Trump Administration Not Returning Calls From the UN Climate Boss


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa has complained in public that Rex Tillerson, President Trump’s Secretary of State, hasn’t responded to her request for a meeting.

UN Climate Chief’s Request to Meet Tillerson Goes Unanswered

by Joe Ryan

2 March 2017, 12:31 GMT+10 3 March 2017, 04:21 GMT+10

The top United Nations climate change official continues to wait for a response to her request to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson over whether the U.S. will remain in the landmark Paris environmental accord.

Patricia Espinosa, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, asked for a sitdown with Tillerson before leaving for a visit to the U.S. this week. In an interview Wednesday, she said she’d heard nothing from the State Department in return.

“I have not heard back. It is understandable at the beginning of an administration,’’ Espinosa said after speaking at a climate change conference in Chicago “They are a very important partner to us, and I’m looking forward to working together.’’

A State Department spokesman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

“It is unfortunate that Secretary Tillerson was unwilling to meet with Executive Secretary Espinosa,” Alden Meyer, director of policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an emailed statement Thursday. “Climate change represents a clear and present danger to the prosperity, security and quality of life of all Americans, and threatens the development prospects and stability of other countries. Addressing the climate threat is thus mission-critical for Secretary Tillerson and his State Department.”

Read more:

Oh the horror – UN climate bureaucrats taking a back seat to issues like international terrorism, badly designed job destroying trade agreements, dangerous global flash points, rogue states attempting to arm themselves with nuclear weapons…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 3, 2017 7:15 am

Love Trump for Climate Realism….

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Walter J Horsting
March 3, 2017 9:56 am

I also suggest that Trump take a closer look at the United Nations

United Nations is far out of line with its charter:
1.1 To maintain international peace and security…
1.2 To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people
1.3 To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
1.4 To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

«The primary, the fundamental, the essential purpose of the United Nations is to the peace. Everything it does which helps prevent World War III is good. Everything which does not further that goal, either directly or indirectly, is at best superfluous.»
— Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.

“The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”
— Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General from 1953 to 1961

This is what United Nations looks today:

And I wonder who “we” are?

I can not remember having been allowed to vote – UNFCCC is certainly not creating the future I want.

And, Patricia Espinosa is certainly not voted for by me.

I suggest splitting United Nations. Keep what is clearly in line with its charter – Article 1.1

“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;”

Everything else should be left to survive on its own – just like all other political, idealistic or activist non-governmental organizations. I guess we are better of by cooperation between groups of countries than by the monstrous United Nations.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
March 3, 2017 12:14 pm

Plus Many, you are spot on and I wish that the US would move the organization to the Sahara desert so these people could feel some real “warming” and stop paying for it at the same time. It is like NATO, none of the rest of the members are carrying their share! 90% are countries run by dictators and most of the funding and aid never gets to the people intended. Every once in a while they show a “Feel Good” story but if there is one place were “Fake News” has been the motto it is them!

Reply to  Science or Fiction
March 3, 2017 7:15 pm

Not the Sahara. Bangui, Central African Republic…where it isn’t a dry heat.

Russ Wood
Reply to  Science or Fiction
March 5, 2017 5:59 am

-But the UN continually makes up that Israel’s mere EXISTENCE is a ‘threat to World Peace’. Ditto (pre 1994) the Nationalist South Africa, who were fighting for their own existence from USSR-backed external forces. Nope – the UN itself is the threat!

Reply to  Walter J Horsting
March 3, 2017 10:05 am

And “Climate Realism” is exactly what we need to call it–the new framing, if you will. As in, GET REAL!
Not “denial,” which sounds like mental illness, or even “skepticism,” which sounds like religious apostasy.
REALISM. Which is what the Trump Administration is all about.

Reply to  Walter J Horsting
March 3, 2017 3:42 pm

Walter, hold on a minute, he hasn’t done much yet. I put him on watch, wait and hope.

Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 7:16 am

There has been gossip about Ivanka Trump trying to persuade her father to suck up to the greens, but it has remained on the level of gossip. As Trump owes the greens nothing politically, and most of his allies are opposed to their pet causes, I remain hopeful.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 8:04 am

Read the NYT link I posted below, I’m always moderated so I can’t say it will be up quickly.

I’m hopeful as well but there is Rex (carbon tax/UN framework) Tillerson to think about as well. His comments at the confirmation were crazy and unnecessary.

You bet you can count me in to the revolt if Trump fails to deliver at least the Paris exit. He might survive a punt on the global framework idea but maybe not. It’s the whole KAHUNA time for anti-green advocates. No compromises on principal.

Tom Halla
Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 8:57 am

I saw the coverage in the NYT. That sort of thing is what I classified as “gossip”.

Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 9:01 am

Since when did Fake News rise to the level of “gossip”? There’s a war against Trump’s presidency and those waging it should be ashamed. They lose at the ballot box and instantly show their true Marxist/Socialist colors.

ferd berple
Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 9:37 am

show their true Marxist/Socialist colors.
don’t be misled. Trump has enemies on the left and right who stand to lose $ billions. Many in very lofty positions of privilege. The folks that buy and sell politicians.

As such, there are Democrats and Republicans both in large numbers that have been living in the swamp for years. The Democrats have nothing to lose, so they have the knives out in public. There are also plenty of Republicans with knifes ready, waiting to be stuck in Trumps back.

Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 10:49 am

Sure there are tea leaves in my concern, Delingpole seems worried and that seems a legitimate source close to Bannon.

Until I see the withdrawal proposal from Paris my commitment to Trump is qualified. Honestly he should smash the entire cabal by pulling out of the climate UN all together.

If a side deal is made with green industry to slow walk subside reductions I could live with that. He should make Elon Musk renounce fraud climate science in the process for keeping some part of his current subside. That’s what the left did when they had the levers. That’s what “science” belief is worth today.

It’s not going to happen that way but it makes the real politic point of what deep state and green are all about. If he lets them live with the climate scam in incubation mode it could well be worse then before if political fortunes reverse. If he can split a chunk in a deal from UN global climate cartel it might be a plus but it looks unlikely.

Big green predates the climate meme by a good many years. Climate is just the current tactic and tool. The weak “science only” skeptics need to wake up to circumstances right now and lobby hard for the Delingpole/Bannon solution.

Bryan A
Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 12:21 pm

I see nothing inherently wrong about the world uniting behind a single flag, preferably one that is Red White and Blue with 13 alternating red and white stripes and a corner field of blue with 205 stars

Martin A
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 9:44 am

Posted on Bishop Hill (without attribution):

WASHINGTON—”At the request of President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his wife, Ivanka Trump, language critical of a global climate deal was struck from an executive order that Mr. Trump is planning to sign soon”

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Martin A
March 3, 2017 10:16 am

Holy Moses – which president would even discuss such things with family?

Reply to  Martin A
March 3, 2017 11:19 am

S or F,

You might be making the generational blunder of not realizing what 20-40 years of educational and pop culture green climate indoctrination has done to many millennials in particular. It goes way beyond climate as well.

The decline in critical thinking is vast and deep. It impacts the culture across many economies and circumstances. People always forget that socialism of the later 19th century was advocated by the aristocracy in critical countries and empires such as the British Empire. That soft arm chair world view couldn’t imagine the consequences to follow.

I doubt Ivanka would or could change her view at all. She really shouldn’t matter but…..

I only hope Trump wants a second term and actually has a refined understanding of the Green/climate cartel, I think he does. I hope in understands his base as well, if he wavers on this topic his career in the WH is over. No Greenshirt will ever switch their vote no matter what pandering is invented. A huge Breitbart block will abandon Trump in a NY minute.

Reply to  Martin A
March 3, 2017 12:07 pm

Martin that rumor is pretty old by now , it as far as I remember came out before the inauguration..

Reply to  Martin A
March 3, 2017 4:32 pm

Ivanka was right to caution her dad, there are a lot of brainwashed people out there, best to delay any comment on climate change in the public arena, ignore it and it will go away.

Going forward the Administration will quietly white ant the AGW apparatus, then victory is ours.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 10:09 am

I think Trump probably knows what the scientific facts are, and if need be will explain them on the q.t. to Ivanka. Being a sweet young thing, she has known little but the Left’s moral narcissism in her lifetime; Dad and his staff may have to explain to her the Green Blob’s hypocrisy.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Goldrider
March 3, 2017 3:06 pm


You say “Ivanka. Being a sweet young thing…” (which I interpret as more-or-less calling her a bimbo)

Actually, see seems to be a pretty good mom (handled being attacked on the airplane reasonably well), and a very talented & savvy businesswoman.

I haven’t actually seen a quote from her on CAGW; I think I’ll reserve judgement until I do. You might consider doing the same.

Dodgy Geezer
March 3, 2017 7:19 am

Actually, there was a one-word response. “Who?”….

March 3, 2017 7:21 am

I don’t know if Trump will be a decent president or not–I suspect many, including the former president, won’t allow it–but his stand on the global warming scam makes me hopeful.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  Richard
March 3, 2017 8:08 am

‘the former president’


Harry Passfield
Reply to  Retired Kit P
March 3, 2017 8:19 am

Select as appropriate:

O, him?
O, him.
O him

(the one time Ocomma made a difference) 🙂

Reply to  Richard
March 3, 2017 1:14 pm

His Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, before even taking his first full breath on the job, reversed the “parting shot” skullduggery of his predecessor by reversing Dan Ashe’s last minute Director’s Order that directed the phase-out of traditional lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle use on all 81 million acres of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands and waters by 2022.

Anyone tired of winning yet?

March 3, 2017 7:21 am

“Addressing the climate threat is thus mission-critical for Secretary Tillerson and his State Department.”

And the real threat comes from alarmists like Patricia Espinosa who significantly exaggerate the effects of CO2 emissions and should be ignored.

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 3, 2017 8:49 am

Ignored, hell! Tarred and feathered for the damage she has done to the people of developing countries, and the economies of developed countries!

Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 3, 2017 10:12 am

Think of the billions tied up right now in the “renewables” scam–Tillerson may be trying to keep his cake and eat it, too. That’s why the entire CO2 narrative needs to go OUT like the baby with the bathwater.

March 3, 2017 7:23 am

The hubris of Alden Meyer telling someone as distinguished and knowledgeable as Rex Tillerson what his “mission critical” priorities are in the State Department.

Reply to  Tucker
March 3, 2017 9:03 am

Rex’s first environmental concern is draining the swamp at the State Dept.

That might take a few more months since it’s such a big, deep, incestuous swamp.

Reply to  RockyRoad
March 3, 2017 12:18 pm

Rockey, yep it is a long, long way down to the drain plug!

Ex-expat Colin
March 3, 2017 7:25 am

I suspect the resistance Trump is experiencing to much more important US issues (important pre election speeches) puts CC ever closer to the don’t care tray? Or likely in it!

The EPA changes might give the UN a clue?

March 3, 2017 7:26 am

Off topic, but it looks like Obama was running illegal surveillance on the Trump campaign. Watergate or should that be waterboarding Mr. ex-President?

March 3, 2017 7:26 am

Here’s hoping that Rex gets back to her to say 1) we are withdrawing from the agreement, and 2) defunding IPCC and leaving the UN.

Reply to  Chimp
March 3, 2017 7:29 am

The UN hasn’t served a useful purpose for about 60 years.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Chimp
March 3, 2017 7:40 am

About 72 years. The UN was Franklin Roosevelt’s pet idea, and depended on the cooperation of Joseph Stalin. Stalin stopped cooperating about the time FDR died, if he ever did, and it has been a moribund notion since.

Reply to  Chimp
March 3, 2017 7:53 am

Depends on how you feel about Israel and the Korean War.

The UN approved the war after the USSR walked out of the Security Council.

The partition of Palestine was approved thanks to US lobbying and the composition of the UN at the time.

There might have been a few other useful actions in the late ’50s or even early ’60s as well.

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Chimp
March 3, 2017 8:52 am

Chimp, you have a good point. But we have to consider all the evil they have done as well. That may outweigh the good. And with a poor president (Carter, Obama) they are empowered to act against our best interests and the interests of our allies (like Israel).

Reply to  Chimp
March 3, 2017 9:05 am

UN interference in the “Korean Police Action” resulted in its ending in a stalemate.
UN partition of the Palestine Mandate created an impossible checkerboard pattern that maximized the boarders between Jewish Palestinians and hostile Moslem Palestinians. The UN also established permanent “refugee camps” in the area to foster continuing unrest.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Chimp
March 3, 2017 10:29 am

“The UN hasn’t served a useful purpose for about 60 years.”

They were responsible for spreading AIDs throughout the areas of Africa where they sent troops. I would think the climate change elite would grade that an “A+” for population control.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Chimp
March 3, 2017 10:39 am

In reply to skorrent1. We, and the South Koreans, won that war. WWII got us believing in unconditional surrender, and total victory. Most wars don’t end that way,

Climate Heretic
Reply to  Chimp
March 3, 2017 12:55 pm

The UN hasn’t served a useful purpose for 74 years (1942 as the starting date). We still have war, famine and poverty.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Chimp
March 3, 2017 3:55 pm

Tom Halla March 3, 2017 at 7:40 am
About 72 years. The UN was Franklin Roosevelt’s pet idea

Actually, Woodrow Wilson’s (The League of Nations).
But the US didn’t join. (Control of the “MSM” was too diverse and free back then.)
Purse stings cut.
After WW2, enter the UN. Purse strings uncut.

“World Peace” at any cost.

Where’s the “Peace” and what has it cost US and the other nations that make up the big “us” in more than just dollars?

Reply to  Chimp
March 3, 2017 8:21 am

I certainly hope to be wrong on Tillerson but he supported the UN Climate framework in the confirmation and has a history of carbon tax support. That’s two strikes in my book right there.

By some talk, there are 2 million current US jobs related to “green”, 1.5 Trillion market cap. This gets right down to solar panels and Tesla factory workers. How does a hard exit from climate rubbish impact and what are the consequences politically since at least half will play ball on climate “investment” as they like to call it??

Trump wasn’t elected to throw people into the unemployment line even if the industry involved is based on scam climate assumptions. This is a dilemma at least politically. Longer term, if there is one for Trump, the economy would benefit from subside removals of big green. That’s abstract shorter term of course.

Wiping out the climate intelegencia is step one and finding a slower wind down for green industry employment might be politically viable. It’s a big problem either way. If he supports the climate policy status quo he’s finished with his base.

Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 12:31 pm

Aren’t they Obama’s “highly trained” technical employees? There should be lots of jobs for them for those liberal Silicon Valley industries then and we can stop bringing in outside “highly trained” immigrants right?

Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 12:39 pm

I have no problem with anyone investing in whatever they want. As long as they do with their money.

Reply to  Chimp
March 3, 2017 11:28 am

The Universe is never that obliging and kind. Stop teasing!

NW sage
Reply to  Chimp
March 4, 2017 4:51 pm

Sort of like saying “You better meet with me or I’ll cut back on the funding we send you — Oh Wait! It’s the other ‘way round!”

March 3, 2017 7:27 am

I don’t think we should care about Patricia Espinosa’s mission.
It sounds like a personal problem to me.
I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with Americans and their freedom.

Curious George
March 3, 2017 7:28 am

Is a UNFCCC a state?

Reply to  Curious George
March 3, 2017 9:06 am

…yes, a state of abject denial about the truth regarding climate change and how the UN’s policy has thwarted economic progress by people world-wide.

March 3, 2017 7:41 am

Good — that’s the proper response.

Janice Moore
March 3, 2017 7:42 am

Please leave a messaaaaaage at the beeeeeep. I must be out ……

(youtube — Seinfeld)



Christmas every DAY!

kokoda - the most deplorable
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2017 9:16 am

Janice….that was soooo appropriate and Awesome. You got me laughing !!!

Janice Moore
Reply to  kokoda - the most deplorable
March 3, 2017 10:33 am

Yay! Thank you for telling me, koko! 🙂

March 3, 2017 7:42 am

Seriously. Get over yourselves and your faux crises. Trump must cut the money to climate change and redirect it to domestic spending.

Reply to  Troe
March 3, 2017 8:43 am

Seriously, the climate cartel must be defunded and replaced with nothing. The market will reward the efficiency longer term but there could be he’ll to pay politically in that process.

Do you think Obama socialists believe in market efficiency???

Climate bs is essentially the WPA (work progress administration) of our time. It took something important to get that defunded like WW2.

Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 10:41 am

Leftists find it hard to impossible to believe that anything that isn’t “planned” can be efficient.
And indeed the market can be inefficient, when compared to a perfect world where all actors have perfect and complete information and can be counted on to act rationally in all cases.

Unfortunately, we live in the real world where nobody has perfect, much less complete information and few people act “rationally” all of the time. Indeed we can’t even agree as to what it means to act rationally in all circumstances.

The leftists failure is their belief that by inserting more government into the operation of the market, they can correct these deficiencies.

Bryan A
Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 12:30 pm

When it comes to Leftist Ideals, I thought it was “Market Deficiencies”
Market Redundancies

Javert Chip
Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 3:14 pm

…or Venzuala, where they now have the Leftist National Diet (AKA: starvation)

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Troe
March 3, 2017 10:31 am

I guess the economy can be boosted more effectively by solving real problems than by trying to solve imaginary problems.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
March 3, 2017 11:48 am

Economically that’s true but politics are driven what people believe.

The WPA created millions of bogus jobs and was a boondoggle of epic proportions yet there were supporters who went to their graves as true believers. They’re still ancestrally still here if they realize it or not.

Climate green will be no different. We’re no where near the end either. I’m not sure the underlying issue of automated labor replacement is going to be solved nearterm.

Reagan won on economics but the social consequences were never accepted or adjusted to. Belief in government management directly related to productivity displacement being the conclusion. Green beliefs are rooted in “nostalgia” not “progress” as marketed. Most government workers, educational structures are all hierarchical and centralized like the military. The insecurity of the planning core has come out in deep Trump reactionary response.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
March 3, 2017 11:51 am


March 3, 2017 7:43 am

Looks like we have another scandal in Washington that’s bigger than Watergate.

Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump

Reply to  Rob
March 3, 2017 12:51 pm

A Mark Levin show diatribe? From Breitbart? Not only is this not going to grow into any sort of “scandal”, it may set a new record for how quickly the MSM sweeps it under the rug. Who knows – some Democrat operative with more impotent rage than sense may do the exact wrong thing and respond to it – but I doubt it.

March 3, 2017 7:46 am

That’s just not nice – take the call, thank them for their attention and tell them you will take their information under advisement…THEN lose their number – optics of playing in the same sandbox

Janice Moore
Reply to  jimmy_jimmy
March 3, 2017 7:56 am

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. This is not England (or New Zealand), where British “niceness” reigns (as nice as that might be). This is the United States where the generally accepted etiquette is:

“I do not owe impertinent callers an answer. And if they keep calling, I will block their number.”

The U.S. does not owe the U.N. anything — and certainly not an answer to a phone call from an envirostalinist wacko.


Go, USA! 🙂

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2017 10:37 am

Notice the total disconnet….
“I have not heard back. It is understandable at the beginning of an administration”
“It is unfortunate that Secretary Tillerson was unwilling to meet with Executive Secretary Espinosa,”

understandable to unwilling

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2017 11:01 am
Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2017 11:01 am

Just because you are a secretary…..

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2017 11:20 am

“Discussions” with many on the left have devolved into this

Tillerson has a monumental problem at State because HRC had populated it with her cronies using the Special Government Employees Rule. They often double dipped with the Clinton Foundation. Digging further into the weeds many of these shills are buried in USAID programs.

Its gonna get rowdy before its over.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2017 11:25 am

Thankyou Janice sooo much for your praise. Yes, we are nice, so nice we declared war on Hitler before the Mother Country (dateline stuff). Might of given him one of his last laughs.
Jokes aside, good to see so much being done so quickly on the road to defundment…..

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2017 11:33 am

Envirostalinist. I like it!

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2017 1:04 pm

Lattitude be fair though those were two quotes from two different people, but in one way it does show the disconnect at the UN.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2017 9:28 pm

“Brett Keane March 3, 2017 at 11:25 am”

Very true. I found this out when I lived in New Zealand, and had a laugh. Kiwi’s do have an odd sense on humour.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2017 9:33 pm

“Janice Moore March 3, 2017 at 7:56 am

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. This is not England (or New Zealand), where British “niceness” reigns…”

You haven’t seen Winston Peters on Courtenay Place after too many bottles of “pop”!

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 5, 2017 4:36 am

Or as Jeremey Clarkson calls them Environ Mentalists.

Reply to  jimmy_jimmy
March 3, 2017 12:00 pm

Nobody said they aren’t taking the call. The complaint is that nobody has called back to set up an interview.
I can assure that some underling somewhere took the call, wrote down the message, and passed it on the appropriate desk.

Janice Moore
Reply to  MarkW
March 3, 2017 12:38 pm

Thank you for keeping us to-the-letter accurate, MarkW.


When I call someone who does not call me back after:

1) his assistant says something like, “Mr. Tillerson can’t take your call right now. Would you like to leave a message?” and

2) takes down a message from me to, “Please call me,”

I tell my friends, “He wouldn’t take my call.”

And in this case, that is TERRIFIC! 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  MarkW
March 3, 2017 12:43 pm

P.S. And, yes, the assistant should not have said, “right now” if he or she knew it was “not ever.” That was just the assistant getting a bit flustered. She or he normally would say, “…. Mr. Tillerson is not available. May I take a message?”

Reply to  MarkW
March 3, 2017 2:14 pm

Have I offended you?

Janice Moore
Reply to  MarkW
March 3, 2017 3:56 pm

Dear MarkW,

No, not at all. Thank you for being so generous-spirited as to ask me. I should have made clear why I wrote what I did (I agree, that I wrote at all created the impression that you had offended me, in addition to my defensive words). I just wanted to explain (sort of justify) why I commented to Jimmyx2 as I did. To show that my using “did not take the call” wasn’t completely off base.

In other words: my mildly defensive tone was, I think, what made it sound as if I were offended.

You are highly adept with the English language and a keenly perceptive reader!

All is well.

Your Ally for Science Realism,


March 3, 2017 7:51 am

While many us here are familiar with the serious deficiencies of the C-AGW hypothesis, much of the American public is not, having been inundated with media rubbish. It would not be over-reaching to place an immediate hold on IPCC funding, but I think it would be better to hold hearing, let the AGW group to make their best argument, the deniers make their, then counter arguments by both. Then we can pull out.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Joe
March 3, 2017 8:47 am

I see your very good point, Joe. But, we have an economy to save, here, before the envirostalinists and opportunistic enviroprofiteers wreck it beyond repair.

A 2 step approach would be best, I think:

1. Lead the world and stop Big AGW — now.

2. Hold such a hearing, IF it would be accurately reported (that is the deal, really, no matter how many hearings or fair debates that might happen, Big Wind, et al. will make sure their media reports a completely twisted, for-propaganda-purposes-only, version) ONLY re: the question of : “Should the IPCC (and like programs) be reinstated.”

(3. (sort of kidding — but, given the low likelihood that accurate reporting of the facts about human CO2 would result, sort of not!) Put that hearing on “the Greek kalends.” 🙂 )

March 3, 2017 7:52 am

I’m still concerned about Trump going wobbly;

More obvious then the agenda NYT is Tesla and there $7500 per car fed tax credit to help “climate” trading at 250 a share, not that far from the high. Clearly big crony climate green isn’t worried about Trump withdrawing from the UN system which I and many supporters voted for.

Tillerson was a dubious selection for supporters with his confirmation support for the global climate framework, carbon tax sympathy of the past.

Climate is a cottage issue on the main stage but a substantial issue to the Trump base. If he parses, wobbles, bargains on the core of withdrawing from Paris he’s finished. Even keeping the UN process on life support is a danger to him with the base.

Nothing is more symbolic of global NWO thinking then global climate authority managed by the UN. It must be destroyed and no nuanced deals.

There is the fallout of a 1.5 trillion green/climate hyped market cap industry to deal with. The total committed Greenshirt/socialist wing that will always be against him anyway.

This is a watershed moment. Will the prissy science skeptic crowd step up and support the Paris fiasco and Trump?? They are even more suspect.

It can go very wrong here for many reasons.

Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 1:17 pm

cwon, I agree with your points. Trump is getting a lot of really bad press but an article in the NYT is not one I am too worried about. Tillerson should not even comment on “climate Change” until he can see the impact it would have on the Presidency.

Reply to  asybot
March 3, 2017 4:07 pm

people are OVERestimating the power of the presidency … follow the money and the cabal that wields it to zero in on who controls us

Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 7:46 pm

Knute, presidency power “overestimated”? Well, the campaign ferocity sure had me fooled!

Reply to  cwon14
March 4, 2017 10:11 am

Not really difficult to kill green subsidies using the greens own rhetoric.

“The renewables industry has been saying for years how well they are doing , therefore it is obvious they no longer need taxpayer support. I will now be ceasing all subsidies, and diverting the money saved to reducing the national debt.”

March 3, 2017 7:54 am

You know it is a hit piece when they quote the UCS. Might as well quote Hillary on the job Putin is doing.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 3, 2017 7:56 am

Tillerson’s response should include: (1) the US is barred from providing funding for any UN committee which accords full membership status to a representative of the Palestinian Authority, and (2) the IPCC should implement previously-identfied reforms concerning transparency, conflict of interest and nepotism allegations in order for their reports to have credibility. Finally, as CO2 emissions are among other things a product of economic activity and the current administration is dedicated to increasing domestic industry as much as possible, a commitment to decrease CO2 emissions is not possible.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 3, 2017 8:01 am

Besides which, CO2 is good for plants and other living things. For the children.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 3, 2017 8:02 am

Here is Roger Pielke, Jr.’s comment on comment on IPCC shortcomings from back in 2010. To my knowledge, none of this has been addressed, except that then chairman Rajendra Pachauri is gone.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 3, 2017 8:07 am

That is a very rational and by the book approach which may read well in the UN bureaucratic world as it leans heavily on already agreed rules. A nice touch. And they might also offer to discuss any risk related to global warming just as soon as some objective evidence of a real risk is provided by the UN/IPPC.

March 3, 2017 8:12 am

Note to Ms. Espinosa: Get in line behind the Russians. Way behind!

Reply to  Trebla
March 3, 2017 4:04 pm

Unfortunately for you, Trebla, it looks like Obama and the Russians have colluded in a “silent coup” against President Trump.

Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, is a Democrat sympathizer (he sat with the Democrats in last Tuesday’s speech by President Trump, and has met with President Obama at least 20 times at the White House.

Add to that the fact that it was Obama who arranged Sessions to meet with ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and it’s shaping into a cozy relationship between the Marxist/Socialist Progressive Democrats and the Russians, not the way the coup-supporting New York Times and the rest of the Clinton-supporting MSM are portraying it.

And why wouldn’t they? Russia was able to get very large reductions in US nuclear weapons through Obama whereas President Trump is expanding the military and upgrading our nuclear capability.

If you simply think about it (rather than be swayed by Soviet-era propaganda), a Putin/Obama alliance makes much more sense.

Besides, Obama hasn’t left Washington at all–he and his wife are now joined by Valerie Jarrett in their new home just a short distance from the White House. This has been brewing for quite some time–we may have the pretext for a civil war here in the US soon.

Note: Click on Rob’s link above; it covers it all in much more detail.

March 3, 2017 8:19 am

“It is unfortunate that Secretary Tillerson was unwilling to meet with Executive Secretary Espinosa,” Alden Meyer, director of policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an emailed statement Thursday. “The Climate Change nonsense represents the best and most immediate path to absolute POWER for the privileged few and that nonsense is a clear and present danger to the prosperity, security and quality of life of all Americans. Any threat to the current Klimate Crusade threatens the development prospects of the international Ruling Class. Promoting the climate threat nonsense must be considered mission-critical for ALL state functionaries and apparatchiks. Secretary Tillerson and his State Department needs to be brought fully into the Ruling Class mission of power acquisition, and it needs to happen immediately.”

Lets call that precious “Framework” what it really is:

The United Nations Framework Convention On The Acquisition Of Absolute Power For The Privileged Few And Their Right Of That Privileged Few To Use Any Tactic To Achieve It

There. Fixed it.

March 3, 2017 8:19 am

Thanks Eric Worrall. Really enjoy reading all the articles and info you provide to WUWT. Your guest essays are a tremendous contribution:))

Leonard Lane
Reply to  hollybirtwistle
March 3, 2017 12:32 pm

Agree, and, thanks long overdue Eric.

March 3, 2017 8:20 am

I don’t take calls from telemarketers either.

March 3, 2017 8:26 am

Collecting navel lint would be a better use of time for Trump and Tillerson than to converse with the UN Climate Chief.

Rod Everson
March 3, 2017 8:35 am

The highlight of President Trump’s address the other night: Not a peep out of him on global warming/climate change. Not a single word.

Reply to  Rod Everson
March 3, 2017 8:47 am

The new silent spring

Reply to  Rod Everson
March 3, 2017 8:54 am

At what point does not unifying the base and denouncing the UN globalist climate agenda become a problem for you?

It’s going to take “yuge” leadership to rip the cultural left in particular off the climate teat. I don’t fault him for going slow on the issue, it’s not officially on the 100 day list. Still he should be laying more ground work.

Tillerson is looking weaker then many of the other team members and it’s as high profile an appointment there is next to Sessions.

Risk of selling out the base? It certainly isn’t zero where it should be.

Svend Ferdinandsen
March 3, 2017 8:42 am

Climateers very seldom meets with sceptics to discuss the matter, so why should she want to meet Tillerson.
It is fine she herself can feel how it is when the other side wont turn up.

Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
March 3, 2017 11:44 am

Well said.

Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
March 3, 2017 12:56 pm

Tillerson is a known skeptic? This looks murky at best. He supported the UN climate process at the confirmation hearing. He proposed a carbon tax.

This is the wrong kind of skepticism. The kind that avoids the largest points of the debate.

March 3, 2017 8:47 am

UN who?
Union of Concerned who?

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Resourceguy
March 3, 2017 12:35 pm

Union of Concerned Socialists

Reply to  Leonard Lane
March 3, 2017 1:43 pm

Kenji is not a socialist, !

Reply to  Leonard Lane
March 3, 2017 2:15 pm

He performs no work and is supported by others.
Sounds like a socialist to me.

March 3, 2017 9:11 am

The IPCC is being given the same consideration they give the skeptics. So what’s the problem?

Reply to  markl
March 3, 2017 12:30 pm

The tight rope Mark is being blamed for the next recession that is after all inevitable. Two million green jobs, the fastest growing sector in the Obama years. Many climate driven items.

Can soft landing be framed if you destroy the basic IPCC facade?

Culturally, do think fracking jobs are going to pick up some of this displacement? Yes, that’s sarcasm.

Frankly, end the IPCC and give them the WPA back which in a way what the “infrastructure” trillion is anyway. It’s still not going to work socially no matter what the GDP rises to.

March 3, 2017 9:44 am

Trump has nothing to lose by ditching the Paris ‘agreement’ – for the simple reason his enemies won’t become his friends if he doesn’t ditch Paris but they’ll STILL do everything they can to obstruct his administration. He may as well do it because that’s how he’ll be judged. Either blaze a trail or go down fighting on your own terms rather than theirs.

PS. Not getting a phone call accepted to try and arrange a meeting doesn’t auger well for Patricia Espinosa. Very encouraging!

Reply to  CheshireRed
March 3, 2017 10:18 am

“PS. Not getting a phone call accepted to try and arrange a meeting doesn’t auger well for Patricia Espinosa. Very encouraging!”

I have to agree. It shouldn’t be that hard to set up a meeting with someone who wants to meet with you.

Reply to  CheshireRed
March 3, 2017 1:02 pm


I hope so.

Reply to  CheshireRed
March 3, 2017 1:25 pm

Does it not have to go through the Senate for conformation anyway?

Reply to  asybot
March 3, 2017 6:07 pm

Paris? It’s structured not to be a treaty.

It’s really another step along the way. Next step is to make it enforceable but the whole sketchy process remains intact. All the time the social brainwashing continues in earnest.

Trump could claim it a treaty and send it the Senate, a huge mistake of course. Look at the ACA repeal. Leadership Is required so it’s Trump or nothing nearterm.

If they keep Climate agenda alive and resume authority it could be even worse then before. Then again anti authoritarianism is in the DNA as well, maybe more dissent will emerge soon. Still this is great opportunity if it isn’t flitted away.

Reply to  CheshireRed
March 4, 2017 2:25 am

‘I put a nickel in the telephone
and dialed my baby’s number,
– got a brr, brr brr brr, busy line.’

It all depends on what Trump is doing it for?
Money, position, or at 70 yrs old, with money,
position, maybe patriotism? We will see. If the
latter, he’s got no need to ditch promises.

Joel O’Bryan
March 3, 2017 9:52 am

– Scott Pruitt fails to even mention Climate Change in his first All-hands speech to the EPA he runs.

– President Trump did not mention climate change even once in his speech Tuesday to Congress.

– SecState Tillerson not responding to UNFCCC calls re:climate change positions.

Does anyone see a pattern?

Death by neglect is the best way (for now) to completely kill the non-binding Paris Treaty and its Nationally-declared carbon emissions goals.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 3, 2017 12:42 pm

Supporters want the UN climate process withdrawal.

We’re a rowdy lot it shouldn’t be forgotten. Now is the time and form a rationalized policy to reject global climate management based on emissions mythology. Trump can only win by fighting, there is no reward for pandering.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 3:22 pm

The best approach politically for Trump-Tillerson-Pruitt to take a Passive-Agressive strategy to neutralize both the operative effects of the UNFCCC and the Paris Protocols, while simultaneously not providing easy political targets for the Green Blob to attack.

The problem with the Paris Agreement is that it is not legitimate.
The Paris Protocol is illegitimate as an enforceable agreement for the US govt under the US constitution. That serious infirmity aside, if Trump seeks to withdraw from the Paris Agreement via its withdrawal protocol, he would be legitimizing the very thing held illegitimate. Best thing is to let it die by neglect. And Perfectly legal. No econut group can sue the EPA or US government for not adhering to a non-binding agreement.

The issue of the UNFCCC is different. Formally Withdrawing from the UNFCCC requires positive action and notifications by the Secretary of State to the UN. Again, the nod your head, smile, and then refuse to do anything, a passive-aggressive strategy, is the best way to not give your political enemies easy targets to attack in the press or by Democrats in Congress.

Reply to  cwon14
March 3, 2017 6:39 pm

This method preserves the underlying authority of the UN Climate process.

At some point the President must take the lead. It goes beyond short term tactics, the broad public is against the AGW agenda and even the supporters know the inherent deception of the movement.

Offense wins, defense losses. Label the agenda politically and attack it. If not it will simply incubate when it must be discredited and marginalized.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  cwon14
March 4, 2017 6:02 am

As I read it, the Paris Climate Agreement has no force of law. The language “requests” and “invites” the parties to do a bunch of things but “requires” them to do nothing at all.


12. Welcomes the intended nationally determined contributions that have been communicated by Parties in accordance with decision 1/CP.19, paragraph 2(b);
13. Reiterates its invitation to all Parties that have not yet done so to communicate to the secretariat their intended nationally determined contributions towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2 as soon as possible and well in
advance of the twenty-second session of the Conference of the Parties (November 2016)
and in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the intended
nationally determined contributions;

The US INDC was submitted just under two years ago (2015-03-31) and can be viewed here. The money quote is:

The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%.

You can find all the INDCs submitted to date here.

Note these are all statements of intentions, not commitments to actual achievements.

So the US has already complied with the Paris agreement, except for:

20. Decides to convene a facilitative dialogue among Parties in 2018 to take stock of the collective efforts of Parties in relation to progress towards the long-term goal referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Agreement and to inform the preparation of nationally determined contributions pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 8, of the Agreement.

Oh good, another “facilitative dialog”.

IMHO, President Trump should go to the 2018 “facilitative dialog” in Paris. He should take a “Yuge” delegation — a bunch of Cabinet secretaries and under-secretaries and hundreds of other diplomats and agency staff. He should encourage all the usual climate-hypocrites (Gore, DiCaprio, etc., ) to attend in their private jets with their own retinues of sycophants. He should aim to set a record for travel-induced carbon emissions to get the entire Green Blob to Paris for an “important policy speech on US commitment to climate change policy”.

When the entire Parisitic mob is assembled, Trump should take the podium to address them and say:

[Long introductory salutations to all the distinguished attendees; use your imaginations].

The US pledges to promote biomass fuels by recycling all printed copies of climate change agreements, regulations, educational material and IPCC reports.

You are wasting your time and squandering the world’s treasures in an effort to condemn Earth’s population to a past of debilitating and degrading poverty instead of usher them into a future of limitless possibility.

You’re fired.

and walk out and return immediately to Air Force One for the flight back to Mar-a-Lago for a well-deserved round of golf.

March 3, 2017 10:22 am

It’s not what Tillerson or Ivanka or Jared think about the climate change issue, it is what Trump thinks about the issue.

We have the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal insinuating that Ivanka and Jerad are lobbying Trump to go easy on the climate change issue.

My question is: Has anyone ever seen a public statement by Ivanka or Jerad about climate change, pro or con?

Janice Moore
Reply to  TA
March 3, 2017 10:42 am

Exactly, TA. And Trump is, whatever else might be said for (or against) him, his own man.


No. The NYT and the WSJ (sadly) are simply doing their best to shore up the investment value of Big Wind, Big Solar, Big Disaster Insurance, Big Battery Cars, etc. by putting false info. out for the market to respond to. They can only huff and puff like that for so long….. they are fast running out of breath.


Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2017 11:48 am

Has there been any market instability in those sectors immediately post-election and ongoing?

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 3, 2017 9:17 pm

There’s only market stability in those sectors because of heavy subsidies.

Reply to  TA
March 3, 2017 12:15 pm

Ivanka is pro-climate gruel, here’s a sample;

Yeah, The Atlantic, quoting Politico. It brings up the big chunks after lunch for sure.

Being super rich assures knowing all the wrong kind of people. No, she’s on the Team no doubt about it.

It would be Learian in scale if it goes further then this. Caving to his daughters climate delusions isn’t my first worry. Deal making with the deep green money and employer sources is problem #1. There is huge short term gamble cutting the climate establishment down and not getting a quick return on political capital.

This culture war worthy.

Reply to  TA
March 4, 2017 5:29 am

With regard to what Trump is going to do with the Paris Agreement, here is a link:

“The Times report said that next week Trump is planning to sign an executive order for Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt to reverse President Barack Obama’s EPA regulations, which met the U.S.’ obligations to the Paris accord. . .

Those in favor of exiting, such as Bannon, say it would show Trump fulfills his campaign promises.”

end excerpts

I think that is the heart of the matter. As Steve Bannon says, Trump made a campaign promise and I don’t think he is going to go back on it. Bannon is for exiting, why shouldn’t we assume Trump is too, especially since Trump campaigned on exiting. Trump has kept his campaign promises so far, and I personally expect he will keep this one, too. I will be very surprised if he does not.

Tom in Florida
March 3, 2017 10:34 am

Patricia Espinosa does not represent any Nation, Country or State. Therefore, why would the U. S. Secretary of State have any reason to meet with her.

Ed Zuiderwijk
March 3, 2017 10:38 am

Climate change is not ‘a clear and present danger’ to Americans or to anybody else. It’s just what nature does on her own account and the message is: just live with it.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
March 3, 2017 10:40 am

It is a very clear and present danger to UN budgets and hangers on.

March 3, 2017 11:25 am

The lady obviously knows perfectly well what the Trump administration’s position is on this but she is nevertheless phishing for the next OMG Trump!!! story to hit the maniac stream media.

March 3, 2017 11:43 am

Between this and global warming there seems to be an awful lot of melting snowflakes theses days.

March 3, 2017 11:56 am

And now US citizens need a visa to travel within the EU. I guess the shelf life on “saving your arse” is approximately 70 years.

Reply to  RWturner
March 3, 2017 12:27 pm

Not sure I understand your point, RW.
We need permission from USA to travel there, why not the other way round as well?

Javert Chip
Reply to  Oldseadog
March 3, 2017 3:27 pm


Frankly it’s because EU knowingly & willing keeps bad company.

If EU didn’t do that and actually paid to defend itself (not depending on USA), we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The Marshall plan enabout 65 years ago.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  RWturner
March 3, 2017 12:40 pm

Not only 70 years ago but at least once before and several since since. How quickly we forget about Lend Lease, the Marshall Plan and NATO.

Reply to  RWturner
March 3, 2017 1:27 pm

“And now US citizens need a visa to travel within the EU.”

They are just doing that to protest Trump’s crackdown on unvetted people coming into the U.S.

No problem. Getting a visa to go to Europe is a small price to pay to make the USA safer. Petty little Eurocrats.

March 3, 2017 11:58 am

An unelected bureaucrat complaining about not getting an audience with the Leader of one of the greatest Democracies in the world?
UN bureaucrats and other non representative bureaucrats had better get used to it in a hurry.
Go hard Donald. UN is one of the biggest swamps you need to drain.

Leo Smith
March 3, 2017 12:34 pm

Oh dear. How sad
Never Mind

Janice Moore
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 3, 2017 12:47 pm


March 3, 2017 12:38 pm

“Climate change represents a clear and present danger to the prosperity, security and quality of life of all Americans, and threatens the development prospects and stability of other countries. Addressing the climate threat is thus mission-critical for Secretary Tillerson and his State Department.”

Through-the-looking-glass-batsh!t-crazy talk. 100% opposite from what actual evidence suggests.

I’m concerned for that “Concerned Scientist’s ” mental condition.

Nincompoop is a synonym for non compus mentis.

I must fix it.

““Climate change power and money grab represents a clear and present danger to the prosperity, security and quality of life of all Americans, and threatens the development prospects and stability of other countries. Addressing the climate power and money grab threat is thus mission-critical for Secretary Tillerson and his State Department.”

Back on planet Earth.

Janice Moore
Reply to  RobRoy
March 3, 2017 12:46 pm

Applause! Applause! 🙂

March 3, 2017 12:40 pm

You have to smile at the hyperbole of warmistas: Alden Meyer, director of policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists said there is a “clear and present danger.” Wow, everyone, stop what you are doing and listen. Stop driving, stop flying, turn off those heaters and save us now.

Caligula Jones
March 3, 2017 12:43 pm
March 3, 2017 1:43 pm

“Your call is important to us. Please leave a message at the tone. An assistant deputy under-secretary will contact you at the appropriate time. Please have a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year 2025.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Martin Mayer
March 3, 2017 4:36 pm

lol — and then….

(youtube — Seeburg background Christmas music)

Finally, about 14 minutes later: “beeeep!” (the tone)

hahahaha — ho, ho , ho, hooooooooh!

Pamela Gray
March 3, 2017 1:53 pm

A clear and present danger????? Hell no it isn’t. While your CO2 has risen I took over management of a run down ranch. It was blood, sweat and tears that brought it back to life in spite of your CO2 boogeyman (and maybe in part because there was more abundant plant food available). Through judicious use of water, revamping water ditches, selective herd rotations by those who rented the pastures, weed control, reversal of previous over grazing damage, and additional over seeding, the ranch sprang back to life. Individual initiative rought by individual hard work and good sense is the way forward, not silly carbon taxes or income redistribution or Paris agreements.

I am willing to bet that this Patricia has never dug a rock out of the ground with her bare hands, nor cleaned out a reed canary grass infested irrigation ditch with a dull shovel, or mended a fence, or struggled to raise a rusted water gate, in her life to bring back a drought stricken plot of ground once again able to fill the bellies of cow/calf units. Until she has done such a thing, used her own muscles to mitigate lack of water, she has NO right to tell me that what I should have done is sit idle and let some UN body save my bacon and the ranch I worried and fussed over. No right!

This kind of UN nonsense must be allowed to let die! Else I stop voting entirely and live by my own ability to survive against the malevolent machinations of the “Paris Agreement To Be Stupid”

Javert Chip
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 3, 2017 3:32 pm

Actually this round of UN butt-hurt conceptually looks exactly like MSM crying because The Donald won’t call on them in the press meetings.

Who cares (I mean except these whining weenies & their immediate families)?

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 3, 2017 5:50 pm

I’m impressed with your pioneer skills and work ethic. City dwellers have no concept of real “sustainability”.

March 3, 2017 3:56 pm

Tillerson, of all people! Seems he’s seen through the climate scam after all.

James at 48
March 3, 2017 4:37 pm

That’s just dumb. The best time for returning calls is when one has a “trump” card in hand. Imagine what could be negotiated!

Reply to  James at 48
March 3, 2017 4:45 pm

No, James. Next comes the begging. Then the grovelling. Get some popcorn and enjoy.

Edward Katz
March 3, 2017 6:24 pm

In the summer of 1945, Stalin refused to meet with Japanese envoys who hoped he would help negotiate a peace deal between them and the US. Maybe it was because on Aug. 9 of that year, the day of the Nagasaki attacks, the Soviet army sent 1.6 million troops into Japanese-held Manchuria to seize as much territory as possible. The facts that the US will greatly scale back its climate initiatives or withdraw from the Paris agreement entirely might be signified by Tillerson’s refusal to meet any UN representatives also.

Reply to  Edward Katz
March 3, 2017 7:33 pm

I hope you’re right, Edward. If so, presumably Trump must have worked on Tillerson’s ambivalence, to put it mildly.
Not sure if 1.6 million troops will be necessary to drain the swamp, though!

Johann Wundersamer
March 3, 2017 8:29 pm

Oh the horror – UN climate bureaucrats taking a back seat to issues like international terrorism, badly designed job destroying trade agreements, dangerous global flash points, rogue states attempting to arm themselves with nuclear weapons…, Investmentbankers.

March 3, 2017 8:49 pm

No one from the U.N anything deserves a call back.

Just a bullet to the head!

Ha ha

Patrick MJD
March 3, 2017 9:37 pm

I can just imagine hearing her…cry like a baby!

tony mcleod
March 3, 2017 10:24 pm

The only good thing about the donald administration is that it isn’t a hilary administration.

tony mcleod
Reply to  tony mcleod
March 3, 2017 10:25 pm

Trycomment image

March 4, 2017 3:33 am

“Climate change represents a clear and present benefit to the prosperity, security and quality of life of all Americans”

What if it were benefit instead of danger. Would there be a decent amount of evidence for this? Could we form a science cabal and declare the debate closed?

Chris Wright
March 4, 2017 4:22 am

“Climate change represents a clear and present danger…………………”
He missed out an important word. What he should have said:
“Climate change alarmism represents a clear and present danger…………….”

jim heath
March 4, 2017 4:48 am

Fake news, fake science, fake education for the last 40 years. It will be a battle.

March 5, 2017 4:11 am

Probably looking for a donation. I don’t return those calls either.

March 5, 2017 4:46 am

Thank you for your call Ms Espinosa, you will be pleased to note that in the interests of lowering the CO2 count, all UN buildings, facilities and properties housing UN personel in the United States will henceforth be power wholly and solely by renewable energy. Good luck with that.

March 5, 2017 3:34 pm

Nope stick it Leonardo flies someone 7000 miles to do his eyebrows not worried about climate change

March 8, 2017 9:00 pm

Verified by MonsterInsights