12th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-12) to be held

Via press release:

It’s official! The 12th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-12) will take place on March 23-24 in Washington, DC. Attached is a flyer I hope you will read and forward to friends and foes alike.

The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States already is having a profound effect on U.S. climate policy. ICCC-12 is your opportunity to meet the scientists, economists, engineers, and policy experts who persuaded Trump that man-made global warming is not a crisis, and therefore Barack Obama’s war on fossil fuels must be ended.

ICCC-12 will take place on Thursday and Friday, March 23–24 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC. It will feature the courageous men and women who spoke the truth about climate change during the height of the global warming scare. Now, many of them are advising the new administration or joining it in senior positions.

ICCC-12 is hosted by The Heartland Institute, “the world’s most prominent think tank supporting skepticism toward man-made climate change” (The Economist). Since 2008, more than 4,000 people have attended one or more ICCCs.

This year’s ICCC focuses less on the science than previous meetings because climate realists have established beyond reasonable doubt that the human impact on climate is likely to be very small and beneficial rather than harmful. Realists have proven that most scientists now share this opinion, except those who have made careers out of finding a human impact and exaggerating it.

The election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and in  state capitals around the country is proof that most American voters, most Republican elected officials, and the president himself do not believe man-made global warming is a crisis.

The task ahead is not to rehash the science yet again, hoping to win over those who will never admit to having been wrong about it. The task now is to explain the benefits of ending Obama’s war on fossil fuels and what policy changes are needed to do this. ICCC-12 will feature in-depth, expert discussions about the economics of energy policy and the benefits and costs of fossil fuels.

The full program and speakers will be announced and posted online in the coming weeks. There will be five plenary sessions and 12 panel presentations featuring some 30 speakers presenting the latest science and economics on climate change and energy policy.

“The purpose of this conference is to introduce members of the Trump administration and newly elected members of Congress and their staff to leading scientists and economists who hold a data-based, non-alarmist view of the climate,” said Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. “It’s time to reset U.S. climate and energy policy away from the alarmism and fake science that dominated policymaking during the Obama era, and plot a new course based on real scientific data and economic analysis. The American people deserve a huge ‘peace dividend’ that can be brought about by ending the unnecessary and futile war on fossil fuels.”

This will be the 12th ICCC hosted by The Heartland Institute since 2008. Other ICCCs have taken place in New York (ICCC-1 and 2), Chicago (ICCC-4 and 7); Washington, DC (ICCC-3, 6, and 10); Las Vegas (ICCC-9); Sydney Australia (ICCC-5); and in the German cities of Munich (ICCC-8) and Essen (ICCC-11). Nearly 4,000 people have attended at least one ICCC. See video and information about the programs and speakers at past events at the archive page for the International Conference on Climate Change.

Space is very limited, so reserve your conference pass and hotel room now. Admission, which includes five meals, is $179. To register, or to learn more about ICCC-12, visit http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc-12/ or call 312/377-4000.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
79 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
troe
January 28, 2017 7:26 am

Please support the Heartland Institute. Intrepid workers on our behalf. Many thanks to the staff and members for staying in the fight to bring us this unexpected opportunity.

Reply to  troe
January 29, 2017 4:08 am

A post from 2012, concerning events in London in 2005:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/24/royal-blatherfest/#comment-934147
I was visiting a major London Science Museum circa 2005. Nearby was an elderly gentleman, reading the museum’s dire predictions of catastrophic manmade global warming.
He was obviously very upset, and slowly shook his head. Our eyes met, and he spoke to me sadly, bemoaning the impending climate doom that would befall his beloved grandchildren.
I tried to ease his concerns, and said “I’ve studied this subject for twenty years and recently co-authored a paper with leading climate scientists. We believe there is no global warming crisis. Your grandchildren will be just fine.”
I hope he believed me, even a little. But then why should he, with even the esteemed Royal Society promoting global warming hysteria?
One of the many immoralities of global warming mania is the needless fear that has been deliberately caste into the minds of children and those who care most about them. This tactic was morally wrong , even when the claims of dangerous manmade global warming had some limited credibility.
Now that global warming has been exposed as a fraud in the ClimateGate 1&2 emails, this tactic of frightening children and the elderly is despicable.
There has been no net global warming for a decade.
There is no evidence of a manmade global warming crisis.
Is it not about time that the warming alarmists tuned down their very-scary rhetoric, and stopped scaring little kids and old people?

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
January 29, 2017 8:35 pm

“There has been no net global warming for a decade.”
See that, and raise you to a human generation.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
January 30, 2017 3:50 pm

“There has been no net global warming for a decade.”
Agree – I wrote the above in 2005.

Latitude
January 28, 2017 7:42 am

…should we start counting the death threats now

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Latitude
January 28, 2017 7:10 pm

You can’t count due to tears of laughters in your eyes!

Reply to  Latitude
January 29, 2017 4:25 am

My friend Dr. Tim Ball has received many death threats, probably because he lives on Canada’s loony Left Coast. It seems that the climate lemmings run West, and build up in Vancouver before dropping into the Pacific.
I only ever received one threat, in 2002, after I wrote the first article in the National Post that slammed the imbecilic Kyoto Accord. As I recall I concluded that our Prime Minister Jean Chretien (aka Jean Poutine) should scrap this expensive folly and instead buy every Canadian a Honda Accord – that would be much cheaper and more sensible.
But I only ever received one threat. That bothered me for a time. I mean, had I not spoken out enough against global warming idiocy? Had I not published enough articles slamming this nonsense?
I mean, y’know, like, I mean, um, totally, y’know… Was I not worthy?
🙂

Greg Woods
January 28, 2017 7:57 am

You mean Obama’s War on Humanity?

RockyRoad
Reply to  Greg Woods
January 28, 2017 9:05 pm

…only the part of humanity that Obama and Hillary considered “deplorable”.
And look who turned out to be truly deplorable instead!

January 28, 2017 8:07 am

I feel that sanity is now actually rearing its beautiful head.

dp
January 28, 2017 8:11 am

Maybe start with the concept of settled science and why it isn’t settled. In fact the science flip flops regularly. Here are three examples – the links were taken from the same page at Science Daily, today. Might be time for a fourth article that says unambiguously, guys, we just don’t know and will need more grant money to study it. It would at least be honest. On the demise of mega-fauna…
It’s climate wot done it.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130506181711.htm
No – it’s people wot done it.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140604094108.htm
It’s definitely climate wot done it – this time for sure.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170126163025.htm

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2017 9:21 am

The last link is a crock.
Its perpetrators overlook the fact that periods just as dry as 30 to 40 Ka had occurred at intervals between then and the 500 Ka reference time frame. I don’t know what the glacial advances since then are called in Australia, but in the Alps they’re known as the Haslach (ending ~480 Ka), Mindel (~350-250 Ka), Riss (ending ~128 Ka) and Würm (~115-11.7 Ka) glaciations, preceded by the Biber, Danube and Günzburg since the mid-Pleistocene transition. In northern Europe, the Würm is called the Weichselian and in America the Wisconsin.
The last glaciation (Würm/Weichselian/Wisconsin) was longer than usual, but conditions similar to its latter stages had happened in previous Pleistocene glacials. Nor were the extinctions at that time global. The major American and Eurasian megafaunal extinctions didn’t transpire until some 20 to 30 millennia later.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2017 7:07 pm

“There has to happen something other nothing happens!”
_____<- _____'‘There has to happen something either nothing happens!"

Brian H
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
January 30, 2017 3:55 am

Say Wot?

John Peter
January 28, 2017 8:14 am

“This year’s ICCC focuses less on the science than previous meetings because climate realists have established beyond reasonable doubt that the human impact on climate is likely to be very small and beneficial rather than harmful.”
I reckon this is a premature statement. We will not get anywhere until an impeccable group of scientists and statisticians is set up to analyse USA and global surface temperatures to show to what extent the “homogenization” made by the various holders of the records, but in particular NOAA and GISS, have introduced spurious warming. This needs to be done urgently from the original raw recordings. Every step to the current readings need to be documented and analysed for degree of realism and necessity.

rogerthesurf
Reply to  John Peter
January 28, 2017 7:34 pm

” climate realists have established beyond reasonable doubt that the human impact on climate is likely to be very small and beneficial rather than harmful.”
I think its a perfect statement.
It puts the Obama crowd on the back foot and they will need to prove the opposite.
We all know they have never had to do that before.
Besides the satellite data has to be the most reliable, so long as the data is not fiddled with, because of the inclusion of ocean areas, deserts and polar regions ie the data covers the whole of the planet). There are no guesses for non existent weather stations for instance.

RockyRoad
Reply to  rogerthesurf
January 28, 2017 9:13 pm

…and I don’t think the “Obama crowd” is ready to prove anything at the moment, they’re so shell-shocked.
Indeed, has anybody heard a peep out of Obama since he flew from Washington, D.C. last week?
(Although I though I heard a distant “Fore” coming from the west coast a few days ago.)
One observer said Trump has done more in a week than Obama had in a year: now, with 52 weeks in a year times 4 years remaining, I doubt the Democrats will run anybody in 2020.
By then I just might be tired of winning.
Maybe.

rogerthesurf
Reply to  rogerthesurf
January 28, 2017 10:37 pm

Rocky,
My point exactly! Hit them when they are down;)
Have to say that I haven’t ever seen a leader like Trump before.
So far he has my awe and respect.
Cheers
Roger

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  John Peter
January 28, 2017 7:46 pm

There’s enough focus on greenity – tv glaring protests after election followed by almost prompt drought when money run out, EPA silenced.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  John Peter
January 29, 2017 1:48 pm

I reckon this is a premature statement. We will not get anywhere until an impeccable group of scientists and statisticians is set up to analyse USA and global surface temperatures to show to what extent the “homogenization” made by the various holders of the records, but in particular NOAA and GISS, have introduced spurious warming.
____________________
I strongly warn against such an approach !
You’ll soon be in an intertwined mess of
middle to minor, pro and contra, stark fighting strongholds
where you will leave looming traps.
Better to stay with a compressed list as presented above and and answere some lesser attacks with — pointed remarks. —

Reply to  John Peter
January 29, 2017 8:55 pm

“I reckon this is a premature statement.”
Me too. It sounds way too much like the “science is now settled”, which of course science never is.
A true scientist must be willing to be wrong.
The real problem is that public policy needs far more certainty than science can provide. We can only wave our arms and provide error bars that are as uncertain as the science itself.
Policy makers must get over scientific uncertainty and get on with their human intuition. This is why they were elected or appointed.
The human condition is that every important decision must be made based on imperfect information.

Phillip Bratby
January 28, 2017 8:15 am

Will the Donald give the opening address? Now that would be good.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 28, 2017 8:29 am

The smart money says Pruitt will make an address on the need to “fill gaps in knowledge” in order to guide public policy.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
January 30, 2017 7:46 am

I agree it’s much more likely that Pruitt or someone else at that level would give the opening talk. But if they could get the POTUS to address the conference, the MSM would have no choice but to cover it. Otherwise, they will ignore it with a vengeance. There’s a reason Roosevelt called it the “bully pulpit”.

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 28, 2017 2:30 pm

It’ll be Yuuuge!

Paul Penrose
January 28, 2017 8:24 am

“The election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and in state capitals around the country is proof that most American voters, most Republican elected officials, and the president himself do not believe man-made global warming is a crisis.”
That is too strong a statement. You need more than correlation for something to be a “proof”. I think what you can say, however, is that CAGW is not a major concern to the American public, otherwise they would not have voted for someone who stated it was a fabricated crisis. Some may see this as nit picking, but I think you should be careful about the use of the word “proof”, especially on this blog.

Gary Meyers
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 28, 2017 10:13 am

This is all somebody’s opinion, and you know what they about opinions being like butt holes, everyone has one and most of them stink.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Gary Meyers
January 28, 2017 7:51 pm

Maybe not stink, but conspiracy theories lasting.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Gary Meyers
January 28, 2017 7:55 pm

Looked up lasting, OK.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Gary Meyers
January 28, 2017 9:44 pm

OH please, ‘m writing Steno type. Maybe the tip nessesary. I’m used to.
Doesn’t bother if nt reprint.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 28, 2017 7:36 pm

flip / flopping is the laughable tell them with blind faithed eyes!
Green belivers at min. must be unsecured.
You either should see desparation or sheer ignorance.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Paul Penrose
January 28, 2017 9:15 pm

I agree, Paul. Instead of “proof”, we’ll just adopt the “97% sure” stance.

January 28, 2017 8:29 am

maybe they should invite mike hulme. he identifies as a climatist but he is a free thinker and often riles the real climatists. he used to be at east anglia but now at kings college london.
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/geography/people/academic/hulme/index.aspx

co2islife
January 28, 2017 8:30 am

If anyone is going to this conference and plans to ask questions, I’ve detailed some of the best arguments against AGW in the below-linked article. It may be a nice source to either validate or debunk the skeptics.
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-smoking-gun-files/comment image

Reply to  co2islife
January 28, 2017 7:23 pm

Al Gore didn’t go himself? Now that I think of it Al go could go to save the sea ice. There is an actual term in use, ” The Gore Effect” . Where ever he goes, it gets unseasonably cold. I realize correlation isn’t causation, but the evidence is there. If you you plot it on a graph, ” What pops out you ” ?

RockyRoad
Reply to  rishrac
January 28, 2017 9:17 pm

Gore could retire as “Old Man Winter” and constantly move from the northern to the southern hemisphere as the seasons dictate–not that anybody would be happy to see him arrive, however.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  co2islife
January 28, 2017 7:53 pm

OK

January 28, 2017 8:39 am

I’ll attend, as much of a dent as it puts in my meager budget. #FreeAlanCarlin!

John Whitman
Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
February 2, 2017 8:02 am

Russell Cook,
I am attending the full conference
John

SasjaL
January 28, 2017 8:46 am

… who persuaded Trump that man-made global warming is not a crisis …
Looking at Trump’s tweets in the past, long before he was suggested to become a POTUS, it’s obvious that he prefer to listen to scientists with proof, rather than ones (including politicians) without.

Janet Nelson
January 28, 2017 8:56 am

YES, who knew!!!!ihope Rachel will be there. I have to find John Droz I have gotten great stuff from him. At ocean shore conference center. Rachel campos Duffy speaker last night so greatShe seems to think we have to accept pop culture. I don’t know about this open wifi used up my Verizon
Sent from my iPad
>

January 28, 2017 9:08 am

Are they selling T-shirts? I want one

Michael Bentley
January 28, 2017 9:11 am

Paul,
I don’t see your post as nit picking…While most folks won’t bother with the science and stats, the monster needs to be disassembled the same way as an Elephant get’s ingested…one bite at a time. That way we won’t see regurgitation.
Mike

jjs
January 28, 2017 9:12 am

Having troubles making an online donation to heartland – anyone else?

jlakely
Reply to  jjs
January 28, 2017 9:38 am

You can donate to Heartland securely online here: https://www.heartland.org/donate/make-donation/index.html

ossqss
January 28, 2017 9:16 am

For those interested, here is a link to the past conference presentations. Very well worth you time.
https://www.youtube.com/user/HeartlandTube/playlists?sort=dd&view=50&shelf_id=3

Bruce Cobb
January 28, 2017 9:32 am

In Washington DC! That right there is a major victory. In their face.
The question is, will the MSM having basically ignored all the previous ones at least make an effort to show up?

Rhoda R
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 28, 2017 10:35 am

They might show up but I doubt that they’ll give it more than an inch of space on page 5 or the digital equivalent thereof.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Rhoda R
January 28, 2017 11:16 am

I think the MSM will have to give this Heartland conference more than cursory attention, because Heartland now is a mover and shaker, and because, therefore, if their conference isn’t covered, they will be open to criticism from their journalistic colleagues for ignoring or downplaying real news due to bias. Until now, the MSM’s excuse for non-coverage was that Heartland represented a fringe movement with no influence on the future.
A third reason, I suspect, is that they might want to cover their bets a bit, just in case we contrarians are correct. A fourth reason is that they might be curious to learn something.

Reply to  Rhoda R
January 28, 2017 9:45 pm

@ Roger Knights: the MSM’s excuse for non-coverage was that Heartland represented a ” fringe movement with no influence on the future.”
What did you expect from the MSM? A “Glorious Review” ? The Heartland Institute is hardly a “fringe movement” in my eyes anyway. And ” curious to learn something”? The MSM learning anything? As the last year or so and especially the post election period shows is that they haven’t learned a thing . It is really hard to re-do their type of indoctrination. ( I can’t remember the name used for trying to help kids away from cults but that would be the process they’d need but there are a lot of them).

Roger Knights
Reply to  Rhoda R
January 28, 2017 10:18 pm

I can’t remember the name used for trying to help kids away from cults

Deprogramming.

Reply to  Rhoda R
January 29, 2017 8:03 am

Now there’s a new growth industry:
Warmist Deprogramming Services Ltd.
“We teach you to chill”.”

troe
January 28, 2017 9:54 am

Agreed that the science must be returned to its proper place. Let the chips fall where science leads us. Where there is uncertainty we can wait.
Those of us who are not scientifically qualified will work the politics hard to give you the space you need.

jim heath
January 28, 2017 10:26 am

This week the World is a far different place than last week thanks to Trump. The grownups are back.

Editor
January 28, 2017 2:13 pm

I’m considering going. Just as long as I don’t have to wear a coat and tie!

jlakely
Reply to  Ric Werme
January 28, 2017 3:48 pm

No coat and tie required, Ric. But no shirt, no shoes, no service. 😉
Jim Lakely
Director of Communications
The Heartland Institute

Reply to  jlakely
January 31, 2017 10:34 pm

Please let me in. I will be there.

John Whitman
Reply to  Ric Werme
February 2, 2017 8:07 am

Ric Werme,
I am attending the full conference
John

willhaas
January 28, 2017 2:54 pm

It would be much more cost effective and better for the environment if the meeting were moved to the Internet. The technology is in place to do so. My concern is not climate change which is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. The Earth’s supply of fossil fuels is finite and any effort to conserve on their use would be appreciated. We shoud all be doing our part so that the Earth’s supply of fossil fuels lasts as long as possible.

jlakely
Reply to  willhaas
January 28, 2017 3:53 pm

Will,
Every ICCC since (I think) the sixth one in 2011 has been live-streamed. You’ll be able to watch it all if you can’t be there in person. Just go to Heartland.org the morning of March 23. There will be a link.
Meanwhile, you can watch any of the hundreds of previous presentations at the archive page for the International Conferences on Climate Change at this link:
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/
Jim Lakely
Director of Communications
The Heartland Institute
jlakely@heartland.org

willhaas
Reply to  jlakely
January 28, 2017 10:29 pm

I thank you for that information and I appreciate that your organization is so open to the general public. But the point is that no one actually has to travel if the meeting is entirely held on the Internet.

Editor
Reply to  jlakely
January 29, 2017 7:43 pm

There are big benefits to being there. Getting to meet scientists (and bloggers, astronauts, and just plain folk) is very high on my list, being able to thank them in person is a couple steps higher. I’ve been to ICCCs in Chicago,
DC, and Las Vegas, so it’s about time for another.
The online past presentations, at least those from Las Vegas, don’t have the Q&A sessions. That’s a bit unfortunate in Nils Axel Moerner’s talk, as he used some of that time to cover things he didn’t have time for in his main talk.

Chris Norman
January 28, 2017 3:02 pm

The mainstream liberal will suppress this.

jlakely
Reply to  Chris Norman
January 28, 2017 3:57 pm

We’ll see, Chris. We’ve gotten decent coverage in the past — though less and less, as the MSM has instituted policies to ignore the “other side” of the climate debate. (See the policies of the LA Times and NY Times to not allow any contrarian letters to the editor or op-eds.)
But with Trump now in the White House, I think the MSM has to cover this conference. They are scared.

Admin
January 28, 2017 6:15 pm

Booked 🙂

jlakely
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2017 7:31 pm

NICE! Thanks, Eric.
Jim Lakely
Director of Communications
The Heartland Institute
jlakely@heartland.org

Admin
Reply to  jlakely
January 29, 2017 2:00 am

Thanks Jim 🙂

John Whitman
Reply to  Eric Worrall
February 2, 2017 8:10 am

Eric Worrall,
I will attend the full conference
John

Johann Wundersamer
January 28, 2017 6:40 pm

This year’s ICCC focuses less on the science than previous meetings because climate realists have established beyond reasonable doubt that the human impact on climate is likely to be very small and beneficial rather than harmful. Realists have proven that most scientists now share this opinion, except those who have made careers out of finding a human impact and exaggerating it.
The election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and in state capitals around the country is proof that most American voters, most Republican elected officials, and the president himself do not believe man-made global warming is a crisis.
– They can’t believe at all !
Fine ! Highly readable, compressed, convincing. Thanks – Hans

Johann Wundersamer
January 28, 2017 6:56 pm

Thanks to Johann Nepokumus Nestroy:
‘There has to happen something either nothing happens!
The election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and in state capitals around the country is proof that most American voters, most Republican elected officials, and the president himself do not believe man-made global warming is a crisis.
– They can’t believe at all !
Fine ! Highly readable, compressed, convincing. Thanks – Hans

Jack E.
January 28, 2017 7:00 pm

The science is weak; the arguments are heavy!!

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Jack E.
January 29, 2017 1:25 pm

Jack E. on January 28, 2017 at 7:00 pm
The science is weak; the arguments are heavy!!
OK !!

Johann Wundersamer
January 28, 2017 7:00 pm

“There has to happen something other nothing happens!”
_____<- _____'‘There has to happen something either nothing happens!"

George Lawson
January 29, 2017 5:14 am

Will anyone be speaking on the abject failure of wind farm policies across the U.S. and Europe resulting from the false information presented to the world by the global warming zealots ? Someone should enlighten the world on this incredibly failed exercise in terms of the ridiculously high capital cost to the nations and the huge damage to the visual amenity of our beautiful countryside, in return for such an abysmal return in terms of its power output. This should be laid bare for all to see. Hopefully, the new administration will have the cancellation of new wind farm programmes well in their sites, or has an Executive Order already been signed?

January 29, 2017 5:42 am

Is it a scientific conference, or a right wing political rally? It’s a bit hard to tell from the nature of the posts.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
January 29, 2017 10:24 am

Gareth – Your comment appears disingenuous – the comments on this thread do not characterize the conference papers.
If you really wanted to be objective, a simple search would have located the programs for all ten prior conferences. See http://climateconferences.heartland.org/
Some of the papers are political and some are scientific. This is to be expected, because the science of global warming has been deeply and widely corrupted by false warmist propaganda – that is politics, and it must be addressed.
Fact:
When anyone says “the (climate) science is settled” in favour of the warmist narrative, they are knowingly or unknowingly stating a falsehood.
There is much to be learned about climate science, but it is increasingly probable that the catastrophic manmade global warming hypothesis is false. There is no real global warming crisis.

January 29, 2017 12:05 pm

Where’s Griff? I miss the twerp already.

Brian H
January 30, 2017 4:00 am

Still hoping for some hi-lat warming…

Paul Westhaver
January 30, 2017 4:29 am

on the agenda?
1) The downstream effect of Obama’s recent 200,000,000 endowment to the UN for Green initiatives and,
2) Trump’s inevitable freezing of funds to the UN because of many anti-American interest initiatives and,
3) Trump’s silencing of the EPA and,
4) Trump & Congress’ inevitable reduction of funding to the EPA and,
5) The rebuttal to the inevitable planetary protests from the green blob wrt the above 4 items.
6) Investigation and litigation of fraudulent use of public funds for academic work connecting “climate change” or “global warming” to everything. Anyone have a list to forward to the attorney general?
(I thing “Nature Tricking” qualifies of abuse of science so where did the money for that effort come from?)

%d bloggers like this: