"Trump Nominees Distance Themselves From His Climate Rhetoric"

Guest post by David Middleton

Trump Nominees Distance Themselves From His Climate Rhetoric

By Bill Murray

January 20, 2017

Rick Perry, questioned by senators Thursday vetting him as a potential energy secretary, was the fourth of Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees to repudiate some of the president-elect’s most controversial statements on climate change and environmental protection during their confirmation hearings.

Trump, in 2012 on Twitter, famously called climate change a “hoax” created by the Chinese, an assertion he denied when asked about it last year during a presidential debate with Hillary Clinton.


Real Clear Politics

Firstly, Trump’s “Climate Rhetoric” basically consists of a 2012 Tweet.

Secondly, Trump’s nominees are accurately characterizing climate change, which annoyed the schist out many of the Senate Democrats…

Trump nominees share a less urgent climate-change line

By Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney January 19 at 8:00 PM

No so long ago, Rick Perry described the science behind human-caused climate change as a “contrived phony mess.” On Thursday, during his confirmation hearing to become the next head of the Energy Department, the former Texas governor expressed a markedly different view — one that has begun to sound very familiar in recent days.

“I believe the climate is changing,” he told lawmakers. “I believe some of it is naturally occurring, but some of it is caused by man-made activity. The question is how we address it in a thoughtful way that doesn’t compromise economic growth.”

Almost to a person, the people whom President-elect Donald Trump has picked to run key federal agencies have echoed strikingly similar views about the warming planet and what to do, or not do, about it. Their position, which has proven maddening to many climate scientists, acknowledges three points: Yes, the climate is changing. Humans probably have some role. But it’s likely not the country’s most urgent problem.

Interior secretary nominee Ryan Zinke: “I do not believe it is a hoax. . . . I think where there’s debate on it is what [the human] influence is, what can we do about it.”

Attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions: “I don’t deny that we have global warming. . . . It’s the question of how much is happening and what the reaction would be to it.”

Environmental Protection Agency administrator nominee Scott Pruitt: “Science tells us that the climate is changing, and human activity in some matter impacts that change. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact and what to do about it are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be.”


As for predictions, scientists don’t have a crystal ball, and their climate change “model” projections aren’t perfect. But what they’re fundamentally doing is applying what is known about the climate system, which is that carbon dioxide warms it on a grand scale and will continue to do so in the future.


“Their climate ‘change model’ projections” have been dead-wrong

Environmental advocates worry that a lack of urgency within the new administration will translate into efforts to slow down or halt efforts by the Obama administration to tackle the problem, which Obama called “one of the most urgent challenges of our time.” They fear a rollback of regulations aimed at reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, slashed funding for clean energy technologies and an indifference or hostility toward government climate research.


Washington Post

Earth’s climate is always changing. Humans contribute to that change. It is impossible to quantitatively differentiate human from natural causes. If it was possible to do so, the models would have been predictive. There simply is no evidence that it is an urgent threat, all of the proposed solutions would cost 10’s of trillions of dollars and there is no evidence that those expenditures would have any significant mitigating effect on climate change.

Former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels summed it up best…

He’s an agnostic on the science of global warming but says his views don’t matter. “I don’t know if the CO2 zealots are right,” he said. “But I don’t care, because we can’t afford to do what they want to do. Unless you want to go broke, in which case the world isn’t going to be any greener. Poor nations are never green.”

Appendix: A Second Opinion on Models

Atmospheric Temperature

See the Upper Air Temperature Measurement page for details about how the atmospheric temperature datasets are produced.  Here we present applications of this dataset to climate change analysis.


There are three tropospheric temperature datasets available from RSS, TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere), TMT (Temperature Middle Troposphere), and TTT (Temperature Tropical Troposphere, after Fu and Johansen). Using these datasets, we can investigate whether there have been significant changes in the tropospheric temperature over the last 35 years, and whether or not the spatial patterns of these changes agree with those predicted by climate models.

Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models.  Our results can be summarized as follows:

  • Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly.  The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
  • Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
  • The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming.  See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.


  • The troposphere has not warmed quite as fast as most climate models predict.

To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below.  Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008.  In each plot, the blue band is the 5% to 95% envelope for the RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperature uncertainty ensemble.  (For a detailed explanation of the uncertainty ensemble, see Mears et al. 2011.)  The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth’s Climate over the 20th Century.  For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output.  After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band.  For the first two plots (Fig. 1 and Fig 2), showing global averages and tropical averages, this is not the case.  Only for the far northern latitudes, as shown in Fig. 3, are the observations mostly within the range of model predictions.


Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)

Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The blue band is the 5% to 95% envelope for the RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperature uncertainty ensemble. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.



Featured Image Source

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 20, 2017 8:23 am

I can easily see how the IPCC’s role as the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science can be misconstrued as a hoax, especially considering the conflict of interest where the IPCC needs a catastrophic effect from man to justify its existence.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 20, 2017 9:31 am

Hoax was probably a polite term for fravd. Stuff like both Mann’s “Nature trick” and Phil Jones’ even more fraudulent version of it in WMO 2000 climate report cover, and his threat to delete data rather than hand it over for validation by independents as good science would require are all examples.
Don’t expect a nuanced case to be presented if you wish to rely on Twitter as your preferred source for science or policy.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 20, 2017 9:47 am

Incoming team seem far more well briefed on the subject than those who have just lost power. That can only be a good thing.
Maybe in 2012, Trump was not so well briefed, he’s had four years to get up to speed. The left wing media are disingenuously clutching at one twitter comment made a whole presidency ago when Trump was not even a nominee, to pretend that is his current best shot.
Totally politically motivated BS. as one would expect from a corrupt, partisan media.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 20, 2017 9:57 am

White House climate change page disappears
The old White House climate change page – https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change – has disappeared like a species. The old url redirects to a generic Trump splash.

Reply to  EricHa
January 20, 2017 10:17 am

Good start!

January 20, 2017 8:29 am

Everything said about “Climate Change” would not fall under the definition of “hoax”,
but some things said supporting human caused “Climate Change” certainly do.

Reply to  JohnWho
January 20, 2017 1:10 pm

Not a ‘hoax’, a scam. A hoax can be totally innocent and non-damaging, like faking a UFO photo or something.

January 20, 2017 8:29 am

You seem to have omitted the surface temperatures from you graph, which is what the IPCC projections refer to. Perhaps someone with graphical skills could post the appropriate graph?

Reply to  David Middleton
January 20, 2017 9:34 am

who gives a damn about WTF’s temp index. Use a dataset that has some recognition. You can not rebut the IPCC by using something they never refer to.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 20, 2017 10:00 am

Kaufman 2011 is interesting. The conclude: “As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.”
Thus they have been looking at natural and anthropogenic forcings and found that the temperatures were explained by their model. The CO2 positive forcing was nullified by increased sulphate emissions, reduced solar insolation and transition to predominantly La Nina conditions.
Full paper here:
You graph of Hansen’s chart mysteriously stops at about 2012, and I am pretty sure that there is not general agreement that scenario A is what happened, I believe it is scenario B that is closer to reality.
The IPCC third assessment graph the red squiggle is too small to see properly, but it does not look like the up to date surface temperature graphs I have seen.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 21, 2017 2:44 am

David, thank you for the graphs. Yeah, but total forcings match scenario B better, and we know Hansen’s estimate of sensitivity was a bit too high, so what we see is the temperature matching the projection remarkably well.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 21, 2017 2:56 am

Gunna be hilarious as the temperature starts to dip slightly over the next several years 🙂
Your red “current trend” (which relies totally on El Nino warming, btw) will be heading downwards, and the divergence between the models and REALITY will be even more hilarious. 🙂

Reply to  seaice1
January 20, 2017 9:32 am

Here is the thing seaice1, human produced CO2 can not heat the surface. It can only heat the troposphere. The theory is that the heated troposphere would then result in increased surface heat. If the surface is heating up without the troposphere also heating up, the change can not be caused by human produced CO2. Surface measurements are just a red herring.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
January 20, 2017 9:35 am

Good point.

richard verney
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
January 20, 2017 10:49 am

This is a point I often put to Nick when he correctly states that satellites and the land thermometer data set measure different things.
They do measure different things, but since the AGW is a top down effect, one would expect the first signs to be evident in the satellite atmosphere measurements, and that the trend of warming in the land based thermometer data set ought not to be significantly more than the trend seen in the satellite atmosphere measurements.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
January 20, 2017 10:51 am

Jeff: You are correct. The only thing that heats is the sun (well geothermal too, but in a trivial amount). The sun heats the surface directly. The energy radiates at a rate that is a function of the temperature of the hot side and the temperature of the cold side. Radiant energy transfer is always a net from hot side to cold side. For the surface, the cold side is the atmosphere and space. For the atmosphere, the cold side is space. So you are correct. The atmosphere does not warm up the surface. The atmosphere, which is warmed by the radiation from the surface, causes the surface to be hotter than if there were no atmosphere in order to radiate the energy it absorbs. A well known thing in energy transfer. My heat transfer text refers to it as radiative properties of participating media. My heat transfer text also asserts that this reaches a maximum at about 500 bar centimeters concentration of carbon dioxide (well, an asymptote that is nearly parallel to the x axis. It is always increasing). That is about 800 to 900 ppm in our atmosphere. Roughly. The reason the troposphere is not heating at the rate it “should” is that the estimates of equilibrium sensitivity are too high. This is supported by the fact that each new paper seems to drop the sensitivity.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
January 20, 2017 12:04 pm

Early versions of the IPCC reports showed what the heating pattern should look like (elevation wise) if CO2 was causing warming. It showed the (original) blob. Turns out this has never happened. They actually disproved their own theory.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
January 20, 2017 12:08 pm

Here is a graph I like to look at:comment image
What I want to know is how the boundary between transmitted and absorbed changes as humans emit more CO2. Then, how much will that change the total energy balance, and what feedbacks come into play (positive and negative)?

Reply to  seaice1
January 20, 2017 9:39 am

Preferring real data vs. fraudulent data.

January 20, 2017 8:40 am

On the campaign trail, rhetorical bombast is known as “throwing red meat to the lions”, all fair in politics. (Not to mention my favorite, chants of “Lock Her Up!”)
Back in the real world, got some tough confirmation hearings coming up. Best to keep things moderate and cool, and to absolutely avoid coming across as some kind of crazy radical. Even if “crazy radical” is how the alarmists appear to us, avoid, avoid, avoid.
Looks to me like things were well handled, and well done.
20 minutes to go to The End Of An Error.

Reply to  TonyL
January 20, 2017 9:03 am

Strange isn’t it…..somehow liberals think acting like trash and some third world savages…
…is endearing

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Latitude
January 20, 2017 9:49 am

Lat, I think they refer to that as “virtue signalling”.

Reply to  Latitude
January 20, 2017 10:05 am

Well Latitude, now that you mention it.
In a recent thread, I speculated on an evolutionary basis for why some people like fiery hot pepper sauce.
Perhaps there is an evolutionary basis for why so many liberals act like primitive savages and have such a hard time with the norms of civilization.
Just a thought.

Reply to  Latitude
January 20, 2017 12:28 pm

TonyL: Perhaps there is an evolutionary basis for why so many liberals act like primitive savages and have such a hard time with the norms of civilization.

In response:

“Every society rests on a barbarian base. The people who don’t understand civilization, and wouldn’t like it if they did. The hitchhikers. The people who create nothing, and who don’t appreciate what others have created for them, and who think civilization is something that just exists and that all they need to do is enjoy what they can understand of it — luxuries, a high living standard, and easy work for high pay. Responsibilities? Phooey! What do they have a government for?”

— H. Beam Piper, Space Viking (1963)

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Latitude
January 20, 2017 4:52 pm

Tucci78- loved that Piper quote, thx.

Reply to  TonyL
January 20, 2017 9:35 am

I suspect that their very similar responses is a well coordinated plan that was hatched with Trump. It is no coincidence that they all are paying lip service to AGW, while indicating that they plan to put it on the back burner.

January 20, 2017 8:44 am

Until we get some very clear, irrefutable evidence that global temperatures have peaked and there are a few years with falling temperature (from the highs), and no more highs are set (no matter how much people want to argue that the data is wrong ) then the climate change lobby is just doing to forge ahead, and there’s very little anyone can do to stop them.
The only thing that will is falling temperatures. A ‘pause’ clearly isn’t eough as it gives them too many opportunities to explain it way. They have to actually fall.
Till then expect the green juggernaut to keep on rolling

Reply to  lawrence
January 20, 2017 8:50 am

The big green silly bus can roll on wherever it likes. If sensible people step aside and cut off the fuel supply it will roll to a stop in a ditch somewhere.

Reply to  cephus0
January 20, 2017 9:10 am

But unfortunately it seems there are few “sensible people” in a position to actually “cut off the fuel supply”. Governments and business are caught hook, line and sinker in the climate change trap, and the valiant efforts of WUWT and the the few is never going to be enough until governments are presented of some irrefutable evidence to the contrary

Reply to  cephus0
January 20, 2017 9:37 am

That was true until a few hours ago. Things are about to change.

Reply to  lawrence
January 20, 2017 9:37 am

So true. Either the world pays for the Green Juggernaut, or we suffer due to cold. No good way out of this.

Reply to  lawrence
January 20, 2017 10:15 am

Lawrence, I suspect the green lobby will forge on regardless. That is why they changed the moniker from “global warming” to “climate change.” After all, colder would be a change, no?

Roger Knights
Reply to  lawrence
January 20, 2017 1:03 pm

A restoration of the Pause in two years due to a La Niña would be sufficient to take half of the steam out of climate alarmism. It would thereafter shrink to a crank cause, outside the mainstream. IMO.

Ed zuiderwijk
January 20, 2017 8:45 am

Poor nations are never greener. Go to Haiti and compare with its neigbour Dominican Republic.
Go to former East Germany and ask the people of Leipzig. Ask the Poles, Chechs, Slovaks and so on about the green blessings of Socialism.

January 20, 2017 8:51 am

Obama claiming climate change is an urgent issue is priceless. He had 8 years and really didn’t do much. Why? Because it’s a great election wedge issue. Hillary Clinton was a pathetic candidate and didn’t even bring it up …. and she lost. If you claim world disaster if the other guy is elected it is sure to get you votes and that’s why Dems do big talk about it, yet really don’t do too much to combat it. They fly around on private planes, drive SUV’s, eat steak and make weak policy changes. Obama had 2 years of complete control of the House, Senate and Executive and didn’t do anything. Really urgent crisis, huh Obama.

Reply to  Jared
January 20, 2017 9:42 am

Same reason why Democrats talk about the poor a lot, but never do anything that might actually eliminate poverty,

Reply to  MarkW
January 21, 2017 3:07 am

MarkW: that’s because they need the poor to compare themselves against – how else could the “democrats” gauge how wealthy they are?

Reply to  Jared
January 20, 2017 9:43 am

Climate is urgently needed to distract the population for what is really going on. He used 8 years using his “Peace prize” to authorise extra-judicial killings of american on non-americain; militants and civilians world wide and allow anti-constitutional surveillance to run unhindered.
Of course he needed something “urgent” that takes a hundred years to test.

January 20, 2017 8:53 am


January 20, 2017 9:08 am

There are going to be a lot of upset people on this site if Trump declares a belief in mainstream climate science. No one hates like a Good ole’ right wing redneck when things don’t go as planned. Look at how Obama was treated, and he did not even pretend to be a sceptic. Just take a deep breath and remember he is a politician and will roll with the times.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
January 20, 2017 9:13 am

Just remember Gareth, Trump is a business man recently turned to politics and you are a half-witted troll.

Reply to  cephus0
January 20, 2017 9:45 am

Any CEO has to be well-versed in politics, Trump is new to electoral politics.
“half-witted troll”?
You are too kind by half.

Reply to  cephus0
January 20, 2017 11:27 am

Oh Dear. We have seen eight years of continual abuse and criticism of the US President, the vast majority of which is inaccurate and completely unrelated to climate change, but one word against against the new Chief of Staff and posters trousers are falling down! Ah, the power of the written word.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
January 20, 2017 12:55 pm

O Dear! It is indeed true that the left cannot tell the difference between voicing policy differences and calls for violence and hate.
O Dear – perhaps because to them it is the same.

Reply to  cephus0
January 20, 2017 11:34 am

The things said about Obama were mild compared to the things you leftists said regarding Bush and Reagan.
Regardless, you have a problem when you come out with a lie, and people correct you.
Sheesh, aren’t you the precious little snow flake.

Reply to  cephus0
January 20, 2017 2:07 pm

Thanks for your understanding MarkW I agree, Bush got hell when he was President, but for most of it this site was not up and running. Obama also got hell, thats the way it goes , you takes the job and keeps your head down. That’s why it’s our turn on the Lefty side to give your chap some stick. Having said that, I do hope things go well for your splendid country and its excellent people.

Reply to  cephus0
January 20, 2017 3:21 pm

“The things said about Obama were mild compared to the things you leftists said regarding Bush and Reagan.”
Not forgetting what Phillips has said about Margaret Thatcher.
See, it’s OK – laudable even – for Lefties to abuse anyone not to the Left of Vladimir Illich Lenin because they deserve it.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  cephus0
January 20, 2017 5:09 pm

Phillips, old chap, perhaps if you had lived here in the St. Louis MO area during the Neo-conservative and progressive administrations you might think differently. I regard your opinion as an outsider and see nothing which matches my experience.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
January 20, 2017 9:44 am

Only rednecks don’t believe in CAGW?
One constant with liberals, they talk about tolerance but at their core they are filled with hatred towards anyone who doesn’t give them what they want.
PS: The lie that 97% of scientists believe that CO2 is a major problem and we must do something about it, has been put to rest many times.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  MarkW
January 20, 2017 5:38 pm

Mark, to them tolerance is what others are supposed excercise for them.

richard verney
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
January 20, 2017 10:57 am

Trump is committed to bringing jobs back to the US. If he does not do that, he will be toast within a couple of years. This is the biggest test of his Presidency.
Trump is against outsourcing (see his stance on the motor industry that has already yielded success with one less plant going to Mexico), and he is going full out on an infrastructure drive. All of this will produce a lot of CO2, and the steel industry and coal industry will be welcomed back in the fold. Trump has no choice but to ditch the Paris Agreement since his stance on industrialization and job creation means that the US cannot possible abide by the commitments it has under that Agreement.

Reply to  richard verney
January 20, 2017 11:34 am

I think that is the saddest part of his promises. The world has moved on. Many of those job losses are due to technological progress, they won’t come back. The coal mines won’t re-open. Who will Trump sell coal to? Due to Fracking the US is well supplied with oil and there is a glut of steel on the international market. Trump could force car makers to only use US steel, but that would increase the price of cars and make them un-competative. I really feel for those poor people in West Virginia, Kentucky and the rust belts. They are expecting Trump to work miracles because he told them he can. It’s going to be an awful awakening for those good people.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
January 20, 2017 12:57 pm

A lot of countries still want to buy coal for power plants. Indeed, the reason Steyers funded the anti-coal movement (cloaked in his watermelon rind) is that he is heavily invested in Indonesian Coal. If you reduce the supply, the price goes up. Econ 101.
The jobs are not gone. As we have already been seeing since Trump was elected.

Reply to  richard verney
January 20, 2017 11:37 am

Our newest troll loves to display it’s ignorance.
Regarding coal, China is buying coal as much as they can get.
Yes, for the present frakking, which your idol did his best to stop has driven down the cost of natural gas. However, thanks to the power of the market place, many power companies are switching for coal to gas.
This both drives down the cost of coal and drives up the price of natural gas. Eventually the two will be price competitive again.

Roger Knights
Reply to  richard verney
January 20, 2017 1:09 pm

There is so much demand for our coal in Asia that the railroads are trying to expand their coal shipping facilities near Portland and Seattle.

Reply to  richard verney
January 20, 2017 1:58 pm

Who is the new Troll? Not me I hope with my grey beard and hair who has been part of this selective group since almost the start!

Reply to  richard verney
January 20, 2017 2:03 pm

Roger Knights. Who are the coal companies selling the coal to? I understood the international market was experiencing a bit of a glut at present.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  richard verney
January 20, 2017 5:43 pm

Here Gareth, now quit soiling your knickers…
“25% of U.S. coal exports go to Asia, but remain a small share of Asia’s total coal imports”

January 20, 2017 9:09 am

Really is very amusing. Trump and his team have made it absolutely apparent what they think of carbon pollution nonsense but now that they take office there is no need for overt confrontation. They can play the smiling ‘respect’ for eco-religion card but thanks all the same we aren’t an eco-theocracy quite yet. Bring solid scientific evidence – but please, not models – and we’ll review our policies. If the rest of the virtue-signalling demented Liberal dominated West in Canada, Europe and Australasia continue to cripple their own economies in the name of “saving the planet” then that’s their business. As for the Chinese and their canny little game – after you gentlemen please …

Ron Clutz
January 20, 2017 9:11 am

The confirmation hearings are a showcase for two different world views interacting, albeit on an uneven basis, since one party is in power (senators) and the other is seeking admission. The most revealing interplay was between Bernie Sanders and Scott Pruitt, brief video of the Q&A along with transcript:

Reply to  Ron Clutz
January 20, 2017 5:18 pm

At one point Bernie Sanders seemed incredulous when he thought Pruitt was disagreeing with the “vast majority of scientists” that CAGW was real. Obviously, Bernie is convinced “97 percent” of scientists believe in CAGW. And then he is going to use this “fact” to beat his opposition over the head.
Inhofe did put a couple of rebuttals of the ’97 percent” in the Congressional record, but noone in the general public will ever see them, all they will remember is Bernie says the “vast majority of scientists” agree CAGW is real, and Pruitt did not disagree.
See how easy that is. You don’t have to be an expert on the subject. All you have to know is that all the experts agree and you agree with them. And anyone who doesn’t agree must be seriously deluded. You can feel safe and secure when you think nearly everyone agrees with you. And if everyone agrees, then they *must* be right.
The effectiveness of propaganda and lies demonstrated. This “97 percent” lie has now become “common knowledge”. Repeat a lie often enough, and this is what you get.

Ron Clutz
Reply to  TA
January 21, 2017 5:51 am

TA, it is also clear from Sanders that he assumes the EPA is and should be a branch of the environmental movement. That is a common misconception now called into question.
In contrast to that, Pruitt said in his opening remarks that he rejects the popular notion that “if you are for the environment, you are against development, and if you are for development, you are against the environment.” Pruitt stated that EPA has the job of striking the balance, not buying into that false dichotomy.

January 20, 2017 9:12 am

it begins …

January 20, 2017 9:17 am

There will not be a draining of the swamp but the tsunami starts today. Advocacy governance and speech writing also just ended. Pack your bags NRDC, Sierra Club, and Green Peace.

John W. Garrett
Reply to  Resourceguy
January 20, 2017 9:23 am

I hope you’re right but expect you’re wrong. The people running those organizations know they have a good gig going and there is no shortage of fools with money.

Reply to  John W. Garrett
January 20, 2017 10:52 am

I’ll wait for the AG, IG, FBI, and IRS findings.

January 20, 2017 9:18 am

Trump will afford the followers of the eco-religion, the same respect Obama gave the Little Sisters of the Poor.

January 20, 2017 9:21 am

I’ll be disappointed with anything less than scorched earth, audits, and agency-by-agency investigations.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 20, 2017 9:33 am

Scorched earth refers to the advocacy groups that have been running amok as shadow government in recent years and the favored grants and loans to fake green businesses run by former politicos mining the system.

Reply to  Resourceguy
January 20, 2017 9:59 am

Scorched earth most commonly refers to a retreating army’s strategy of destroying anything useful to their attacking enemies. The idea is that the invaders won’t be able to feed themselves from the bounty of the invaded territory.
In this case, scorched earth would be employed by the Democrats to thwart the new Republican administration. We don’t want that.

Reply to  commieBob
January 20, 2017 10:41 am

Scorched earth is what Chicago and Puerto Rico look like without a bailout that they were counting on from one particular Party with the right crisis justification wording.

January 20, 2017 9:34 am

“Keep your eyes on the prize” The headline and text are out of sync friends. We have gone from full on climate religiosity to “the question is” that is a huge jump. Most of the nominees cited have expressed not only questions about but outright rejection of the green dogma.
Thier personal opinions have not changed. They are simply playing the confirmation game. Make as few waves as possible then carry on with your agenda once confirmed. Just listened to the inauguration speech. No sign of a climb down whatsoever.

Joel O’Bryan
January 20, 2017 9:43 am

His nominees have to get through the Senate and maybe pick up a few Democrat senator votes (Manchin, Heitkamp… maybes) while lessening political pressure on Tepublican senators. At this pt it’s still politics, and the politics of Climate still favors the alarmist camp in DC.
Once those cabinet members get to their posts, with their new staffs, things will change. And there’s no need to shout it from the rooftops. Quiet change. So you Don’t give the Leftists any more emotional ammunition to get their foamy-mouthed followers even more agitated.

January 20, 2017 9:49 am

What I got from President Trump’s inauguration speech was this: “America First!”
Organizations such as the IPCC will have a lot of trouble trying to bully America into doing things that are harmful to America and its citizens.

January 20, 2017 9:50 am

Humans contribute to that change. It is impossible to quantitatively differentiate human from natural causes. If it was possible to do so, the models would have been predictive….
henry says
what rubbish
there is no man made global warming (AGW):
if AGW were to exist, it is supposed to affect minima, pushing up means?
That is not happening…
there is no room for it in my equation?comment image

Alan Millar
January 20, 2017 9:53 am

What is wrong in saying there is climate change. The climate is always changing.
Does human activity have any impact? Well given our ability to change the natural environment it would be surprising if we didn’t.
Does the CO2 we have emitted make a difference? Well i think it very likely the greenhouse effect is real and CO2 plays a part, parts of the planet are greening, life itself can influence the climate.
My only point is that all the evidence is that the human influenced change is relatively minor, has good points as well as bad and in relation to CO2, due to its logarithmic effect, its influence will continue to decline fairly rapidly in climatic terms.
If we could just delay the onset of the next glacial period for a few hundred years it will have been one of the greatest human acts on life on the planet.

richard verney
Reply to  Alan Millar
January 20, 2017 11:15 am

What is wrong in saying there is climate change. The climate is always changing.

Well that depends upon what climate actually is. If change is an inherent characteristic of climate, then change is not in and of itself any evidence of climate change.
Personally, I consider one of the major problems is that climate is now regarded as being the average of weather over a 30 year period. Given the age of the planet and given what we know about natural variation, this seems a pretty daft definition.
Further, temperature is merely one of many factors that go to make up climate. Whilst, it may be warming in some areas of the globe, there is little evidence of climate change. No country has changed from one Koppen classification to another, and we know that there has been no significant change in the amount of rainfall, the frequency and/or intensity of hurricanes or tropical cyclones etc. Even the latest IPCC Report on extreme weather has found no measurable change.

Pop Piasa
January 20, 2017 10:00 am

Mr. Middleton, you might be interested in this paper recently published by Kent Tobiska, lead author of the paper and PI of the NASA-supported program Automated Radiation Measurements for Aerospace Safety (ARMAS), on discovered clouds of energetic particles above the poles.
Tony Phillips featured it on spaceweather.com today. He seems lately to be suggesting that the CR vs cloud nucleation relationship might need to be factored into climate science.

michael hart
January 20, 2017 10:15 am

Mostly quite sensible words from the nominees. If the alarmists hadn’t spent so long ignorantly demonizing anybody who didn’t sign up for the total-disaster scenarios, then they wouldn’t be so surprised now. But as of about an hour ago, perhaps they have decided that it is time to put on their thinking hats.

January 20, 2017 10:49 am

There is also the issue that at some time, the sun will go red, but are we to waste our resources trying to prevent that as well? Even if CAGW is real, bankrupting the resources of the world without making having any effect on the situation is not a plan.

Reply to  philjourdan
January 20, 2017 10:53 am

Out of the abundance of caution, NY will.

Reply to  Resourceguy
January 20, 2017 11:42 am

Leftists stand ready, willing and able, to spend any amount of Other People’s Money

January 20, 2017 10:57 am

Allan says
Well I think it very likely the greenhouse effect is real and CO2 plays a part, parts of the planet are greening, life itself can influence the climate.
Henry says
CO2 plays no part
Greening of earth does trap some heat
but it isn’t much,
not enough to stop the global cooling
that is coming

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Henry
January 20, 2017 5:02 pm

Thanks, man. I guess you could call that “Henry’s law of global cooling”, eh?

January 20, 2017 10:57 am

MODERATOR – – – Appropriate and respectful use of denier follows!
The responses quoted could easily have come from Brenchly, Lindzen, Soon, McIntyre, Watts, Currie, me, etc. Given that we have all be labeled denier for making these comments tells me that the appointees will be similarly branded.

Reply to  John Eggert
January 20, 2017 11:37 am

I fully agree. There is no reason why the term sceptic cannot be substituted.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
January 21, 2017 3:00 am

Or one could use the most appropriate terminology…. “REALIST”

Roger Knights
Reply to  John Eggert
January 20, 2017 1:17 pm

Here’s something I posted a few weeks ago:
(Attention NY Times & AP: other terms for people on our side that are more apt than doubter are: dissenter, disbeliever, contrarian, & critic. And lukewarmer (i.e., a disbeliever in the hypothesized positive feedbacks that are required to to put the C in CAGW. Most dissenters are lukewarmers. That would be the most informative term to use.)

Reply to  Roger Knights
January 20, 2017 2:01 pm

Precisely Roger. There are more than enough words in the OE to be much more specific in ones writing than using insulting terms such as denier. You are also spot on with the idea that most dissenters are lukewarmers.

Chris C
January 20, 2017 12:25 pm

We don’t know what Trump believes. But clearly to get to re-election he must jump-start the economy. Ripping out energy and environmental regulation is one easy and quick fix for that.

Roger Knights
January 20, 2017 1:28 pm

If, five years down the road, or maybe sooner, it’s clear to all but the lunatic fringe that climate alarmism has become a “never mind” topic for tt MSM, etc., the “97%-of-climate-scientists” claim will be turned on its erstwhile proponents. It will discredit everything alarming they have to say on the topic in the future.
Ditto with the 97% endorsement of climate alarmism by the world’s scientific societies. Their advanced views on anything else they opine on will carry no weight, or will actually be treated as a reason to disbelieve their argument. (Even when they’re really correct.)
It’s been said that movements and forces that are on top and winning lose because they go too far. Warmists’ exaggerations may have the unintended side-effect of discrediting all environmentalism–or at least of disbelief in their “findings” becoming the initial default attitude.

David S
January 20, 2017 1:38 pm

From what I have read it is clear that humans are the main influence. Who do you think manipulates data and spreads the global warming mantra through our institutions. It certainly isn’t nature.

Reply to  David S
January 20, 2017 3:13 pm

Excellent point!

January 20, 2017 3:22 pm

I think trump was joking to some extent about the hoax thing. I have heard him say before that the amount of warming was not what was predicted. I believe trump is surprisingly well informed on this issue.
The questions are like what climate alarmists argue to discredit people. They interpret if someone expresses doubt about climate alarmism that means they deny there has been any warming or that co2 has any effect. That doesn’t logically follow. One can easily believe that co2 effects climate somewhat and that there has been some warming but not believe that the warming is alarming or a huge impact.
Climate alarmism depends on a number of linked beliefs. You have to believe all these things to be an alarmist.
1. That co2 causes warming
2. That warming by co2 results in a 5 fold amplification of warming due to positive Feedback’s in the climate system
3) that the warming will produce significant damaging effects on the planet and biology more than the positive effects
4that we can do something about this economically and it is worth the cost to do something now versus later
5) that humans will continue to produce massive and growing amounts of co2 for the next 100 years.
If any of these things prove to be untrue then the consequences of using carbon are unimportant and not an issue. Climate alarmists must support that all these things are true and they if you deny climate arlarmisn you deny all these things but you can not believe in climate alarmism and have doubt about any of these 5 points.

Reply to  logiclogiclogic
January 20, 2017 5:41 pm

“I think trump was joking to some extent about the hoax thing. I have heard him say before that the amount of warming was not what was predicted. I believe trump is surprisingly well informed on this issue.”
Trump said himself that he was joking.
I also think Trump is well informed on this subject and many others. Some people think Trump just has his finger in the air and goes where the wind blows, but I don’t think so at all.
I think Trump has thought seriously about the subjects pertinent to a president for a very long time, long before this run for president, and has a mind of his own, but I also think Trump is eager to get advice from the experts, since he doesn’t think he is the smartest guy in the room on all subjects (like some people we know). The best of both worlds, if my guess is right.
We are starting on a new path today. Fun, isn’t it. 🙂

January 20, 2017 3:29 pm

Stroke ’em and smoke ’em. Stroke Congress and blow smoke in their faces for the appointees.

January 21, 2017 6:44 pm

It is funny to see the Republicans now on board with the general CO2 thesis. No outright denial any more. How times change.
Just political hacks that say whatever needs to be said to be elected. Not saying the Democrats are any better.

Johann Wundersamer
January 21, 2017 10:36 pm

Please Trump’s Nominees Distance Yourselves From Climate Rhetoric:
There’s Topics enough you have to cope with !

Johann Wundersamer
January 21, 2017 10:38 pm

Please Trump’s Nominees Distance Yourselves From Climate Rhetoric:
There’s Topics enough
Trump Nominees Distance Themselves From His Climate Rhetoricyou have to cope with !

January 22, 2017 5:19 pm

Nominees interested in a non-controversial position of climate issues would do well NOT to avoid Trumps’ rhetoric, but rather to couch their responses to questions in terms of economic realities such as cost/benefit ratios and the regressiveness of climate mitigation expenditures.

%d bloggers like this: