January 18, 2017 4:38 am

I doubt that Trump has changed his opinion on global warming. I think it’s wishful thinking on the part of some people. He’s read the climate gate emails. When the AGW people come to you pretending that their science is correct after altering data to get the results you want, it’s a little difficult to believe anything they say is factual.
Evidently, by his comments, Trump read more of them I have.

January 18, 2017 8:53 am

must say
never thought I would admit this
but like Samurai I also think Trump is very clever/
don’t know yet though how he can bring jobs back lost due to robots?
20 years BMW here in my town had 3000 employees,
now it is 300,
yet they make more cars….
can anyone here perhaps update me on Trump’s current relationship with Cruz? [Cruz held a hearing on so-called global warming]

Reply to  Henry
January 18, 2017 9:55 am

Henry commented: “…don’t know yet though how he can bring jobs back lost due to robots?…”
Hands on workers are not the whole picture. Think of the entire support chain required to get product to the end user. Financial, material, transportation, technology, housing, government, etc. Then think of putting that chain where there was nothing previously. Everyone has the same limitations posed by robots now getting to use the robots is the trick.

Reply to  markl
January 18, 2017 10:45 am

truth is that the pie of work is getting smaller and smaller
meaning less people will be able to buy your product;
a solution would be to reduce the work week to 4 days
[which would greatly stimulate the leisure industry]
if the Chinese would play along?
I doubt it.

January 18, 2017 11:38 am

I think that Janice Moore and ddpalmer are correct: The real agenda here is that China wants the US energy production to continue to be hamstrung by regulations that do not apply to China. While I am a _strong_ supporter of Taiwan, I think it would be excellent overall for mainland China to be able to purchase inexpensive petroleum products from the US…and would it not be terrifying to China for their populace to see that China could do this and did not? (Terrifying amounts of pollution are OK only if the alternative is no electricity, no civilization.)

January 19, 2017 12:49 am

Here we go: China has just announced the suspension of 104 planned and under-construction coal power projects, with a total capacity of 120 gigawatts
In October of last year, China already halted construction on 30 coal power plants totaling 17 GW, ten of which were already under construction.
china installed 34 GW of solar last year (pretty much equivalent to installed total for Germany)

Reply to  Griff
January 19, 2017 9:15 am

I quote from your quote
”The analysis found that there was a significant chance that up to 210 GW worth of coal capacity might be completely unnecessary in 2020, if things continued apace.’
…..seems China has the same problems as us….
Just like I said, the pie of simple work that ‘most’ people can do or live with is getting smaller and smaller!
don’t know where we are going but it is not looking good from which every side you look at it.

Reply to  Henry
January 19, 2017 10:12 am

Henry commented: “…the pie of simple work that ‘most’ people can do or live with is getting smaller and smaller..”
The “pie” as you call it is increasing with the population. The only thing that is getting smaller is the people’s ability to pay for a piece of that pie. China’s reduction in energy usage has nothing to do with their environmental efforts and everything to do with the global economy which is being usurped by the race to eliminate fossil fuels. They’ll soon understand that their economy is also limited by everyone else’s drop in productivity due to the lack of affordable energy.

Reply to  markl
January 19, 2017 10:22 am

I largely agree with you that cheap affordable energy is in everybody’s interest.
GDP growth of most countries is in line with population growth/
what if [world] population growth decreases or starts decreasing?

Reply to  Henry
January 19, 2017 10:45 am

Henry commented: “….what if [world] population growth decreases or starts decreasing?…”
It has been guessed that world population will level out. If/when that occurs energy use will still increase as the have nots play catch up. And there’s a lot of catching up to do. Meanwhile technology won’t stand still and today’s energy sources will be tomorrow’s history.

Ray Randolph
January 19, 2017 7:57 pm

What the US should do is initiate a joint development program for basic, low cost emissions reduction from third world coal fired power plants. It does not have to be up to western standards – look at that picture and think how far they have to go. Even a 50% reduction in NOx, SOx & smoke (particulates) would make a huge difference. Plus capture of particulates and partial-combustion organics are improvements that would appeal to the carbon fascists. .

Johann Wundersamer
January 20, 2017 1:51 am

“Trump has something which no mainland Chinese politician in living memory has ever experienced – a mandate from the people.”
So die Lage.

Verified by MonsterInsights