Uh-oh, G-20 Poised To Signal Retreat From Paris Climate Deal Pledge

From Bloomberg, 11 March 2017 (h/t to GWPF) by Joe Ryan

Finance ministers for the U.S., China, Germany and other members of the Group of 20 economies may scale back a robust pledge for their governments to combat climate change, ceding efforts to the private sector.

Citing “scarce public resources,” the ministers said they would encourage multilateral development banks to raise private funds to accomplish goals set under the 2015 Paris climate accord, according to a preliminary statement drafted for a meeting that will be held in Germany next week.

The statement, obtained by Bloomberg News, is a significant departure from a communique issued in July, when finance ministers urged governments to quickly implement the Paris Agreement, including a call for wealthy nations to make good on commitments to mobilize $100 billion annually to cut greenhouse gases around the globe.

“It basically says governments are irrelevant. It’s complete faith in the magic of the marketplace,” John Kirton, director of the University of Toronto’s G-20 Research Group, said in an interview. “That is very different from the existing commitments they have repeatedly made.”

Mnuchin’s Debut

The shift in tone comes as U.S. President Donald Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, prepares for his first G-20 meeting, scheduled for March 17 to 18 in the spa town of Baden-Baden. While European nations including Germany have been at the forefront of combating global warming, Trump has called climate change a hoax.

The Republican president vowed during his campaign to “cancel” the Paris agreement but has said little about the deal since taking office. His cabinet members, meanwhile, have sent mixed signals. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. should keep a seat at the table for international climate talks. Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, on Thursday expressed doubt that humans were to blame for global warming and called the Paris agreement a “bad deal” for the U.S.

Several leaders of G-20 nations have expressed strong support for combating climate change and upholding the Paris accord since Trump’s election, including China and the U.K. The annual summit of G-20 heads of state is scheduled for July in Hamburg. It’s unclear what countries pushed for the new language in the finance ministers’ draft statement, which is likely to undergo revisions before being formally adopted.

The most notable element of the draft is what’s missing. The statement issued after the G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting in July dedicated 163 words to the Paris Agreement, pushing nations to bring the deal into force, meet emissions targets and fulfill financial pledges. This current draft dedicates just 47 words to the agreement, focusing exclusively on development banks raising private funds, without mentioning government financial support.

Full story

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
March 11, 2017 8:05 am

This should be interesting. All the dissent on the part of the Trump camp is on the level of gossip about Ivanka supposedly trying to persuade her father to go green, but she has never been quoted directly on the subject. It very well could be disinformation by greens, or a diversionary trial balloon by Trump (remember the meeting with Gore).

March 11, 2017 8:11 am

I don’t think Trump believes that climate change is a hoax. Climate change is believed by everyone. Trump believes AGW is a hoax, and that any climate change is more natural than man made.

Tim F in GV
Reply to  Tucker
March 11, 2017 8:17 am

@tucker, unfortunately “Climate Change” as a term is now and forever tagged to human activities as the driver of any change: warm, cold, dry, wet, etc. All climate change is natural. Human activity can affect a local environmental quality, but has no impact at all on the earth’s natural cycles.

Reply to  Tim F in GV
March 11, 2017 8:46 am

I know Tim, but we need to resist using someone’s else’s definition of an issue. That only lends credibility to their other arguments and suggestions next time.

Reply to  Tim F in GV
March 11, 2017 11:12 am

There is climate change, and there is “Climate Change™”

Leo G
Reply to  Tim F in GV
March 11, 2017 2:42 pm

“Climate” isn’t really a scientific term anyway. It’s an informal term used in one sense by meteorologists and in another sense by the general public. Its general usage is as a synonym for “latitude”.

Alan Ranger
Reply to  Tim F in GV
March 11, 2017 3:39 pm

“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.”

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Tim F in GV
March 11, 2017 3:56 pm

Was the Y2k issue a reality? Yes. Was it ridiculously overblown and something many people feared would have had devastating effects (albeit short-term)? Yes.

Somewhere in there is an applicable use of “hoax.”

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  Tim F in GV
March 11, 2017 4:39 pm

Tim F in GV — please read “Climate Change” manual brought out by WMO in 1966, which was authored by top meteorologists from World meteorological departments [(late) K. N. Rao was one of them from Indian Meteorological Department].

Climate refers to meteorological parameters and temperature is one of the meteorological parameters. Meteorological parameters interact each other.

Climate change refers to changes in meteorological parameters on short and long term basis. Short term variations refer to inter-annual variations that present extremes — for example during 2002 and 2009 drought years, temperature gone up by 0.7 and 0.9 oC at all India average level. Cyclic variations refer to long-term variations. WMO report discusses the separation of this from trend. Moving average technique is one such technic and method to discipher cycles was also presented [power spectrum analysis] which was used by several countries.

Global warming is one component of human induced changes. The global warming component started from 1951 [as per IPCC] but the other part started even before this which is evident from the trend fittings using the temperature data series starting from 1880.

We write commenting others without even reading the IPCC reports which warmists considered it as gospel. Climate system and General circulation patterns change the local regional climates which goes in to global averages. Urbanization impact was noted by British meteorologist as back as more than 250 years ago — published a book.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

NW sage
Reply to  Tim F in GV
March 11, 2017 6:06 pm

In spite of the supposed ‘international’ definition which is supposed to be ONLY those changes begun/caused/promulgated by humans. I subscribe to a simpler, more common sense definition. Weather is the rain, snow, sun, sleet, wind heat, cold etc that happens locally and is NEVER constant. Climate is the sum of all the weather. It cannot be constant because it is composed of parts which are always changing. Climate change is therefore change, with the passage of time, in the average measurements of all those things taken globally. Easy to say, not easy at all to do.

Reply to  Tim F in GV
March 12, 2017 5:22 am

Michael Jankowski, don’t forget there was a clock at Auckland airport that showed the wrong time. 😉

Reply to  Tucker
March 11, 2017 9:47 am

Trump concludes AlGoreWarming , to use Stanley Goldenberg’s phase , is criminal falsehood ?

He’s right , and will stand up against those thousands of herd animals commenting over at the Washington Post without it disturbing his sleep .

Reply to  Tucker
March 11, 2017 11:06 am

Precisely. We have to be specific, because the alarmists MUST control the terms of discourse in order to win. If you are precise and make the distinction between Climate Change and the AGW hypothesis then they can no longer bamboozle those that didn’t know there is a massive difference. If we keep highlighting what we are seeing is natural variability and not the effects of AGW (which predicted much, much higher rates of change) then their argument is exposed as falsified by observed reality.

Job job for highlighting this, Tucker.

Reply to  Tucker
March 11, 2017 12:06 pm

Why not just call the alleged CO2-caused Climate Change “CO2-Climate Change”? I’ve been doing it for years.

lemiere jacques
Reply to  JPeden
March 11, 2017 2:10 pm

sure..and we can add stop saying things like ‘ let us burn wood in order to avoid emitting CO2…’

Reply to  Tucker
March 11, 2017 2:00 pm

I would tend to believe that Mr. Trump has been following both sides of the argument for many years; and the work of the Heritage Foundation etc. since the Presidential race began. One would only need to read several books, understandable by a bright 8th-grader, to conclude that the CO2 “emperor” has no clothes.
Remember, Mr. Trump is a businessman. NO BUSINESSMAN throws trillions of dollars down an endless rathole for no return, on a “problem” which is non-existent. The sole remaining question is whether the lobbyists of Big Green have enough momentum on their side to convince the GOP (and Tillerson) to slip them their accustomed blandishments under the transom, in the form of tax credits for solar and Teslas, etc.
You can bet Musk, Bezos and Gates want to continue preaching to their “progressive” choir. We need to hold Mr. Trump to the letter of his promise to send this failed hypothesis to the dustbin of history. Remember, in today’s world it’s about OWNING THE NARRATIVE. Time for Climate Realists to DO THIS.
The national business publications are an excellent place to start: WSJ, Forbes, Barron’s, IBD, etc.

Reply to  Goldrider
March 12, 2017 5:05 pm

Find an alternative mechanism for financing nuke plants and a big voice on the right pushing for a price e for carbon goes away.

Reply to  Goldrider
March 12, 2017 5:05 pm

Find an alternative mechanism for financing nuke plants and a big voice on the right pushing for a price e for carbon goes away.

Reply to  Goldrider
March 12, 2017 10:04 pm

March 12, 2017 at 5:05 pm

Find an alternative mechanism for financing plants (trees) and a big voice on the right pushing for a price for carbon goes away.

Reply to  Tucker
March 11, 2017 2:52 pm

The real bogeyman is CAGW.

It can be Warming. That’s ok.
It can be Global. That’s ok.
It can be Anthropogenic. That’s ok.
But is it Catastrophic? If not, that’s all ok.

Ron Abate
Reply to  Tucker
March 11, 2017 6:36 pm


richard verney
Reply to  Tucker
March 11, 2017 7:19 pm

I am unaware of any climate change in my life time. For sure there have been some good summers, some wet summers, some cold winters, some mild winters, some years have been a little warmer than others, But that is simply climate, not climate change.

Temperature is just one of many parameters that are in constant flux. Short lived, variation in one or more of these variables is not climate change, it is not even in itself evidence of climate change. I am unaware of any single country that has changed its Koppen classification in my life time.

The problem is that climate is now being defined over a ridiculously short period of time. Given the age of the planet, and what we know about its past, climate should be measured in hundreds of years, not 30.

In what way is the climate today different than it was in say the late 1930s/early 1940s, and which country is now in a different Koppen classification compared to that described in the late 1930s/early 1940s? Let the warmists produce a list country by country.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  richard verney
March 11, 2017 7:59 pm

Koppen classification is an average condition at any given place. Climate at that place vary over different periods over the mean. Climate change is expressed the variations over this mean at different scales, namely short-term, long-term, etc.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Steve Borodin
Reply to  richard verney
March 12, 2017 3:25 am

“In what way is the climate today different than it was in say the late 1930s/early 1940s?”

That was an easy one. A bit cooler.

Santa Baby
Reply to  Tucker
March 11, 2017 10:30 pm

I think Trump means that UNFCCC political claim of CAGW is a hoax?

Reply to  Tucker
March 12, 2017 10:51 am

Climate has been on a continuous change since the planet was born. Right now we are going to face an extreme situation while the Sun is heading to a tight minimum. It’s all part of natural cycles.

Reply to  Tucker
March 13, 2017 11:18 am

I liked the new funding approach….voluntary contributions instead of mandatory assessments. This way only the suckers and totalitarians will contribute.

An Inquirer
Reply to  Tucker
March 13, 2017 11:41 am

There is AGW and there is CAGW. Unrealistic to say there is no AGW, but very questionable to say that there is CAGW.

Reply to  An Inquirer
March 13, 2017 7:34 pm

The best way to think of climate is by analogy:
Put one foot in a bucket with ice and water, put your other foot in a bucket with boiling water — the mean in your middle will be just right at body temperature

In my part of the world we just broke a couple of old Weather or are they Climate records:
1) we had the warmest day in February since there have been records kept by a degree or so C
2) we just have had two of the coldest maximums temperatures for days in March going back in one case to 1874 and the other 1892

Which is more significant and do either of them signify anything — except what Mark twain said about the variability and downright orneriness of New England weather

James Francisco
March 11, 2017 8:16 am

I take it that the jig is up because of the Trump Administration. Those that are presently in charge of the CAGW scam feel that they will be the ones left with the blame while the founders will get off with a hand slap. So they are going to have to be seen as the ones that started to apply the brakes.

Reply to  James Francisco
March 11, 2017 1:28 pm

amazing how American political parties control all that money…isn’t it
…and even more amazing how American political parties control the world.
When the democrats were in charge it was all the rage…

Javert Chip
Reply to  Latitude
March 11, 2017 2:48 pm


You have demonstrated a firm grasp of the obvious.

The USA, with 5% of global population produces 24% of global GDP (Lichtenstein may be wealthier per capita, but they have, what?…about 12 citizens?). How ’bout China? Supposedly they are catching up & passing the USA, but per capita income is about 1/10th of the USA.

Where did you think the money was going to come from?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Latitude
March 11, 2017 6:56 pm

You got that right Latitude. Hillary released her tax returns… I was aghast that she had earned 105 million (it didn’t phase her, though). How does a civil servant ‘earn’ so much?

Reply to  Latitude
March 13, 2017 6:06 am

energpia, where did she get the money to buy the billions in stock necessary to earn $105 million in from them in just a year?

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  James Francisco
March 11, 2017 7:38 pm

that is correct, JF. Once the US stops pouring $$$ into the pot, the rest of them won’t take up the slack.

March 11, 2017 8:18 am

Using private funds for so-called green development projects …. now we have a winner! We will see who the real believers are that are willing to invest their own money in phantom projects. Let me make a guess as to a few … Gore, Clintons, Soros, etc., etc., etc. LOL

Rhoda R
Reply to  eyesonu
March 11, 2017 9:16 am

Agreed Eyesonu. I have no problem with people who believe in AGW putting their own money in the pot – it’s the forced contribution from me, via taxes I pay, that I object to. Just like people can support their religious establishments all they want but should never get tax dollars for that effort. And, let’s face it, AGW IS a religion at this point.

Reply to  Rhoda R
March 11, 2017 1:03 pm

Soros finds it cheaper to pay for rioters to destroy our cities than to fix anything. You get more destruction for your bucks.

Reply to  Rhoda R
March 13, 2017 6:05 am

There are those who build and there are those who destroy.
Destruction is WAY easier.

Reply to  Rhoda R
March 13, 2017 11:23 am

You hit the nail on the head, AGW is a religion. Let them pass the plate to each other.

Reply to  eyesonu
March 11, 2017 10:03 am

“Green Development Funds” is mainly just a re-branding of the Aid Budget, but some of that budget has no doubt been siphoned off to build wind farms in the doldrums, and solar farms where the sun barely shines, hence the UN marketing dept calling today for more money to deal with genuine problems, though of course they don’t put it like that.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  climanrecon
March 11, 2017 10:24 am

The funds approriated to build ‘renewable energy projects”, but just like other development aid, they will be stolen by the big men. The only money that will find it way into the local economy will be the money that the big men use to pay their thugs.

Javert Chip
Reply to  climanrecon
March 11, 2017 2:52 pm

Trump also seems to be proposing severe cuts to “foreign aid”, so “Big Men” may need to start paying for their own bid-idlers.

Can’t happen soon enough (have been spending the day doing my 2016 USA income taxes…)

Javert Chip
Reply to  climanrecon
March 11, 2017 2:54 pm

bird-ilders = bird-killers

Reply to  climanrecon
March 12, 2017 1:57 pm

Has anyone found the missing 6 billion dollars,that was going to Haiti?I notice that the UN are still sitting on their hands.Why?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  eyesonu
March 11, 2017 10:53 am

Surely you don’t believe this gang of thieves will bankroll CAGW. They were in on the joke from the start. Besides they laid out a hundred million to buy the election. They’ve now had a lesson on what hubris is. They thought they could make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear with cash. This was the surest bet these types could imagine.

I was expecting a noticeable Trump Effect but this is beyond my wildest imagination. The only explanation is they wanted out of the Parisian deal but needed a savior to open the door.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 11, 2017 2:29 pm

There’s no hope and change…unless America pays for it

March 11, 2017 8:19 am

Trump is about business and the economy and I don’t believe for a minute that he will go green because it would go against the very fiber of his life experience. Why would anyone think he could go green when so many in the business world that know him or familiar with him are banking on significant economic growth as every economic indicator and the stock market have been showing?

Reply to  RAH
March 11, 2017 8:21 am


Reply to  Latitude
March 11, 2017 2:04 pm

If the first 6 weeks of his Presidency are any indicator, we’re looking at a new Golden Age!!!

Don Easterbrook
March 11, 2017 8:19 am

We can probably all agree with Feynman and Einstein that “if any exception to a concept can be proven by observation, the concept is wrong,” but proving that a concept must be correct is virtually impossible. So the question becomes, if CO2 is a significant cause of global warming, are there any exceptions to the concept? Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of examples of exceptions to the concept that CO2 is a significant cause of global warming proves we can have virtually limitless global warming with no involvement of CO2 at all.

In every case that I know of, CO2 always lags global warming, (both long-term and short-term) indicating that CO2 is not causing the warming. So 99.9% of global warming in the geologic past was not caused by CO2.
During the end of the Pleistocene, temperatures repeatedly rose and fell as much as 20°F in 40-100 years in Greenland (GISP2 ice core), and in all cases, warming and cooling preceded changes in CO2. None of these warmings and coolings were preceded by increased or decreased CO2. If warming and cooling of this magnitude can occur without CO2, why should we worry about a degree or so of warming in the past 150 years (which included (30 years of global warming [1850-1880] before rise in CO2, 35 years of global cooling [1880-1915], 30 years of global warming [1915-1945] before rise in CO2, and 30 years of global cooling during soaring human emissions.)? There is no correlation at all between CO2 and global warming and cooling during this period.

Temperatures in Greenland were 2-5°F warmer than today for the first 85% of the past 10,000 years. About 1,500 years ago, temperatures declined into the Little Ice Age and we are still thawing out from it, fluctuating between warm and cool periods.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule (400 ppm) and it accounts for only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. During the 1980-2000 warming, atmospheric CO2 rose only 0.008%. The oceans have far more CO2 than the air and there is equilibrium between the oceans and the atmosphere. If the oceans warm, the equilibrium changes and CO2 goes up. But consider the other way around—if atmospheric CO2 goes up, does it warm the oceans? How can an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 0.008% warm 300 million cubic miles of ocean water?

CO2 by itself, cannot warm the atmosphere more than a small fraction of a degree because there is so little of it. To get any significant effect, computer models have to add an increase in water vapor, which accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse effect. However, all data that I know of indicate that water vapor has decreased since 1947.

The arguments against CO2 as a significant cause of climate change are profound and no correlation exists between CO2 and climate change in the geologic past. Pruit’s conclusion that CO2 is not a significant cause of global warming is correct.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 11, 2017 8:23 am

if atmospheric CO2 goes up, does it warm the oceans?….

Seems that if it gets high enough….it triggers ice ages

Reply to  Latitude
March 11, 2017 1:06 pm

It should be obvious by now that our Local Star has a great deal to do with how hot or cold it is. This is why when our planet which is tilted relative to the sun has winters and summers.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 11, 2017 9:15 am

The basis of most climate concerns is rapid change in global and regional climate and temperature, whatever the cause. Alarmists attribute recent trends to growing CO2, and assume that by controlling CO2 climate can be controlled. IF climate has been changing for reasons other than CO2, then there would be even less chance that humans could control climate.
The fundamental issue is how dependent is modern society on rapidly changing climate? Can humans, through bio-engineering, modify agriculture and pestilence at a sufficient rate to keep up? If polar glaciers do melt faster and raise sea level, can society readily accommodate this? Will changing climate bring more several weather issues?
These are questions that matter and are ones that deserve study.

Reply to  donb
March 11, 2017 10:19 am

at a sufficient rate to keep up?……1 degree?

Reply to  donb
March 11, 2017 11:47 am

The basis of most climate concerns is rapid change in global and regional climate

Not at all. For decades, the concern has been a net increase in temperature. Then things changed. About five years ago, the argument that there have been warming trends in the past, gained enough traction in the popular media, that it was impossible to ignore. As a response to this devastating criticism, the shift was made from total net warming to rate of warming. It is just making a moving target, or “moving the goalposts”, if you will.
If you are fairly new to the debate, you might have not seen the shift in tactics of the warmists, and recognize it for what it is.

Can humans, …. at a sufficient rate to keep up?

For some of us lucky ones, “Climate Change” is defined as “Commercial Aviation”. We go from a cold temperate northern climate in the middle of winter to a tropical paradise climate in a day.

{Back in the Day}
LIAT – Leeward Island Air Transport
LIAT – Leaves Island Any Time – Due to “Island Time” attitudes towards strict schedules. The passengers have a whole bunch of other interpretations of “LIAT” that are even less flattering.
The airline is said to be well run today.

I have made plans to import “Coral Reef Starter Kits” to establish fully functional reef ecosystems all up and down the New England coastline. Once the reefs are established, we will have the same magnificent coral sand beaches that they have in the Caribbean.
All I need now is for Global Warming to get the coastal water temperatures up.

Javert Chip
Reply to  donb
March 11, 2017 2:59 pm



Reply to  donb
March 13, 2017 6:08 am

Pestilence modification??

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 11, 2017 9:25 am

” “if any exception to a concept can be proven by observation, the concept is wrong,” but proving that a concept must be correct is virtually impossible.”

if you are stuck at the near side of the pons asinorum and are unable to identify the two glaring self contradictions in that statement, there’s no help for you.

yes, i have done it and it is freakin simple. your failure need not be projected – it is an open door for mysticism. there is no greater retrograde force that destroys the intellect or a culture.

Reply to  gnomish
March 11, 2017 12:20 pm


You say

“if any exception to a concept can be proven by observation, the concept is wrong,” but proving that a concept must be correct is virtually impossible.”

if you are stuck at the near side of the pons asinorum and are unable to identify the two glaring self contradictions in that statement, there’s no help for you.

The only thing wrong with “that statement” is that the word “virtually” is superfluous. It contains no “self contradictions”.

Please say what you think are the two self contradictions in that statement so you can be helped by having your error(s) explained to you.


Science or Fiction
Reply to  gnomish
March 11, 2017 3:59 pm

@ Richardcourtney

Imagine all the concepts that have to be correct for you to be able to write that comment.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  gnomish
March 11, 2017 4:04 pm

@ Richardscourtney

Is it correct that is is impossible to prove that a concept is correct – or is that a contradiction?

Reply to  gnomish
March 11, 2017 8:07 pm

oopsie- i should have read the whole thread – mr Science of Fiction has already smacked you in the sphincter lips with the first one.
so i guess you will have to correct him first.
have a blast.

Reply to  gnomish
March 12, 2017 6:10 am

@ Science or Fiction

oops… was the reasonator set on ‘stun’? cuz he’s not moving…

Reply to  gnomish
March 13, 2017 2:01 am

@ Science or Fiction
looks like u bricked his brain.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 11, 2017 10:42 am

I have to be able to calculate something before I can claim to understand it . That’s the motivation behind CoSy ( now supported via GitHub & YouTube ) .

And means are the simplest things to reduce to computation , ie : classical quantitative physics . It takes just a few expressions to get from a measured temperature for the Sun and its radius and distance to calculate that a gray ball in our orbit will be about 278.6 +- 2.3 , about 1%21 whatever temperature the Sun decides to be . But you can clearly have a career in “climate science” and never even understand why that’s the value upon which any computations of spectral effects must be based . And at this point , computations on spectra , which requires at least dot products , you appear to leave virtually the entire Catastrophic AlGoreWarming paradigm insufficiently numerate .

I continue to wait for a brilliant YouTube experimentally testing the computations for the mean temperature of billiard balls of various colors under a sunlamp . Then I feel the field will be back on track .

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 11, 2017 11:18 am

“During the 1980-2000 warming”

There was very little warming in that period except at the end of it due to the 1998 El Nino

From 1980 – 1997 there was no warming. The linear trend lines are purely a facet of where the cyclic nature of that period starts and finishes.
comment image

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 11, 2017 1:43 pm

Don, Re your statement: “About 1,500 years ago, temperatures declined into the Little Ice Age.” Did you really mean 1,500, or is that a typo?

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  Gil
March 12, 2017 8:58 am

What I meant (and didn’t say very well), was that Holocene temps dropped into a cooling phase that culminated with the LIA.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 11, 2017 3:33 pm

LIA 1,500 years ago? What happened to MWP?

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  Gil
March 12, 2017 9:00 am

What I meant (but didn’t say very well), was that Holocene temps dropped into a cooling phase that culminated with the LIA.

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 11, 2017 5:36 pm

Don Easterbrook @ 8:19

An excellent summary as usual Don.

As a fellow geologist I totally agree with you but have a question that I have not been able to find a good answer to. Do you have an estimate of how much of the recent increase in CO2 over the last 2-3 decades is due to humans? If so can you point me to a paper which discusses this?

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
March 12, 2017 9:05 am

This gets a bit complicated–presumably the rise in CO2 levels from about 320 ppm to 400 ppm was due to human emissions, but if you ask what percentage of present atmospheric CO2 came from humans, it’s surprisingly low. My take on this is that much of the human-related CO2 has been ‘recycled’ in the atmosphere/ocean system.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 11, 2017 7:42 pm

just watched a doc on the Trinity tests. There was footage of Prof. Feynman playing his bongos and Dr Teller talking about how Los Alamos was not so bad…except for Feynman’s bongos.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 11, 2017 8:00 pm

richardscourtney: “The only thing wrong with “that statement” is that the word “virtually” is superfluous. It contains no “self contradictions”.”

Richard- here’s my offer – if you can prove your statement is true, I’ll explain the first glaring contradiction that is so simple any 3 yr old child of 2 can grasp it..

My bet is that you are unable to cross this pons asinorum and so you dwell under it.

Reply to  gnomish
March 11, 2017 8:20 pm

i put this response in the wrong spot. sorry.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 12, 2017 12:13 am

Thanks, a clear and succinct statement of the Case for the Prosecution.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 12, 2017 11:00 am

Don Easterbrook on March 11, 2017 at 8:19 am

1. CO2 by itself, cannot warm the atmosphere more than a small fraction of a degree because there is so little of it.

If I interpret your Wikipedia entry right, your are Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Thus I suppose that reading and digesting of papers inaccessible to scientifically less educated persons should be of no problem for you.

I therefore propose that you read the following papers (published by Joseph W. Chamberlain 30/40 years ago):
– Theory of planetary atmospheres (2nd Ed. with D. Hunten)
– Elementary analytic models of climate (The mean global heat balance)

In the latter paper you will find, beginning with page 9, an interesting section about “Radiative effects of minor constituents” where Chamberlain computes their influence when peu à peu closing the atmospheric window at 8-12µ, despite a concentration below some parts per billion for some of these constituents.

2. However, all data that I know of indicate that water vapor has decreased since 1947.

Apart from references from known provenience like the SUMMARY OF FLAWS IN SENATE BILL 5802, there is few evidence for your claim.

Even the Paltridge paper, wrongly proposed by Monckton as support for this evidence, shows that water vapor evaluation along the atmospheric layers is much too complex to be reduced to such simple-minded statements (emphasis mine):

The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis data on tropospheric humidity are examined for the period 1973 to 2007. It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level. With that caveat, the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes. It is significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones, as might be expected in a mixed layer with rising temperatures over a moist surface. The results are qualitatively consistent with trends in NCEP atmospheric temperatures (which must also be treated with great caution) that show an increase in the stability of the convective boundary layer as the global temperature has risen over the period. The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations and are largely (but not completely) inconsistent with satellite data. Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. In this context, it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination of the impact of past changes of radiosonde instrumentation and protocol within the various international networks.

And work performed by Ferenc Miskolczi (THE STABLE STATIONARY VALUE OF THE EARTH’S GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS) or by Dessler/Davis (Trends in tropospheric humidity from reanalysis systems) show similar hints.

March 11, 2017 8:43 am

Here is all the evidence they need:
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Whole is Greater Than the Sum of Its Pieces https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/11/climate-science-on-trial-the-whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-pieces/

Mark from the Midwest
March 11, 2017 8:52 am

This upcoming G-20 meeting will be a real eye-opener for many “progressives” around the world. For the first time, in a long time, we have a Sec, of Treasury who understands international monetary policy and has experience in negotiating complex deals. Mnuchin will be rattling a few cages directly and indirectly by highlighting the inconsistencies between the progressive agenda and economic growth and stability, as well as signaling that bodies like the World Bank, and their lending policies that are often disconnected from tangible goals, often do more damage than good. That’s real leadership.

While their at it maybe they can work out a G-20 plan to defund the UN.

Mark from the Midwest
March 11, 2017 8:54 am

Opps … “While they’re at it,” (my wife hi-jacked the coffee-maker this morning for some tea-thing)…

March 11, 2017 9:30 am

May the FARCE be with you!

Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2017 9:58 am

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who holds the rotating presidency of the G-20, has signaled that she would use the forum to push Trump on climate issues. The two leaders are scheduled to meet in Washington March 14.

Mmmmm…… I’d like to see her try to “push” Trump on anything, much less on climate.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2017 10:40 am

I think any pushing going on will be by Trump and not Merkel. The EU is on shaky ground and that is where Merkel’s real power to bargain lies.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  RAH
March 11, 2017 11:57 am

Merkel needs the US to kill its economy for Germany’s to progress under their green energy push. If Trump says good bye she is dead in the water

Reply to  RAH
March 11, 2017 1:11 pm

Merkel is going down like the Bismark…

Reply to  RAH
March 11, 2017 2:00 pm

“Merkel is going down like the Bismark…”

She went boldly forth feeling indestructible and her rudder got jammed. She’s now going in circles and knows what’s on the horizon and it ain’t gonna be pretty. Her ship is going down with all aboard.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  RAH
March 11, 2017 2:07 pm

emsnews March 11, 2017 at 1:11 pm

As long as we’re not HMS Hood

Always liked Johnny Horton


Reply to  RAH
March 11, 2017 2:37 pm


You just brought back memories from ~ 50 years ago. My grandfather (multiple crossings in the North Sea throughout WWII) bought a 1967 Ford with an 8-track tape player. That album by Johnny Horton was the only tape he had! There was a song about “the green berets” that I remember so he may have had a second tape if it was not on that same album.

50 years seems like yesterday!

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  RAH
March 11, 2017 4:32 pm

eyesonu March 11, 2017 at 2:37 pm

Green Berets was by..
Staff Sergeant Barry Sadler

He also wrote the Casca series. Its about the roman soldier at the Crucifixion and how he must wander until the return. Great historical fiction.


Reply to  RAH
March 11, 2017 5:05 pm

“Her ship is going down with all aboard.”

Merkel brought it on herself. Clueless.

Reply to  RAH
March 12, 2017 7:50 am

The Hood’s armor belt was comparatively thin for a ship its size. It was one of a line of British “battlecruiser” hybrids, with the guns of a battleship and the speed of a cruiser. The only practical way to achieve that design goal was to cut back heavily on the hull armor.

A single salvo from the Bismarck sent the Hood up in a fireball.

Reply to  RAH
March 13, 2017 6:13 am

Weren’t there also treaty limitations on the gross weight of battleships?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2017 11:05 am

Merkl will never stop rotating even after she has been rotated out of her job. She is the face of the destruction of Germany’s culture and economy. Green terrorism has been the worst of the two types she foist on her citizens.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 11, 2017 1:05 pm

Totally agree.
She has conned millions of people and is a major part of the financial folly/energy fiasco.
The CO2 horsesh*t has to stop.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2017 12:40 pm

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has VIRTUE signaled that she would use the forum to push Trump on climate issues

Fixed it for them. ~¿~

An Inquirer
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 13, 2017 11:53 am
Reply to  Butch
March 11, 2017 12:32 pm

March 11, 2017 at 10:20 am

Another one bites the dust !
Thanks for your info butch..
These kind of small companies that are filing for bankruptcy are the small little “con-man” who actually in reality never produced or offered anything to the economy and industry, apart from the numbers ad the math in their papers and excel spread shits to justify the vamped expenditure from the USA Treasury….

Theses are the little “con-man” artists that are trying a save them self at this point in time, from jail…….


Reply to  whiten
March 11, 2017 4:58 pm

” Little con men” ? They just ripped us off for 5 million bucks ! How many of those are there? They all need to brought out in to the Sun. To me 5 mill isn’t small. That type of thinking is what has gotten us into trouble in the first place, you know a mil here or there, what does it matter?
That has got to stop. and people should be in jail for those scams!

Reply to  whiten
March 12, 2017 8:03 am

My dad is a stickler for balancing the books. If the bank record and his checkbook are a penny off in his favor, he’ll insist on getting that penny. But on the flip side, if their a penny off in the bank’s favor, he’ll also insist on them taking a penny back.

If only our Treasury was so inclined.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Butch
March 11, 2017 4:03 pm

The company website proclaimed it to be be “clean and simple.” Their excuse is that “Creating a new electrochemistry and an associated battery platform at commercial scale is extremely complex, time-consuming, and very capital intensive.” Lol

Leo Smith
March 11, 2017 10:23 am

I too express strong support for combating climate change…
…as long as I do’nt actually have to do anything about it.

Reply to  Leo Smith
March 11, 2017 10:28 am

“Everybody wants to save the planet but no one wants to help Mom do the dishes.”

March 11, 2017 10:32 am

Watch the pea people. This is likely the play being contemplated… “the era of big government is over” Bill Clinton State of the Union address. US banks desire to build out nationwide networks requiring regulatory changes. Enter The enhanced Community Reinvestment Act, HUD increased mandates on GSE’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bipartisan support for easy credit leading to cheap mortgages, etc… Boom! world financial system totters on the brink with taxpayers bailing everyone out.

Unable to get increasingly strapped and skeptical governments along with pained ratepayers to finance the green scheme shift to prima fascia private capital with taxpayers assuming the risk. In the immortal words of Alan Greenspan “Bankers have behaved in ways that I never believed they would behave” (paraphrase) With respect Alan… They behaved logically under the iron formula of privatizing profits and socializing risks. As citizens its our job to remember that we are always the patsy at the poker table and behave accordingly.

Javert Chip
Reply to  troe
March 11, 2017 3:08 pm


159 words to 14:

At a sheep shearing, if you can’t see the sheep, you are the sheep.

Reply to  Javert Chip
March 11, 2017 3:22 pm

oh. Thanks. I guess.

NW sage
Reply to  troe
March 11, 2017 6:14 pm

It a good thing you paraphrased Alan Greenspan. If you hadn’t your post would have been complete bureaucratese double-talk. But your point is well made.

Reply to  NW sage
March 11, 2017 7:03 pm

Ah ok. I will work on being more simplistic or I mean writing clearly.

March 11, 2017 10:33 am

“U.S. President Donald Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin”

Cool, we avoided being ruled by the wicked witch but still get the Munchkins.

Reply to  Greg
March 11, 2017 11:10 am

You can’t see it but I’ve got a grin from ear to ear.

Reply to  Greg
March 11, 2017 2:08 pm

The trouble is, Hillary’s flying monkeys like Pelosi are still flapping around screeching. Anybody got a swatter? 😉

Reply to  Goldrider
March 11, 2017 5:01 pm

No just let them flap around. it’s entertaining.

March 11, 2017 10:56 am

Ha ha – after reading so many green articles that Trump will fail in stopping renewable from taking over the energy market as the transition has reached a tipping point, perhaps the G20 has decided they agree with that green sentiment.

If the G20 matches this ‘leave it to the market’ along with removing all the artificial incentives that are the only way renewables ever make sense, this will be interesting to see how well this predicted tipping point to renewables actually happens.

Reply to  John Mason
March 11, 2017 12:32 pm

John Kirton – Director of University Of Toronto, Canada G-20 Research Group.

Information about the G-20 Research Group at:


Gary Pearse
March 11, 2017 11:19 am

Oh well a dazed Australia, which seems to be home to 97% of Climate scientists (these days all the ‘science’ seems to be coming from there- everywhere else they are keeping their heads down) will take up the slack. The Trump Effect I’ve been waiting to see is members of the Team coming out with the climate is cooling, send money. If I were they, I would be putting my application in for bank teller or insurance agent jobs ahead of the 100s of thousands of redundant climateers.

John F. Hultquist
March 11, 2017 12:38 pm

finance ministers urged governments to quickly implement the Paris Agreement, including a call for wealthy nations to make good on commitments

In recent years “The Plan” of the once wealthy nations has been to destroy their wealth and then request aid from the Republic of Maldives, and any other country with a few coins under the mattress.
Seems to be working.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
March 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Speaking of Paris – the Greens claim burning wood is ok because the CO2 produced gets consumed by the growth of future trees. The Greens seem to overlook particulates.

Now here is the reality:


Full disclosure – I have burned wood all 7 decades of my life, but I also live in a sparrsley populated area where a bit of wood smoke isn’t a problem. But you can smell a fire from miles away so I have never bought into the idea that wood (smoke) is ok for the environment.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
March 13, 2017 6:16 am

Wayne D

The BBC is currently running a piece on air quality that has more factual holes than a slab of Emmentaler. There so many careful ‘avoidances’ that it has to be deliberate. I happen to be working on a project here in Bishkek that is being monitored by the local BBC bods. Indirectly at least. The BBC staff have a problem trying to blame coal and wood for smoke, while carefully avoiding complimenting technologies that simply don’t make any. My task is to eliminate the particulates – they are all burnable. Once burnt they have a problem: having blamed the fuel for the performance of the combustor, what can they say about the same fuel now making no particles?

It is a serious issue. What they and multiple others do is to live in the past, assign some fuels as ‘clean’ and others as ‘dirty’. Obviously coal is ‘dirty’ because it used to be. The last thing the MSM wants to hear about are cheap affordable clean technologies that don’t need massive green subsidies.

I actually came back here because the result of winter is so phenomenal we have to expand training and design work multiple-fold immediately. While the smoke lasts the mongers must monge because advances in technology are cutting the problem off at the knees. Oh what will we do when the air is clean and there is nothing to blame asthma on? The entire time the USA and Europe cleaned up its air, and PM falls to tiny amounts, asthma cases have continued to increase.

The BBC piece is making asthma hay while the particles last, but it is wearing thin. In future children just won’t know what smoke is.

March 11, 2017 12:39 pm

Finance ministers for the U.S., China, Germany and other members of the Group of 20 economies may scale back a robust pledge for their governments to combat climate change …

A real diplomat never says no and never puts herself in a situation where someone else will have to say no. We’re seeing realpolitik at work. Without American dollars, the whole thing collapses and the G20 finance ministers have acknowledged that.

March 11, 2017 1:14 pm

Why would any sane person expect the Germans to fix anything international? All previous attempts at this was a complete disaster…

Reply to  emsnews
March 11, 2017 3:04 pm

I dunno. Last time tgey did pretty well up until trying to invade Russia in winter 🙂

H. D. Hoese
March 11, 2017 1:32 pm


I don’t know what is going on with WU, going under maybe. This is about the new EPA but its logical errors obscures it. Commenters keep trying to focus on weather events, even climate, but some obviously don’t understand models. It took me awhile also. Someone even posted a temperature chart showing flat this century. Malthus’ model may have been correct for the facts put into it, but “Ecosystem“ models are so complicated some ecologists don’t even like the term much any more because of stretching beyond its theoretical base.

Did anyone think about possible over reaction when the EPA started abusing property rights? I remember when government agencies actually respected them. A lot of you may not have been born yet.

Reply to  H. D. Hoese
March 11, 2017 2:12 pm

The answer is actually pretty simple–don’t sh*t where you eat. Even my animals have this one mostly figured out. We need to break the stupid Leftist narrative that says businesses, particularly energy extractors, WANT to pollute, pillage, ravage, and destroy. That may have been the case 80 or 100 years ago, but today we have FAR better methods and technology to make sure it doesn’t happen. What company would WANT to have a Deepwater Horizon or Exxon Valdez on their hands? Maybe instead of “thinking globally” employing some common sense locally, wherever development is done, is the most practical solution.

Reply to  Goldrider
March 12, 2017 8:14 am

Indeed. To your average leftist, every big businessman is Luthen Plunder from Captain Planet.

March 11, 2017 1:39 pm

Change of tune in next week’s G20 meeting on Climate Change, a Limerick.

G20 to meet in Black Forest

No unity longer is chorused

The encouraging word

in the Paris accord

Mnuchin to farce metamorphosed.


david moon
Reply to  lenbilen
March 11, 2017 2:55 pm

“Unity no longer chorused” fits the meter better.

Reply to  david moon
March 11, 2017 5:06 pm

Unity no longer “caroused”
( caruose:drink plentiful amounts of alcohol and enjoy oneself with others in a noisy, lively way.
“they danced and caroused until the drink ran out”
synonyms: drink and make merry, go on a drinking bout, go on a spree.

March 11, 2017 2:22 pm

This proves how unenforceable the Paris 2015 COP-21 ‘treaty’ really is.

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA

Pamela Gray
March 11, 2017 3:35 pm

If we are to ask private business entities to take over, for God’s sake DO NOT give them any money picked from the citizens of the world.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 11, 2017 4:31 pm

….Great minds think alike…AND watch the same news !!

March 11, 2017 at 10:20 am

Another one bites the dust !!


Just don’t call me Butchy !! (15 years of that as a child was more than enough, thank you !)

Michael Jankowski
March 11, 2017 4:06 pm

The spin will be that Paris was destined to fail without US participation, so these nations simply quit because they had no choice.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 11, 2017 5:10 pm

I think that is the reality.

March 11, 2017 4:44 pm

Agenda 21 is no agenda 2030. Does any of this sound familiar. It should. It sounds a lot like what Obama was doing and had the EPA doing. Scot Pruitt has shut down the social justice department that existed within the EPA. I didn’t even know they had such a thing.

Now Pushing U.N. Agenda 2030 with Social Engineering of the Elderly


U.N. Agenda 2030 goals and recommendations include several types of social engineering:

Redistribution of population according to resources, a type of social engineering that includes removing any borders around the globe
Government control of land use in order to achieve equitable distribution of resource, hence the social justice movement around the globe
Land use control through zoning and planning
Government control of excessive profits from land use
Urban and rural land control through public land ownership
Regionalist authorities in control of development rights, superseding local and state government authority

U.N. Agenda 2030 aims to control:

Energy production, delivery, distribution, and consumption via Smart Grid, Smart Meters, and renewables
Food growth via FDA regulations
Education via a curriculum centered on the environment, Mother Earth, and global citizenship
Water through irrigation denial in agriculture, home use, recreation, limited hydroelectric generation
Land through abolishing private property
Finance through a single currency
Population by reducing it to “manageable levels” through sterilization and eugenics
No borders, no sovereignty
No national language and culture, no national history
Mobility restriction to 5-minute walk/bike to/from work, school, shopping, entertainment
Longer distance travel via rail use
No homesteading, stacking people in high-rise mixed-use tenements in order to designate formerly privately-owned land for wildlife habitat

March 11, 2017 5:07 pm

Going back on a ‘robust pledge?’ Damn, you just can’t trust anyone anymore.

March 11, 2017 5:16 pm

The Trump Effect is going to save the U.S. a lot of money.

Get on board the Trump Train and you can save money, too.

The members of the G20 may not want to get on the Trump Train but what else can they do? Trump says the U.S. isn’t forking over the U.S. taxpayer’s money for foolish CAGW projects, so it’s time for Plan B. They had been counting on the U.S. largesse to fund their CAGW delusions. It’s not going to happen now.

Reply to  TA
March 11, 2017 6:02 pm

…You do realize that Obama DOUBLED the U.S. debt of ALL previous President\s before him….Liberals are in no position to complain about debt !

Gary Pearse
Reply to  TA
March 11, 2017 6:51 pm

Engar: you will be amazed, then, how Trump will save money and grow the economy. The downside for you, though is you will not be happy how this will be done. The economy has only been a zero sum game for the last 20 yeas or so. It didn’t used to be in saner times, but Millennials don’t have any experience with this. We could divert some of the economy to build millions of ‘safe places’ for many of you, but being old style, I would recommend let the tears flow, it’s good for y’all and you will pee less.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  TA
March 11, 2017 7:25 pm

Engar, I’m talking about hundreds of billions that will be cut from bloat and the new economic growth that will follow scuttling all the “Agenda” regulations, redundancies (there are about a dozen agencies studying the weather for example). One time expenditures like the “wall” will be paid for by attenuating social expenditures on the millions that WON’T be crowding the system. Trump’s tough no nonsense talk alone about handling illegal immigration has resulted in the flow of illegal dropping by 40% in February! Companies are going to stick around that were going to head for other countries and new companies from Japan and others are coming to the US (abundant cheap energy). A steel industry boost with using US steel (and coal to make it) to be employed in pipelines – teed off the Sioux but they will get jobs out it and all will be forgotton.

I see the thing like this: a plan to save the Nile crocodile won’t be well received by the croc who will be snapping at his saviors asses but once accomplished, the croc will be wearing an even bigger smile. You will be happy, if you can just get over the fact that Trump is a hard guy to love. He’s boorish, he’s anathema to political correctness to a fault, he shoots from the hip before he’s engaged his brain in interviews and tweets. I find this odious, too, and wouldn’t seek a social liaison with such a type, but I don’t let it get in the way of supporting a desperately needed plan (for the world, too – like the illegal immigrants, the EU and China are already to cut back on funding climate action and remember Reagan, just because he got elected was enough for Iran to release all those American hostages before he had set foot in the White house). All but the sorest of political losers will come on board eventually. He will win the popular vote + next time. A quotable quote of Trump: “I don’t do defeats.” This beautiful and true quote won’t make it into the quote lists because it is Trumps, but I like it a lot.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  TA
March 11, 2017 8:33 pm

@Gary Pearse 7:25 pm

… the popular vote …

In 1960 the NY Yankees and the Pittsburgh Pirates met in the World Series of Baseball.
The score (you can look it up) was about NY = 55 runs, Pirates = 27 runs. (This past year the 2 teams (can’t remember them) each scored 27 runs. They tied, right? Wrong.
So the Yankees took the “popular vote” and lost the Series.
In baseball the rules are well known — games count. In the US election the rules are well known — States count.
Trump and Clinton played by those rules — and Trump won. End of story.
The “popular vote” of which you wrote is meaningless.

Reply to  TA
March 12, 2017 8:23 am

Butch wasn’t claiming otherwise. He was just saying that the mob vote is more likely to match the real vote in 2020.

Reply to  TA
March 12, 2017 8:27 am

Now that’s a real hockey stick. 😐

Reply to  TA
March 12, 2017 4:34 pm

“Trump will not “save” any money. He will increase spending on the military. He will increase spending on his “wall.” He will spend a trillion on infrastructure. In addition to all of his spending, he’s going to cut taxes at the same time. How can this happen?”

Trump will increase spending on the military. A $54 billion increase is the current figure, and he will spend on the wall and on infrastructure, but I read a headline yesterday claiming Trump’s policies have already reduced the debt by $68 billion, although I didn’t see the details.

Illegal aliens cost the U.S. approximately $100 billion per year. Since Trump started cracking down on the southern border, illegal entries into the U.S. have decreased by 40 percent in the last month, so reducing illegal immigration will add up to big bucks in the future for the U.S.

The U.S. currently runs an $80 billion per year trade deficit with Mexico. If Trump reduces that by half, he has added $40 billion to the U.S. economy. If he makes it a completely fair trade, he adds $80 billion per year to the U.S. economy that would have gone to Mexico instead.

When you cut taxes, revenues to the government increase because economic activity increases. This concept goes completely over the heads of Democrats.

Trump is also a pretty good budget manager. He has already saved $2 billion on the new Presidential jets, and about the same amount on the F-35 fighter jet contract. And there are literally billions of dollars of waste, fra-ud and abuse in the government he can cut.

Trump’s infrastructure plan will incorporate some of the TRILLIONS of dollars American companies are keeping overseas because American taxes are too high. Once Trump lowers these taxes, this huge amount of money will come into the U.S. Trump also plans on financing the infrastructure with public/private funds so it won’t all be on the taxpayers.

Got to love Trump. He just keeps on going, getting things down, while the entire power structure of the world tries to tear him (and us) down.

Reply to  TA
March 13, 2017 6:18 am

Like most leftists, engar believes what he is told to believe.

Bill Treuren
March 11, 2017 9:03 pm

You would think that given the huge competitiveness of sustainables the G20 will unleash their power to cripple the US economy through industrial grunt. ( yeh Right)

Why not just ensure that the alternatives are given a fair chance against fossil fuels without subsidies or mandates.
My view is that the government as usual has no power at predicting the future and may in fact be better at predicting what will not happen in the future.

March 11, 2017 10:48 pm


Judith Curry has made an excellent analysis of what Pruitt actually said and how it has been reported by the media, and she has posted it on her blog here.


Reply to  richardscourtney
March 11, 2017 10:55 pm

Good to see you back in action!

March 11, 2017 10:54 pm

Here’s an example of the kind of “climate change” to expect in the next few decades:


(Not from the source you would expect.)

Reply to  ptolemy2
March 12, 2017 4:38 am

Yes… because climate change is exactly that, not a gentle increase of a few degrees on temps across the globe.

michael hart
Reply to  Griff
March 12, 2017 5:38 am

Is that what the Sorting Hat told you, Gryff?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Griff
March 12, 2017 8:23 am

No, that would be “global warming”. You can’t even keep your own ideological terms straight.

Reply to  Griff
March 12, 2017 5:28 pm

More lies from the Guardian, Skanky?

Tell us, have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for trying to damage her professional reputation yet, you obnoxious little paid character assassin?

Reply to  ptolemy2
March 12, 2017 5:28 am

At least we might get white Christmases again in Western Europe ☃️

Do these researchers have plans to update their assessment of the probability of this Sea of Labrador cooling, every year or so?

Reply to  ptolemy2
March 12, 2017 1:28 pm

Yes there are contrary views but I remain a believer in traditional oceanography and established phenomena such as the Gulf Stream and AMOC. Also on the “salinity feedback” described here:


My own take on this is that a positive feedback in a complex dissipative system like AMOC will introduce chaotic oscillation – just like the D-O excursions during the last glacial period. A milder version of the same oscillation, based on the salinity feedback, could be behind the AMO. Feedback accelerated Gulf Stream warms Northern Europe but entrains Greenland ice melt which eventually inhibits the deep water formation leading to counter-stroke slackening of the Gulf Stream. Then repeat.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  ptolemy2
March 12, 2017 6:55 am

Yes.because cooling is the worst possible fear for the Warmistas.

Reply to  ptolemy2
March 12, 2017 11:56 am

ptolemy2 on March 11, 2017 at 10:54 pm

Here’s an example of the kind of “climate change” to expect in the next few decades…

Rien de nouveau à l’Ouest!

Such thoughts were developed by NOAA oceanographers at the end of the 1990ies, but were heavily criticised by many skeptics inbetween.

They doubt among other matters that salinity is a crucial factor here. Other think hat the Gulf Stream or even THC as a whole might be totally overestimated.

Reply to  Bindidon
March 12, 2017 1:30 pm

I replied but it went about 3 posts upstream by mistake.

Reply to  Bindidon
March 12, 2017 4:11 pm

ptolemy2 on March 12, 2017 at 1:28 pm

Thanks for the answer, I too was very impressed by this abrupt climate change theory.

But no Gulf Stream would imho ever be able to produce such a melt on Greenlands inlandsis as is actually on the road.

March 12, 2017 4:45 am

Question if you knew you actions could save on life in the future would you do them even if that meant you not get paid ?
Well hear we have what is claimed to be the ‘most important event ever ‘ and one where there is ‘no time to lose ‘ with a claimed impact on ten or even hundreds of millions . And yet without a pay cheque , and a very nice one at that , being attached our planet saving heroes don’t want to know , strange that !

Robert of Ottawa
March 12, 2017 6:53 am

Leaving our glorious Boy Wonder looking foolish again. He’s already given away C$2.5billion to this scam.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
March 12, 2017 8:58 am

Oh I can’t stand that guy.

March 12, 2017 6:58 am

You mean we’re not going to keep throwing this expense onto the global debt pile? We’ll see.

March 12, 2017 7:28 am

if we come to agree its been a Trillion dollar scam, next step will be to identify the main scamsters then sue them, and claw the money back.

March 12, 2017 10:50 am

“Climate is what we expect; weather is what we get.” Robert A Heinlein.

Reply to  Nan
March 13, 2017 4:47 am

Love the Heinlein quote!

March 12, 2017 4:06 pm

There are no continual thermometer records to prove warming. The one chart is from Central England going back to 1659 and it shows no warming.
Climate “Science” on Trial; Temperature Records Don’t Support NASA GISS

Jan Christoffersen
March 12, 2017 4:36 pm

Of course China supports the Paris climate accord strongly. It has a free rein to increase emissions at will until 2030.

Henry chance
March 12, 2017 6:42 pm

One thing I do not see covered about our President is the cost of energy. He has owned some big casinos and in Vegas the amount of lighting they use boggles the mind.. Even the huge lights in the casinos cause so much heat that must be removed. Trump can see in seconds how these novel schemes to produce electric are unreliable and drive up prices. For the past 8 years I have not heard a peep about driving prices down.

Reply to  Henry chance
March 13, 2017 12:49 pm

That is the true test of political power. It is the command and control of the volume controls and topic selection for a Party that controls 90 percent of the media message.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights