Friends, Opponents Sound the Defeat of President Trump’s Climate Agenda

Official White House Photo of President Trump

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Trump supporter Myron Ebell, former vice-president Al Gore and UN Deputy Secretary General Amina Mohammed all have one thing in common – they have all just independently suggested that President Trump’s campaign climate agenda is on the verge of being defeated.

Exclusive: Trump EPA transition chief laments slow progress in killing green rules

By Valerie Volcovici | WASHINGTON | Mon May 22, 2017 | 7:03am EDT

The man who led President Donald Trump’s transition team for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Myron Ebell, told a conservative conference last month that the new administration is moving too slowly to unravel climate change regulations.

In closed-door remarks to members of the conservative Jefferson Institute in Virginia on April 18, a recording of which was obtained by Reuters, Ebell said Trump’s administration had made a series of missteps, including delays in appointing key EPA officials, that could hamper efforts to cut red tape for industry.

This is an impending disaster for the Trump administration,” Ebell, a prominent climate change doubter, said in the recording provided to the Center for Media and Democracy and shared with Reuters.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-ebell-exclusive-idUSKBN18I196

Al Gore thinks the climate movement has defeated President Trump;

Trump may surprise on climate change: Gore

Published: 3:10 pm, Tuesday, 23 May 2017

US President Donald Trump may ‘surprise’ people when it comes to acting on climate change, says former vice president and environmental crusader Al Gore.

A decade after his award-winning environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Gore is back at Cannes Film Festival with An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, which follows him to the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris.

President Trump has vowed to quit the Paris Agreement which came out of the 2015 conference and aims to see an international reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

I do believe there is a better than even chance that (Trump) will surprise many by keeping the US in the Paris Agreement, I don’t know that he will but there’s a chance he will,’ Gore said on the sidelines at Cannes on Monday.

Read more: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/international/2017/05/23/trump-may-surprise-on-climate-change–gore.html

The UN think they have President Trump on the run;

Trump treading water over climate change deal, says deputy UN chief

Amina Mohammed says president seems to be avoiding making decision on whether US will renege on historic agreement

The UN’s deputy secretary general has accused President Donald Trump of “treading water” over a decision on the future of the Paris climate change agreement, on which the fate of millions of people depend.

Amina Mohammed told the Guardian she was hopeful the US would not renege on the deal signed last year, but that Trump appeared to be avoiding a public declaration after taking such a hard line during his campaign for the White House.

Trump has previously described climate change as a hoax orchestrated by China. During his battle for the presidency against Hillary Clinton he vowed to “cancel” the historic agreement, which commits countries to ensuring that the average global temperature does not rise 2C above pre-industrial levels.

Since being elected Trump, who is on a world tour starting with a visit to Saudi Arabia, has delayed announcing his administration’s position, although it is widely believed he will be forced to make a statement at the G7 summit in Italy next weekend.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/23/trump-treading-water-over-climate-change-deal-says-deputy-un-chief

Tearing up the Paris Agreement is something President Trump could do with the stroke of a pen, as he has done with other Obama executive orders.

The continuation of the USA’s commitment to the Paris Agreement is a symbol of the swamp’s ongoing victory over President Trump’s reform agenda. My guess is Trump’s opponents, both within and outside the Republican Party, are leading the President on, promising cooperation in return for concessions – but drip feeding the President on fulfilling those promises.

This is how the swamp survives – they weather the storm, and do everything in their power to undermine, retard and destroy anyone who might stand in their path. They don’t have to defeat President Trump face to face, they just have to block him, to convince him to sit when he should be standing, to undermine his confidence, to convince the President’s supporters that there is no hope, that their trust and faith was misplaced. To convince Trump supporters to stay home on swamp day.

President Trump, you must take back the initiative. Tear up the Paris Agreement. Do something for all those hard working people in the heartlands who made the effort to vote for hope of a better life. Deliver them from the carbon pricing parasites.

What have you got to lose?

Advertisements

220 thoughts on “Friends, Opponents Sound the Defeat of President Trump’s Climate Agenda

  1. My last bit of support for Trump depends upon him keeping his word to ditch the big climate change hoax.

    But I suspect that he is lost, surrounded by air heads(daughter and son in law), and swamp dwellers(Sec of State).

    Hopefully he will deliver, otherwise we will say that elections do not have consequences. .

      • It’s gotten to the point that whenever I read dark cloud type headlines about Trump on news aggregator websites, I immediately think, “OK, that sounds like NY Times, WaPo, Politico, etc.” I don’t even bother clicking on the links anymore, but just hover the mouse pointer over the link to see the URL in the status bar at the bottom of the browser. 95% of the time, I’m right. The anti-Trump media are so addicted to creating doubt about him (like a crack ho is to crack) that it’s a waste of time to read what they write.

      • Heh… I was reading your article and saw this.

        “Of course, Trump could cure cancer, and the New York Times headline would be “Millions Die before Trump Acts.””

        Trump could walk across the Potomac, and the NY Times headline would read, “Trump Can’t Swim!” (not original).

      • With any luck he IS waiting for the Italy G7 confrence to make such a strategic and historic announcement

      • in addition to the Trump cures cancer meme, if he did indeed cure cancer, democrats would bring forth an endless array of the children of minority and female oncologists who are now on food stamps

      • “With any luck he IS waiting for the Italy G7 confrence to make such a strategic and historic announcement”

        If you think about it, Trump will have a much easier G7 meeting if he tells the other members the Paris Agreement is still under study, like he told the Pope. That way Trump can have a nice, cordial meeting with the G7, and then kill the Paris Agreement after he returns home.

        i saw a report today that Senator Rand Paul has introduced a bill to require that the Paris Agreement be submitted to the U.S. Senate to decide its fate.

        There are a lot of forces pulling on Trump to stay in the Paris Agreement, but there are also a lot of forces pulling on him to pullout, and the ones wanting him to pullout are his supporters, not international elites.

    • There are lots of things we can survive. “Weathering the swamp” is one of them if Trump appoints another conservative SCOTUS judge and really does build the wall. Any thing else is a bonus. Otherwise go review what Hillary’s testimony about her Libyan Ambassador.

      • Let’s step back, take a deep breath, and take in the larger view: Momentum favors the status quo, i.e. absolute dominance of fossil fuels for decades to come. Lip service (e.g. The Paris Accord) is cheap. Nations are simply not going to commit economic suicide, and the USA has not about to, especially not with the current administration. Some nations in EU seem determined to learn the hard way, but other than possibly Kalifornia (we’ll see) there are far too few lemmings in the USA. Opinion polls on CAGW and “renewable energy” mean nothing, because too few people actually perceive a threat viscerally, and typical poll questions are loaded, e.g. “Do you favor cheap, environmentally-friendly energy? Yes or no.” Flash! 70% of the country favors switching to green energy!

      • Because Trump, i.e., one man at one point in history, doesn’t do what you want him to do (assuming he doesn’t…we don’t know anything for certain at present) quickly enough regarding a climate change policy?

        For this you’re willing to abandon rational thinking for the future?

    • The title of the article is inaccurate. It should be “Opponents Sound the Defeat …”

      Myron Ebell’s statement is alleged by Reuters based on some “recording provided to the Center for Media and Democracy”.

      • Did notice the outlets that received the release — which speaks volumes about the release’s origin.

        Reuters is sort of a wire service handmaiden for the bankers who run The City in the middle of London who financially control the world’s paper money through their 150 central banks (that print it). It’s the richest square mile on earth. The Financial Times fills a similar role
        .
        These bankers also own/control the UN, the other wire services, and the globe’s dominant propaganda (MSM) outlets through the Rupert Murdoch’s of the world. They also believe in central control (their ancestors bankrolled the Bolsheviks and the Russian genocide), communism (which their Bolsheviks originated), and a centralized world government with themselves in charge (behind the curtain as they’ve done for centuries).

        In America, they’ve used the EPA (and its alphabet programs and agencies—ESA, CWA, CAA, USFWS, DoI, etc) to issue administrative rules and regulations under color of law to skirt congress (that turns a blind eye) whose constitutionally charged with passing America’s laws. The right to own property is one of the first things that has to go in the centralization of control/power within a nation.

        Dangers of Administrative Law https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-history-and-danger-of-administrative-law/

        The “Paris Climate Treaty” has nothing to do with the climate or the well-being of earth, and everything to do with the collection of “climate taxes” paid to the UN that will be used to build a bureaucracy to administer a world government with themselves (The City’s international banking cabal) in charge. There is no benefit for America or any other nation in being a ‘signatory’ on something that’s not even a treaty. The Paris agreement has NOTHING to do with climate change. Here’s the example again of how “contributions’ to this scam have been slipped to the UN without congressional approval.

        State Dept defiant on $500M to UN climate fund

        The City Bankers (repost for anyone not familiar)

        Their end game is to own/control it all – – food, fiber, water, land, oil, gas, energy, money, minerals, gold, silver industry, governments, jobs people, and hope.

    • Check out the UN, UNEP, UNEP FI, UN Global Compact and follow the money and political influence.

      For example:

      FS UNEP, Frankfurt, Germany

      Frankfurt School UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance

      Partners:

      UNEP
      Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, Germany

      http://www.fs-unep-centre.org

      Use internet search: UNEP + Production Tax Credit/PTC for information on the connection.
      The Production Tax Credit is a tool for building the new “green” economy.

      Also the UNEP FI project on “Roadmaps” that Gore is involved in. So far “Roadmaps for Canada, Australia, UK and US are online.

      And Gore’s new “Commission” that has VIPs with connections to Soros, SE4All, World Resources Institute, and BlackRock.

      BlackRock does business in Canada as well. Use an internet search for more information on this.

  2. It is hard to tell just what is going on. On actual appointments, on actual actions, Trump is doing fairly well. If you consider green blob fundraising efforts decrying Trump, he is doing quite well.
    It seem more that Trump has not put any rhetoric or tweetstorms into this issue, so he is rather opaque for him.

    • Tom Halla May 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm
      It is hard to tell just what is going on. On actual appointments, on actual actions, Trump is doing fairly well.

      On appointments he’s doing rather poorly, about 2,000 vacancies.

      • 2000 vacancies is just a start it should be 10000. I read the EPA budget has been cut by 30%. It should be 75% Get rid of most of the EPA employees. The remainder will not be able to harm industry and US employment.

      • It’s not a “bad” thing, but it does show that Trump doesn’t have very many “friends.” If he had a lot of “friends” all the vacancies would be filled.
        ===
        Obama had more vacancies…..so many to the judiciary that prosecutors were dropping cases

        Obama made last minute appointments to his friends

      • Only idiots would limit such appointments to their friends.
        It’s normal to have a lot of vacancies early in an administration.
        That goes double when their has been an abrupt change in ideology between the old and the new administration.

      • My guess is that he’s been waiting for recommendations from his department heads. It has taken a while for him to get the top level through congress, so give them a little time in their new jobs to survey the structure and requirements of their departments before they chose their staff.

      • This was covered in an interview I saw and Trump basically agrees with philincalifornia. Why is this a bad thing? People complain about politicians appointing political hacks to cushy positions and are now complaining that someone isn’t doing it?

        Trump was elected to “Drain the swamp”, not to appoint a small army of swamp dwellers. A politician appoints people to fill “vacancies”, a good business Leader looks at whether the position actually needs to exist at all.

    • It’s pretty obvious what’s going on. Climate change is a relatively low priority for Trump. This issue can wait while they struggle with health care, tax reform, budget, and certainly not the least problem, the chaos resulting from Trump’s flirtations with Putin and the Russians.

      Trump is rapidly self-destructing over his cluelessness about how to act as President. He hasn’t been remotely effective in anything he has attempted.

      Republicans in Congress are terrified that Trump will drag them into the abyss that will end in an elections debacle next year. They are fighting for survival and climate change is the least of their problems.

      • scraft1 May 24, 2017 at 5:01 am

        Trump is rapidly self-destructing over his cluelessness about how to act as President.

        DUH, getta clue, …… scraft1, ….. Trump was voted in as POTUS to be the President and Commander in Chief, …… and not to act the “comedy part” of pretending to be POTUS …. like Obama done during his 8-year tenure.

      • He hasn’t been remotely effective in anything he has attempted.

        He beat Hillary and the democrats…and appointed Gorsuch

      • Latitude – Hillary and the democrats beat themselves. Trump was the lucky beneficiary.

        Gorsuch was a good appointment, which makes me wonder where it came from.

      • Get serious. “K” Street owns both political parties and everyone who’s been involved in politics in D.C. for more than a couple of years. They provide ‘direction’ along with all the ‘reelection funds’. And, everyone knows that if you get into the House or the Senate your primary job once you get there is to raise money for the party and for your own reelection. Nothing else counts. After all how could you properly represent your district if you don’t buy a good committee seat from the party and you’re not reelected to hang on to it. And, Heaven forbid you ever get associated with any position or bill that is controversial, let the bureaucracy handle those. They don’t have to worry about reelection. You can keep them happy with annual budget increases.

        With “K” street providing the money and Ben Rhodes leading the disinformation team, the “swamp” is now fighting back hard against all outsiders that might shake up their cushy system.

      • I would have to say you are partially correct in saying Republicans in Congress are terrified. You are wrong as to why. I suspect most of them are terrified that they won’t be able to “program out” the “deplorable” vote that got Trump elected, and if they can’t, they can’t follow their owners’ leashes AND be elected. Most of the Republicrats are there for the bennies, just like the real dems, and the deplorables may vote out of office any of the Republicrats that don’t support Trump. In other words, they are afraid not to support Trump if they want to be reelected, but they are afraid TO support him if they want the gravy train and campaign money to continue. So maybe you are right. They are fighting for THEIR survival, not the party, not Trump, and certainly not America’s survival. If the party embraced Trump, they gain voter base, but lose campaign funding. Money nearly always wins, thus the party fights him instead, hoping the voting machines will protect them.

      • “and certainly not the least problem, the chaos resulting from Trump’s flirtations with Putin and the Russians.”

        What flirtations? The only person flirting with the Russians connected to Trump was Flynn and Flynn lied about this flirtation to Trump and Pence, which is what got him fired. After all this time and all these allegations, there is still no evidence of any collusion.

        If you want to talk about administration/Russian flirtation, you should talk about Hillary Clinton’s flirtation with the Russians while she was Secretary of State. Her foundation was paid millions by the Russians and husband Bill was paid $500,000 by the Russians for one speech, after Hillary signed off on selling Russia 20 percent of U.S. uranium. John Podesta’s brother is a registered agent for the Russians.

        The Special Counsel needs to look into that flirtation.

        And it sounds like the Obama administration has been caught red-handed illegally looking at the electronic records of Americans without a warrant, including Republican political candidates, Republican Senators, possibly at least one U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and knowing how the Obama administration thinks, probably any political opponent they had.

        Yes, the Special Counsel is going to be busy, if he does his job and looks into the obvious illegalities that have gone on in Washington DC.

        The Democrats should be the ones afraid, not Trump.

      • Tom O, you said: “They are fighting for THEIR survival, not the party, not Trump, and certainly not America’s survival.” You are of course right. I’d guess that includes most of the 5 county D.C. area, what he refers to as the “Swamp”. It says something about our current government when five of the ten richest counties in the U.S. surround D.C. I wish him luck in draining it/them but near as I can figure the only way to fix the problem is to blanket replace the whole lot at least two elections in a row. The first time the replacements would assume they were elected for their stated positions, not just as replacements. Maybe the second time they would start to realize what was happening. Some suggest term limits but that would just give more power to the entrenched bureaucracy.

        TA, you are right about the Clintons and it probably includes many more Dem’s. The only reason the Dem’s are pushing the Russian thing so hard is redirection, to keep the MSM on Trump and away from themselves.

  3. This is not something I wanted to read at bedtime, Now I’ll have nightmares of starving polar bears and Al Gore taking away my pickup truck…sigh….

    PMK

    • Fear not, dear Pamela.

      Timing. Is. Everything.

      All is well.

      Make — America — great — again lives.

      • You can be sure Trump does tactically good moves. I’m pretty sure he wants max gain, so it could be, for example, that he manages to defund U.N. in response of its growing hunger for money to “mitigate”.

      • Mods;
        OT, but I would be most grateful if you could give my e-mail address to Janice, I would like to communicate with her about something completely irrelevant to this site.
        Thanks.

      • Thank you, Ms. Moore, for a voice of reason amongst a 64′ wave of irrationality (I always appreciate your comments in this blog).

        5 months in office folks…give it time, dang.

  4. His best chance is to get to the corporate lobbies by pointing that I will put an act in Congress have a special carbon tax on your inputs since you are so keen for the Paris Agreement. You’d love to such a tax before the ordinary people with thousand of pages of paperwork.

    • I’ve go a great idea for a carbon tax. On everyone’s tax form have a line “I believe in dangerous Man-made climate chance via CO2” (or similar language) everyone that checks that box has to fork over 50% of their income and everyone who doesn’t, doesn’t. Also authorize the IRS to release to the public how anyone who publically advocates for carbon taxes on the rest of us responded to the above check box. Let them put their money where their mouths are before they start look at our money.

      • “Let them put their money where their mouths are”

        That would be a first for most liberals.

      • Cute John but oligarchic collectivism requires you pay the carbon tax so the favored few reap a benefit and maintain a salary to tell you exactly what you should be doing 24/7. It’s the second part that is more annoying then the first.

      • Not a bad idea. Let’s also do that for preexisting condition insurance premiums. If you feel so strongly about it, donate your money into a pool that will subsidize those who have higher premiums due to preexisting conditions. This way those whom you feel so sorry for get what you want them to get without overburdening the entire insurance system for the rest of us.

      • Tom, it is not even remotely possible for anyone to write “insurance” for pre-existing conditions. No more than any insurance company would/could write a policy to cover a house AFTER it burned down. Can you get a new policy for collision (or anything else) AFTER your car is totaled? No, of course not, but that’s what these people are trying to force insurance companies to engage in. And trying to get people in general to believe. Yes, having a serious health problem while looking for medical insurance is most certainly a terrible thing, but fairy tales and magic unicorns will not solve the problem.

        But the idea of politicians, “progressives” and other idiots putting their own money into the pot to pay for these poor pre-existing folks certainly would make me smile… after I got over the shock. Not going to happen, of course.

  5. With so many battles on so many fronts eg Healthcare, taxation, trade, illegal immigration and ISIS maybe climate change stuff will have to wait ……..its impact economically will make it into a critical issue at some time in the future – it’s not something at present that exercises the minds of many voters ……dealing with regulations and federal financing of alternative “energy” will have an impact

    • I agree with Gerry that it is priorities. If he doesn’t tackle N. Korea, some people gets fried. Cancelling Paris makes enemies on the international stage and changes nothing on the ground.

  6. Easy out. Trump need merely state that the Paris Climate Treaty has no chance in the Senate and he has no intention of wasting time even trying.

    • That is the simplest way forward. Send it to the senate for ratification, and do that on condition that the Agreement be made mandatory for other countries. Let’s see of the other countries are willing to make it mandatory as well. At the moment it is not. Why should the US commit to something other do not? That is more of the same as what ha happened for 50 years.

      The other ‘signatories’ know full well that if it had been a treaty, it would never have been approved in the US. Why pussyfoot? Call a space a space. Make it a treaty and see who signs up. It has no ‘requirements’. Give it some requirements, and no carrot without a stick.

      X- percent to approve it as binding to bring it into force. if y- percent default, all commitments fall away.

      There is no point in having a, “You pay, we don’t,” treaty.

      And about that 1..5 degrees – what happened to Nordhaus’ 1972 ‘2 degrees’ model? Has he changed his mind in his dotage? Now, “significant damage occurs” at a 1.5 degree rise? WUWT Nordhaus?

      Paris+2+penalties would be a fair offer. I bet nearly no one would sign it. If they did, they wouldn’t meet its requirements. If they did, it wouldn’t make a jot or a tittle of a difference to the temperature of the planet in 85 years time. It is did, it would be below the limit of detection.

      A fool and your money are soon separated. Every notice that?

      • I used to have much the same opinion that you have on agreements like Paris. The actual status of executive agreements is a trifle fuzzy, as there has never been a Supreme Court case directly dealing with them, but the agreement almost certainly died when Obama left office Jan 20.
        Trying to treat Paris as a treaty gives it a status the green blob would exploit, even if it fails in the Senate.

      • Agreed. Kill it. Kill it with fire. Submitting this to the Senate reinforces precedent and makes it harder for the Left to try to cede sovereignty–not that they spend all that much time worrying about precedent or laws when it’s inconvenient to do so.

      • what happened to Nordhaus’ 1972 ‘2 degrees’ model?

        As the credible sensitivity estimates keep on falling, so too much the amount needed for alarm. As soon as the IPCC started to admit in AR5 that sensitivity may be as low as 1.5 deg/doubling, the alarmists dropped their “danger batman, danger! rhetoric from 2 deg to 1.5 deg. Kinda sad when you think how obvious the manipulation is.

      • And what happens when the worthless GOP establishment rally with every Senate Democrat to pass it? Precedent, indeed.

        The GOP Congress is quivering in their boots over the possibility of a landslide wave election throwing them out of power in 18 months. They might view Paris as an easy sell-out issue with far distant consequences that can show they can ‘govern’ and aren’t a rubber stamp to Trump.

        Sad, but I could see it happening with the worthless Republicans. The only question is whether Trump would jump on board at the end too, and paint the principled Conservatives as out-of-touch obstructionists, as he’s already done multiple times.

    • I have to agree with KTM. Sadly, you can’t count on the Repubs in congress. They have too long a track of caving

    • Obama did not sign a Paris treaty…
      he signed a Paris agreement ..the US at no time has agreed
      to do anything(legally)

    • Fake news to try to separate Trump from his supporters? Romney as an advisor? Sarah Palin as VP? Canary traps?
      He likes trolling the media and turning on a dime.
      He knows that for many, this issue is not negotiable

      • of course it isn’t … he’s just delaying the firestorm of bad press that will come when he does make his move … he’ll do something when he needs the media to chase another shiny thing for a week or two … not even on day 200 yet … everyone take a breath …

      • “he’s just delaying the firestorm of bad press that will come when he does make his move”

        That’s my hope too. I suspect he didn’t want to be upbraided by his hosts on his European tour if he’d rescinded the Paris deal before he visited them.

    • It looks like the fix is in. link The oil companies want the Paris agreement so they can kill off coal which competes with their natural gas. Tillerson signed the Fairbanks deal that said climate change is a problem. link I think that, once more, the American people have been betrayed.

  7. Hopefully the glimmer of reason will not completely flicker out thereby ushering in both a figurative and literal “dark ages”.

  8. I’m 98% sure Hillary Clinton will win. Go to bed and get some rest. So said the news. I watched the returns and the horror and disbelieve. Right up to the end, they didn’t let on that Hillary lost the election. We only found out, last minute.

    I pray to God this is “Horror and Disbelieve 2.0”

    President Trump, I voted for you. For this main reason. Leave that rotting mess in Paris and give us our competitive edge back. We Texans want and need it. Drain the Swamp. Make America Great Again.

  9. Another prophecy from goracles, journolists, and gray lobbyists. The same special and peculiar interests that predicted catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. They were right about one thing: refugee crises, but for the wrong reasons. It was elective wars, regime changes, and their coverups that forced and sustains immigration reform.

  10. If Trump can’t ditch the Paris agreement, the obvious question will be “What is the point of Trump?” Ditching the agreement is easy (the Senate was never going to ratify it), there is no downside, and there’s lots of upside. Core Trump voters don’t support the Paris agreement, its support comes from people who would never vote for Trump in a million years. There is no issue that is simpler, easier and more amenable to immediate action.

  11. The Alarmists don’t have the Presidency anymore. They don’t have the Senate, they don’t have the House, and even the Courts are not supportive of Obama’s Executive Fiat’s.
    They only have the media, and the government funded propaganda outlets. So that is where their full efforts are directed. They will continue to declare victory on every lap down the swirling drain.
    Their biggest problem is that the climate is not cooperating. And that is the problem, they can not prop-up much longer. As the funding dries up the movement will have to find another “emergency” that requires taking power and money from the public.

  12. I think what is happening is that the democrats and the press think this is a game of checkers, but President Trump knows it is really a chess match and he is playing the long game. The swamp creatures do not want the swamp drained, so they will oppose him at every turn. He must out maneuver them and sometimes that means using feints and misdirection. I am not going to panic at this early stage; only a few moves have been made in this game so far.

  13. I agree…

    Trump has broken his promises in rescinding the infernal Paris Agreement and in cutting $100’s of Billions/yr of direct and indirect CAGW rules, regulations and compliance costs that are needlessly inhibiting US economic growth.

    There are still over 3,000+ high-ranking Obama-appointed Leftist bureaucrats running the Leviathan, which is why: virtually all of Trump’s various agendas are not being accomplished and why he’s being inundated with leaks of confidential Intel to the press.

    Trump is also getting absolutely terrible advice from CAGW advocates like his daughter Ivanka and, to a certain extent, Sec State Tillerson (see recent Fairbanks Agreement he signed).

    Trump thinks that by throwing the Leftists a bone by giving up on trashing the CAGW sc@m, he’ll win concessions on his other agendas like: repealing Obamacare, cutting taxes, building The Wall, screening potential Islamic terrorists refugees, huge spending cuts, etc., which is REALLY naive and devoid of reality..

    100% of Leftist politicians and the MSM, and 30% of the GOP (RINOs) are out to destroy Trump by any means possible. Tossing Leftists a bone on the CAGW sc@m is like throwing blood in the water during a shark feeding frenzy– it’ll only make matters worse, not better…

    Trump needs to immediately fire the 3,000+ Leftist Obama holdovers and replace them concervatives that share his agendas, and start getting some big wins if he hopes to serve a second term and for the GOP to have any chance of holding the Senate and House after 2018 midterm elections…

    Right now, Trump is getting demolished–much of it his own doing…

      • Phil-san:

        Anyone that’s well read on US politics knows there are about 8,300 key bureaucratic positions the president has the power and authority to appoint, of which, roughly 1,200 require Senate approval and about 4,000 which don’t, and are not life-time appointments…

        Those are the facts, not “fake news”…

        Try reading a little more and trolling a little less…

      • I wonder if half the appointments need to even exist. You need a huge bureaucracy when the purpose is to cripple the American economy and manufacture brass nose rings for your citizens. The best way to fill many of them is to abolish the function. Just filling all the existing appointments is to adopt the former gov processes.

      • “I wonder if half the appointments need to even exist.”

        Trump said pretty much the same thing a few months ago when he was questioned about filling vacancies. He said the federal government was too bloated and wasteful.

      • Troll? I don’t know who you are referring to, but I would like to lodge a complaint against name-calling. This website is all about conversations. Name-calling shuts down conversations which is antithetical to the purpose here. The way to shut a troll up is to dazzle them with your briliance.

      • OMB, Mulvaney has been a bright spot. Pruitt less a particular horrid Fox interview with Mike Wallace has been strong at times. The “states rights” approach has limitations and causes issues when Ca and NY go into open revolt and Pruitt was use to playing defense not offense. A very common GOP problem.

    • I have to agree. Where are the appointments of skeptics to positions in NOAA and NASA? Why are we still seeing alarmist NGOs getting government funding? This is just the tip of the iceberg. The only way to do this is to start at the top and put in the right people to run these organizations and many others. Trump is not doing the proper ground work to make his administration a success. Everything else could have waited.

      • The President can only propose a budget. It needs to be approved by Congress. The first step is the House. Lead by Speaker Ryan. Who traded funding for the wall for funding for Planned Parenthood. Ryan isn’t on Trump’s side at all – he’s a back stabbing squish.

  14. My fear is that there is so much potential tax revenue ripe for the picking, that no mortal human could possibly resist such temptation. Trump is desperately looking for income for his infrastructure program and large military expenditures, amongst other planned expenditures, so much so that his admin today announced selling up to half of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the next 10 years. Maybe that is a good idea, since we have plenty of oil in NA ready on a moments notice to extract rather quickly, and that will help stabilize global energy prices when USA can just buy low and sell high. Hopefully.

    Couple that with all the other Dem inspired domestic problems that Trump has, and maybe this isn’t even on his radar screen anymore, and good old TRex is handling it now. Plus Rex may want to use it to further oil and gas interests with various powers that will assist those forces in maintaining their agenda.

    It ain’t over until it’s over, so stay tuned until the end of the week when he meets with the G7, as he said last month when we had the last update on this.

    • he’s not “desperate” … you folks really don’t get him … never have, never will … just shut up and watch …

      • “he’s not “desperate” … you folks really don’t get him … never have, never will”

        They might start getting him after he continues rolling up success after success. And that in the face of unprecedented resistance from the Left.

        The Left is really doing a disservice to their country with this insane pursuit of anything they think will harm Trump. They should stop being so selfish and start putting the nation first. If they continue to undermine the president, they are underming themselves, too.

        Foreign leaders see all the propaganda put out by the Left against Trump. Let’s hope they are wise enough to understand they are being given partisan distortions and half-truths about Trump, otherwise they may make decisions detrimental to the U.S., which will be detrimental to themselves in the end. Does the MSM want Kim Jung Un to get a false impression of Trump? Like maybe Trump won’t do anything because he only has the support of half the American people? So Kim may think he can continue with his weapons development when in reality, when he does, Trump will hit him with a military attack. Kim miscalculated because he was reading the MSM and taking them seriously and now we have a war on our hands. Nice going MSM and the Left. Of course, this never enters their minds because they are so caught up in their selfish, petty, partisan political delusions. The Left is dangerous to national security whether they are in power or out of power. A constant undermining of the U.S. position, and they have been doing it for decades. Want to know why we lost South Vietnam. Look no farther than the lies of the Left and the MSM.

        It appears that foreign leaders are not being fooled by the lies of the MSM. Look at the receptions Trump has gotten on his first foreign tour. Of course, you would have to be watching Fox News to see his foreign tour because the other channels barely covered it. Don’t want to make the guy look too good, right MSM?

      • TA, I think you still don’t understand just how different Leftists are. I have started to consider them a different species based on the r/K selection pressure, the biological consequence of that, and attendant reproductive psychology. “Putting the nation first” is completely meaningless to them. “Doing a disservice to their country”, ditto. Leftists do not have any clan loyalty, the way you and I do. It is not part of their makeup. In fact they have strong biological reasons to want to betray their countrymen and destroy everything that conservatives hold dear. That motivation explains the unrestrained immigration of hostile foreigners, and desperate desire to give away all of the nation’s wealth. It is insanity to us, but an integral part of Leftist psychology. Trying to change any of that is futile. The only way that I have heard of to change a Leftist to a sane person is to wait until they grow up (many never do), or to scare the pants off them in an about-to-get-eaten-by-a-tiger way, possibly several times, to encourage the full maturation of their amygdalae (the brain region involved with recognizing threats and developing appropriate responses) more rapidly.

        The disadvantage of a stable civilized society is that there are so few threats to most people that there is no opportunity for the amygdala to finish developing.

        Of course all of those Leftist desires play right into the hands of the international banking cabal, who are accumulating the world’s wealth and centralizing control as much as possible, so we can’t be expecting any assistance from that quarter.

  15. Haste is not often your friend. There are exceptions, but letting Paris and Al stew in their own juice probably isn’t one of them.

  16. “What have you got to lose?”
    ————-
    This is what has everyone running for the exits, they have no idea how deep the prosecutions might go.

  17. Let’s hope The Donald firms up soon and gets on with it, because if he reneges on his promise to stymie the global warming hoaxers his credibility will be shot through.

    • Nigel Farage is a well known mental retarded. Do not commit yourself mentally with this guy by any means.

      • Not commited by this Nigel Farage – I have held similar views since I was an undergraduate.

        What is the use of windmills if they cant even boil a kettle when there is no wind?

        Cheers

        Roger

      • “Nigel Farage is a well known mental retarded.”

        And you are a well-known pig ignorant moron.

  18. I have written a lot on this topic on my blog site. One key item is about the Ivanka bump. The President listens with respect to his Democrat Daughter who is a friend of Al Gore and even invited him to Trump Tower to meet the President Elect in December. Here is one of the items I wrote, minus the pictures. If you are interested in more check out my blog.
    There is a major bump in our road to Correctionville, the town where we will correct the bad science about increased carbon dioxide upsetting the climate of Earth. Darn, darn, darn. This is a tough one. It is a huge bump we will call Bump Ivanka.

    Coming between and man and his daughter is a super tough event.  I am concerned this is where Fatherly love “Trumps” science.  Man, oh man, Boy of boy, OMG this is one huge bump.

    It seems that President’s Trump’s daughter (and her husband) pushed the nation’s Chief Executive to get rid of a reference to the global climate change accord known as the Paris agreement in an executive order he intends to sign.  The Wall Street Journal reports that Ivanka Trump talked President Donald Trump out of mentioning the deal in directives that take aim at his predecessor’s environmental regulations. Trump and hubby Jerad Kushner moved to Washington from their liberal home state of New York to be close to Ivanka’s father.  Kushner took a job at the White House as a senior advisor, and Ivanka has been attending her father’s business roundtables. She reportedly has been positioning herself as a bridge between her father’s conservative administration and liberal elites, who’s circles she still runs in. Ivanka wants climate change to be another issue in HER White House portfolio, a source close to her told the website Politico in early December.

    A couple of weeks after this election, she brought former Vice President Al Gore to Trump Tower to meet with her father. ‘It’s no secret that Ivanka Trump is very committed to having a climate policy that makes sense for our country and for our world,’ Gore told MSNBC after meeting with Ivanka and her father. ‘That was certainly evident in the conversation that I had with her before the conversation with the president-elect,’ Gore said. ‘I appreciate the fact that she’s very concerned about this.
    Previously President Trump has claimed that climate change is a hoax.

    Now Chief of Staff Reince Priebus has said that the president still believes that ‘most of it is a bunch of bunk. Trump campaigned against the 2015 Paris climate accord that was backed by the governments of 200 nations, including the Obama administration. Since winning the presidential election, though, he’s said he has an ‘open mind’ to it.  Clearly his daughter has reached Dad.

    Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested at his confirmation hearing last month that he doesn’t believe that the United States should immediately get out of it.
    ‘The president-elect, as part of his priority in campaigning, was “America First.” So there are important considerations as to when we commit to such accords,’ he said.
    Continuing, Tillerson also stated, that ‘it’s important for America to remain engaged in those discussions so we are at the table, expressing a view and understanding what the impacts may be on the American people and American competitiveness.’

    White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer declined to say at his press briefing Thursday if the president wants to pull out. ‘I think I will leave that to Secretary Tillerson. That’s a conversation that he’s having with him as far as where we are on that,’ Spicer said.
    The Trump administration is expected to amend the Environmental Protection Agency order that brings the United States into alignment with the agreement.
    The so-called carbon rule commits the US to a 32 percent cut in carbon emissions from 2005 emission levels by by 2030.  A Trump transition official whose expertise is in energy told reporters earlier this year, according to the Wall Street Journal, that Trump would withdraw from the deal for that reason.

    ‘How can you remain a member of the Paris treaty if your commitment isn’t even close to reaching it?’ Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said.
    But now when it was time for the President to take a formal act to end the totally unscientifically justified Carbon Credits silliness and step away from the contrived carbon dioxide is a pollutant that will ruin the climate of Earth distortion of scientific facts, it appears it will be Daughter over scientific logic that rules the day. This is no speed bump, no little bouncy moment on the road to Correctionville.  This is trouble.  I am sitting here in the back seat yelling

    “Help.”  

    • We should start an “Ivanka Get A Clue Campaign”

      Here, I’ll start:

      Dear Ivanka, wake up. You’re in a climate-alarmist dream state, NOT in reality. I know that fathers can be a pain in the ass, but this time Dad’s got it right, so maybe, just this once, try to see where he is coming from on this climate thing.

      • As far as I know, neither Ivanka or her husband Jared have ever made a public statement about their position on CAGW. Everything we read about them is actually someone’s opinion of what they said, and very few of those are first-hand accounts. And considering the source of the opinions, and their desire to undermine Trump’s credibility, you should take it all with a grain of salt.

        We’ll know soon enough which way it is going to go.

      • +1 See how well propaganda works? Repeat something/anything often and long enough and even the doubters have thoughts about their position. For all we know it was Gore approaching Ivanka to get to Trump.

      • “TA, Ivanka and Jared are irrelevant unless you believe that the founding fathers of our nation endorsed nepotism”

        I don’t have a problem with Trump consulting people he trusts. If you have someone available that is highly competent and trustworthy, you should take advantage of this good fortune, even if they are relatives.

        Jared and Ivanka are not getting any financial gain from their advice, and it is all out in the open, so I don’t see anything to complain about.

  19. Have you worrywarts been paying attention to what Trump’s been up to in the Middle East? Perhaps our president does not attach the same urgency to an agreement that’s not going anywhere as he does to the remarkable initiative unveiled in Saudi Arabia. To get a sense of just how big a deal this is, read the transcript of King Salman’s speech, to which President Trump’s speech was a response. But we’re supposed to treat this, and Little Kim’s truancy, as small potatoes compared to the Paris Agreement? I read this site at least once a day, and I have to say I’m surprised and somewhat saddened at the narrow and churlish comments that some of you have thrown out.

    • JackOkie,
      Agree! We need more work from the ‘worriers’ here, to directly and personally support President Trump, and less self destructive defeatism and hand wringing from them. Less than half a year into his presidency and some are declaring defeat! Give me a break!

  20. Trump is stringing the green mafia along.
    He has to be.
    If he doesn’t pull the pin on Paris he’ll have the pin pulled on him.
    He has much to do including the wall (the only hope for US sovereignty going forward).

  21. I’ve been crunching some numbers tonight, using the GHCN data from NOAA, and specifically the stations flagged as GSN. There are 968 of them, and I used the TMAX values for my analysis. I loaded these records into a mysql database, and ran this query to get the global average temperature for the period 1981-2010:

    select round(avg(temp),1) as avg_temp from max_temp where date >= ‘1981-01-01′ and date <= '2010-12-31' and temp -999.9;

    This returned a value of 16.5 C. I won’t worry about the error bars yet.

    While reading the NOAA pages on global anomalies, I ran across this statement, “Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions.”, which absolutely made me cringe. One can NOT make interpolations over data-sparse regions AND USE THEM AS DATA. Those are PREDICTIONS. They’re what one does when one has no data for an area, and would like to get an estimate for that location; so one projects along the slope, or the curve, of a line, and uses the values there as a best-guess. This works pretty well for a line or curve based on a known equation, but to guesstimate a spot in the middle of a million-square-kilometer wasteland? I think not.

    Anyway, I got my 1981-2010 global temperature average, calculated from 7,671,824 records from 968 stations across the globe, and sat down to do some cipherin’. Now, this might not be a Nobel-worthy observation, but as I started working though this I realized that getting this 30-year average and subtracting it from the annual average global temperature does absolutely nothing to change the shape of the plot; all it does is lower it on the Y-axis. If one has a 30-year global average temp of 16.5 C and subtracts that from annual averages of 17.0, 17.1, and 17.2, you still have the same line slope, it’s just 16.5 lower.

    I thought anomalies were used over absolute temperature averages because they showed something about the data that an absolute average wouldn’t — but when I plotted everything it was the same line on the graph, just 16.5 C lower. Somebody needs to explain to me what I did wrong calculating the anomaly from the 1981-2010 average.

    Anyway, here’s the results in a nutshell. Here’s the count of records for each year I ran numbers on (2000-2016):
    Year No. of records
    ——– ——————-
    2000 263897
    2001 262005
    2002 261781
    2003 265074
    2004 254095
    2005 238580
    2006 266984
    2007 267428
    2008 260273
    2009 271068
    2010 273145

    Here’s the averages, standard deviations, and variances in the mean (hello, Law of Large Numbers) for the TMAX values:
    YEAR GSN Mean std dev var in mean avg ann gsn temp 1981-2010 avg temp anomaly
    2000 16.7 16.8 0.03 16.7 +/- 0.03C 16.5 0.2
    2001 16.8 16.5 0.03 16.8 +/- 0.03C 16.5 0.3
    2002 16.8 16.0 0.03 16.8 +/- 0.03C 16.5 0.3
    2003 16.7 16.0 0.03 16.7 +/- 0.03C 16.5 0.2
    2004 16.2 16.4 0.03 16.2 +/- 0.03C 16.5 -0.3
    2005 15.1 16.7 0.03 15.1 +/- 0.03C 16.5 -1.4
    2006 16.1 16.6 0.03 16.1 +/- 0.03C 16.5 -0.4
    2007 16.3 16.6 0.03 16.3 +/- 0.03C 16.5 -0.2
    2008 16.1 16.6 0.03 16.1 +/- 0.03C 16.5 -0.4
    2009 16.2 16.9 0.03 16.2 +/- 0.03C 16.5 -0.3
    2010 16.5 16.8 0.03 16.5 +/- 0.03C 16.5 0.0
    2011 16.3 16.5 0.03 16.3 +/- 0.03C 16.5 -0.2
    2012 16.5 16.8 0.03 16.5 +/- 0.03C 16.5 0.0
    2013 16.1 16.7 0.03 16.1 +/- 0.03C 16.5 -0.4
    2014 17.8 15.9 0.03 17.8 +/- 0.03C 16.5 1.3
    2015 17.6 15.7 0.03 17.6 +/- 0.03C 16.5 1.1
    2016 17.3 16.0 0.04 17.3 +/- 0.04C 16.5 0.8

    And here’s the graph of the annual averages and the anomalies.

    If I’ve calculated the annual anomaly incorrectly, I’d appreciate having the correct method explained.

    All of the above is from using the TMAX records (since it’s a single, easily understood value for each day) and the actual station data only. No gridding, no interpolation, just the real data from 968 stations around the world that are supposed to be of higher quality than average. I did my best to apply proper statistical procedures regarding precision and significant figures. I’m no statistician, but I do have a geology degree, so I hope I’m not entirely working from ignorance here. Like the man says, if you disagree with something I’ve written, please quote the exact words so that we’ll all know to what you are referring. Thanks.

    • “If I’ve calculated the annual anomaly incorrectly, I’d appreciate having the correct method explained.”
      You certainly have. The essential thing about anomaly is that you calculate it for each location before averaging. The reason is that temperatures are inhomogeneous. You know that some places, in some months, are just going to be hot and some cold. And the result as you have done it mainly reflects the fraction you chose of each. And if you get an average a while later, you’ll have a different set of places, and the change will reflect that difference. Working with local anomalies fixes most of that.

      But also you still have to do area weighting. Otherwise your average will mainly reflect the US and other places with dense stations.

      As to interpolation, that is basic if you are calculating a global average. Otherwise you are just calculating an average of a bunch of stations. get a different bunch, you’ll get a different result. It’s only when you use a proper integration method, which involves interpolation, that you can hope to get a result that doesn’t depend on the stations you chose.

      • Thanks for the response, Nick. If one is calculating a global anomaly, why would one calculate a local anomaly first? I supposed the GSN-flagged stations were ones with better than average data and were an unchanging set, so that using them consistently would avoid the problem of constantly-changing stations. You’re not saying that one should use the station data to produce a local 1981-2010 baseline, then calculate an annual local anomaly from that, and then average all those anomalies across all 968 GSN statons to get the global anomaly, are you?

        Also, can you explain the justification for the made-up data from interpolation being used in the calculations? Whenever I read the NOAA FAQs regarding such matters, they merely state their position as an assertion with no support whatsoever. For example, the Sahara Desert piece up above. When I read something like “Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions,” I see that as hand-waving.

        If one has four stations around the edge of the Sahara, with hundreds of kilometers between them and hundreds of thousands of square kilometers unreported, how can an interpolation between stations be considered data that can be used? That’s like measuring the time it takes for a ball to drop five feet, then using that number to interpolate the time it took for the ball to fall each inch, and then using those times to claim one actually took those measurements while the ball was falling.

      • James,
        “If one has four stations around the edge of the Sahara, with hundreds of kilometers between them and hundreds of thousands of square kilometers unreported, how can an interpolation between stations be considered data that can be used?”
        It has to be used. The global average is the estimate for the whole globe. You have to use the best knowledge that you have of the Sahara. Otherwise you don’t have an estimate for the globe. And then you don’t have anything. Just a few special points. Of course, the poor coverage of the Sahara is a negative, which shows up in total error. But Sahara is only a few % of world.

        It isn’t just semantics. Think about a poll of US opinion on say, who to vote for Pres. Now you can ask around for a number of people – then you have the opinion of those people. But if you carefully design a sampling scheme, you can ask 1000 people and say that represents the opinion of the US. There are two tests of that:
        1. Do people who ask a different lot of people (other pollsters) get a similar result?
        2. Does it predict elections?
        Of course, people can point to failures and discrepancies, but the fact is that poll results are meaningful as an estimate for the whole US, even though they only ask 1000. They interpolate to the other 149,999,000 (my WAG) and it works.

        Taking individual anomalies is part of the process of proper temperature sampling. For historic data, unlike polling, we have very little choice about sampling. But we can take out stuff that would be hard to interpolate, and we don’t really want to know about. That is climatology – altitude, latitude etc, but expressed as historic normals. Then we are sampling something much more uniform, but which still has the change that we want to track.

        One other thing about interpolation – it doesn’t have to be always right, because it is only an intermediate in getting an average. So in your dropping ball example, all you want to know in the end is the time it took to drop. You could notionally do all those interpolations, and they might have errors, but when you add them up, you’ll still get the same total time.

      • …Otherwise you don’t have an estimate for the globe.

        Not knowing what he said, he said it.

        Actually, on many days, I think he really does know what he says, but refuses to admit it to himself.

      • Finally! Nick admits that the “Global Average Temperature” that is constantly thrown about, is just an ESTIMATE, and as such does not have the certainty that is often associated with it. Now if he will only admit that the variance is really just a guess and could be much worse that currently stated. But in reality I don’t expect him to do that. In fact, I predict he will walk back this current admission.

      • I can’t remember which troll it was who declared that the reason they use bad data, is because it’s the only data they have.

        In real science, if you lack data, then you go out and get data.
        If the data is impossible to get, then you find something else to do with your time.

        Attempting to fix bad data just makes it bad data with a higher uncertainty factor.

      • All Nick is doing is fooling himself. We don’t have surface data for the globe. Nick thinks that making up data solves that problem. No, it doesn’t and it never will. Of course, the problem is then you would have to admit you really don’t have a global data set. That would destroy the myth that the surface data has much value.

        While you need to understand the geographical problems, making up data doesn’t solve them. A better approach would be to grid the data we have and then randomly sample multiple times from those grids. That is a better method than making up data.

      • “Attempting to fix bad data just makes it bad data with a higher uncertainty factor.”

        Purposely using bad data is malfeasance.

      • No, we don’t really need a global average temperature. What we NEED is to know if it’s warming. If we can’t determine that from nearly a thousand stations, then it’s an exercise in self-delusion. At the very least, one can admit that accuracy to thousandth of a degree is impossible to achieve from measurements in tenths of a degree.

      • It has to be used. The global average is the estimate for the whole globe. You have to use the best knowledge that you have of the Sahara. Otherwise you don’t have an estimate for the globe. And then you don’t have anything. Just a few special points. Of course, the poor coverage of the Sahara is a negative, which shows up in total error. But Sahara is only a few % of world.

        To expand on my previous brief statement that “we don’t NEED a global average temperature,” If we look at the idea from a purely scientific perspective, we might start by asking “I wonder what the Earth’s average temperature is?”, purely from a state of inquiry. One of the first caveats that might come to mind is “How do we determine a time frame to establish this average?”, because it’s obvious that the average global temperure is in a constant state of flux. The Earth is rotating and constantly showing a different face to the Sun — who knows by how much that average temperature might change at every instant, if we had some way of knowing exactly what it was for every instant. Any effort on our part to determine an average is going to be like trying to pin a butterfly to a wall by throwing a dart at it from 50 feet away.

        So we start by looking at the data we have: thousands of weather stations around the world. Some are better quality than other; they’re thinly spread in some parts of the world, and heavily clustered in others. There are none to speak of across the 75% of the globe that’s ocean, and very few at the poles and in the large deserts of the world. Still, there is SOME data, so we have to figure out how to use it.

        The spread of stations is too uneven to pretend to be able to get any kind of a global average temperature — but we can certainly determine a local average annual temperature, especially if we use once-a-day events like TMAX or TMIN. It doesn’t matter what time of day they occur, they’re the extremes of the day.

        The other option is to take the temperature at a given time every day — say at local noon or local midnight — and determine the movement of temperature around those specific times. The altitude doesn’t matter, the humidity doesn’t matter; the only thing that matters is what was the temperature at that place at that time, or alternatively, what were the max and min temps for the day, regardless of when they occurred.

        Now we’ve got real, solid, data. We can’t get a global average temperature from it, but we can see what’s happening at thousands of locations around the world.

        It isn’t just semantics. Think about a poll of US opinion on say, who to vote for Pres. Now you can ask around for a number of people – then you have the opinion of those people. But if you carefully design a sampling scheme, you can ask 1000 people and say that represents the opinion of the US. There are two tests of that:
        1. Do people who ask a different lot of people (other pollsters) get a similar result?
        2. Does it predict elections?
        Of course, people can point to failures and discrepancies, but the fact is that poll results are meaningful as an estimate for the whole US, even though they only ask 1000. They interpolate to the other 149,999,000 (my WAG) and it works.

        Those polls have an error of +3/-4 percent, too. In a global average temperature of 16.0 C, that would be +0.48C /-0.64C — an entire 1.12 C worth of error. How does one square that with reporting an anomaly to three decimal places?

        One also can’t take those polling results and drive out to Ottumwa, IO, find Ted Undecided, and predict which candidate he’ll be voting for, and then use that prediction as another sample of the population to improve the accuracy of the poll. — which is exactly what is being done by interpolating temperatures between Tripoli and Algiers for Ben Guecha, and then using that temp for Ben Guecha as a reporting station for global temperature data. It’s hoisting itself by its own bootstraps, and that’s not allowed.

        Taking individual anomalies is part of the process of proper temperature sampling. For historic data, unlike polling, we have very little choice about sampling. But we can take out stuff that would be hard to interpolate, and we don’t really want to know about. That is climatology – altitude, latitude etc, but expressed as historic normals. Then we are sampling something much more uniform, but which still has the change that we want to track.

        One other thing about interpolation – it doesn’t have to be always right, because it is only an intermediate in getting an average. So in your dropping ball example, all you want to know in the end is the time it took to drop. You could notionally do all those interpolations, and they might have errors, but when you add them up, you’ll still get the same total time.
        But one can’t take all those interpolated values and count them as actual polling samples to decrease the error in the measurement. Besides, the rate of a falling body is part of the Law of Gravitation, which NASA uses to launch spacecraft and hit a dinner plate at the orbit of Pluto. Guessing the temperature of El Oued based on temperatures taken 400 kilometers away doesn’t have near the predictive ability as Newton’s Laws.

      • It has to be used. The global average is the estimate for the whole globe. You have to use the best knowledge that you have of the Sahara. Otherwise you don’t have an estimate for the globe. And then you don’t have anything. Just a few special points. Of course, the poor coverage of the Sahara is a negative, which shows up in total error. But Sahara is only a few % of world.

        To expand on my previous brief statement that “we don’t NEED a global average temperature,” If we look at the idea from a purely scientific perspective, we might start by asking “I wonder what the Earth’s average temperature is?”, purely from a state of inquiry. One of the first caveats that might come to mind is “How do we determine a time frame to establish this average?”, because it’s obvious that the average global temperure is in a constant state of flux. The Earth is rotating and constantly showing a different face to the Sun — who knows by how much that average temperature might change at every instant, if we had some way of knowing exactly what it was for every instant. Any effort on our part to determine an average is going to be like trying to pin a butterfly to a wall by throwing a dart at it from 50 feet away.

        So we start by looking at the data we have: thousands of weather stations around the world. Some are better quality than other; they’re thinly spread in some parts of the world, and heavily clustered in others. There are none to speak of across the 75% of the globe that’s ocean, and very few at the poles and in the large deserts of the world. Still, there is SOME data, so we have to figure out how to use it.

        The spread of stations is too uneven to pretend to be able to get any kind of a global average temperature — but we can certainly determine a local average annual temperature, especially if we use once-a-day events like TMAX or TMIN. It doesn’t matter what time of day they occur, they’re the extremes of the day.

        The other option is to take the temperature at a given time every day — say at local noon or local midnight — and determine the movement of temperature around those specific times. The altitude doesn’t matter, the humidity doesn’t matter; the only thing that matters is what was the temperature at that place at that time, or alternatively, what were the max and min temps for the day, regardless of when they occurred.

        Now we’ve got real, solid, data. We can’t get a global average temperature from it, but we can see what’s happening at thousands of locations around the world.

        It isn’t just semantics. Think about a poll of US opinion on say, who to vote for Pres. Now you can ask around for a number of people – then you have the opinion of those people. But if you carefully design a sampling scheme, you can ask 1000 people and say that represents the opinion of the US. There are two tests of that:
        1. Do people who ask a different lot of people (other pollsters) get a similar result?
        2. Does it predict elections?
        Of course, people can point to failures and discrepancies, but the fact is that poll results are meaningful as an estimate for the whole US, even though they only ask 1000. They interpolate to the other 149,999,000 (my WAG) and it works.

        Those polls have an error of +3/-4 percent, too. In a global average temperature of 16.0 C, that would be +0.48C /-0.64C — an entire 1.12 C worth of error. How does one square that with reporting an anomaly to three decimal places?

        One also can’t take those polling results and drive out to Ottomwa, IO, find Ted Undecided, and predict which candidate he’ll be voting for, and then use that prediction as another sample of the population to improve the accuracy of the poll. — which is exactly what is being done by interpolating temperatures between Tripoli and Algiers for Ben Guecha, and then using that temp for Ben Guecha as a reporting station for global temperature data. It’s hoisting itself by its own bootstraps, and that’s not allowed.

        Taking individual anomalies is part of the process of proper temperature sampling. For historic data, unlike polling, we have very little choice about sampling. But we can take out stuff that would be hard to interpolate, and we don’t really want to know about. That is climatology – altitude, latitude etc, but expressed as historic normals. Then we are sampling something much more uniform, but which still has the change that we want to track.

        One other thing about interpolation – it doesn’t have to be always right, because it is only an intermediate in getting an average. So in your dropping ball example, all you want to know in the end is the time it took to drop. You could notionally do all those interpolations, and they might have errors, but when you add them up, you’ll still get the same total time.

        But one can’t take all those interpolated values and count them as actual polling samples to decrease the error in the measurement. Besides, the rate of a falling body is part of the Law of Gravitation, which NASA uses to launch spacecraft and hit a dinner plate at the orbit of Pluto. Guessing the temperature of El Oued based on temperatures taken 400 kilometers away doesn’t have near the predictive ability as Newton’s Laws.

  22. Essentially daring Trump, or suggesting he’s not made of the right stuff seems an odd strategy for UN-American Activists. Maybe, they think its better than praying the guillotine won’t fall. Trump supporters are impatient, but the pressure is enormous on the neomarxbrothers whose march is in marking time mode. Patience is not their long suit either.

    There is a bit of fun having these once feared but now frightened dears fidgeting and worrying, their very existence depending on the stroke of a pen of someone they formerly laughed at. I’d string ’email along myself for a while. It shrinks them down to their real student parliament size.

    • The President pandered to the ethanol scam that crushed Cruz in Iowa. There are 100k employed on worthless (if not very harmful) wind cronyism and three times that on pathetic solar make work. The green bubble is over a trillion in the public market with a ton of funny money debt proliferated.

      There’s no way the “jobs President” arrives with a pin to pop this bubble. Go look at the Tesla stock chart tells you how the “fear” level of climate reform follow through actually is or the $7500 per fed “climate subside” stands;

      http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/stock-chart

      Greenshirt/Climate euphoria.

      It looks like America has a malinvestment suicide impulse over “green”. It will blow up and the political forces being what they are must only make it much worse. It’s what they do.
      The entire green sector is based on socialist subside concepts. In the past 20 years they’ve LOST energy market share to carbon.

      I suspect less then 10% of the President’s base will turn on this “read my lips” level of betrayal. That would be politically fatal perhaps. I’m expecting some murky double talk policy to appease the base but nothing to seriously harm the Greenshirt establishment. Will he gain a single “moderate” vote as if these unicorns actually exist?? As close to zero chance in the world. Meanwhile all the political pain will be in his base.

      I could stand a slow withdrawal from the social/economic heroin of on the ground stupid green subsidies. What I can’t stand if having them socially and intellectually affirmed long term which is where this disease begins and ends.

      The President has flirted with failure all year on the issue.

  23. I’ve been concerned since the Tillerson confirmation waffling over Paris. That said the sad state of skeptics as a political force has been amply displayed as well.

    More broadly climate politics remains a small stage back issue for most

  24. ‘I do believe there is a better than even chance that (Trump) will surprise many by keeping the US in the Paris Agreement, I don’t know that he will but there’s a chance he will,’ Gore said

    Sounds awfully like a climate prediction to me.

  25. Sell out on this and Trump will reveal himself to be no better than the rest: saying one thing to get elected then ditching that promise once in office. Don’t ask for my support again from this side of the pond Mr Trump because you won’t get it.

    One final point: his opponents already hate him and won’t ever vote for him. What’s the point to alienating those who DID vote for or support him? There’s absolutely NO gain here for president Trump. Would be a massive own goal.

  26. “President Trump…Tear up the Paris Agreement…What have you got to lose?”
    Rex Tillerson. Hopefully he’ll get the message and walk before signing any more documents committing the U.S. to more climate piffle. There are plenty of rational SoS types in the pond.

  27. The swamp is at this point winning. And the swamp will come for skeptics if they do win. Every satirical and angry post pointing out the alarmist lies, misrepresentations and failed prediction exists on the internet. And the swamp is not going to forget.

    • The swamp is much bigger than Trump, and more powerful, too. Trump is only the president. The swamp isn’t left or right; in fact, it’s probably more right than left, although many think it’s leftist. Neat trick, eh? That’s how the swamp works: through deception. See “The Devil’s Chessboard.”

      • The climate swamp has many ironies. For example dependent young academics claiming science and intellectual authority marching carrying “Death to Exxon” signage when in fact Exxon has completely cooped climate policy (all green in fact) to their benefit. The sign holder increases Exxon revenues up to this point as well as the foreseeable future. The well educated sign holder and his culture group seem obtuse to benefits they help Exxon achieve. Their imagined motives discount the contradictions. If you really wanted a smaller Exxon you support a LOWER carbon price and free markets not a conflicting regulatory and carteled energy system.

        It seems completely transparent in correlations but they are never pointed out in MSM or MSA (Main Steam Academia). It’s a really bad sign for Western civilization when basic logic is thrown under the bus for crony existence and political passions. The rise of climate policy is the weaponization of another elite that looks very much like global Utopian Marxism of the early 20th century which also found plenty of establishment supports to push it along the road.

        The term “swamp” was first directed at permanent lobbyists in DC but now has expanded to all conflicted interest groups. It’s a much deeper item and set of realities then many realized. “Swamp” is a catch all perjorative relatively and recently popularized as has “fake news”. So much so it losses its meaning on the one hand but in another demonstrates our mass dysfunction and divide. Paris isn’t just a worthless piece of paper as many claim it’s a blueprint of the NWO and the single government world order of the scale of the fiat monetary system. As we’re watching developing countries around the world banning cash transactions or holding cash to force the banking system on them then consider the 50-100 year impact of where the deliberate whimppy looking Paris agreement is designed to go. Orwell had it right about intentions in politics. 1+1= what in the post normal climate authority world?

        The mistake of skeptics was apathy and depoliticized arguments that can’t work in the world that has evolved. Trump has limited political reasons to commit to skeptics and while it flatters no one that’s the road we are on. Certainly the Greenshirts will survive the Trump years and may be even stronger by the half measures taken against them.

      • I haven’t read everything about that Devil, but from what I have read, he sounds pretty leftist. He worked with the Nazis, and is described as a fascist, and everything he did was about power and control, and secrecy. The left (communists and socialists) want power and control over everything, and they are working towards this goal in the shadows; see “None Dare Call it Conspiracy”. Right-wingers are generally against government over-control, and in favour of morals and well-established rules that everyone competes fairly under, so Dulles would have a hard time selling himself as a right-winger, in my book at least.

  28. The implication in the media us that Flynn is going to reveal that there really is something to the media frenzy on Russia. If this is the case bringing desperately needed reform to big science and especially climate science will be over. This could turn out very badly very quickly.

    • The media have been full of implications for months, but nothing has come of them. They need to call some right, or Soros will pull their funding.

    • Implication = innuendo

      As with the mythical Trump Russian “security breach ” that Obama specialized in 10x greater I would consider the source that has invented an entire “Russian” coded language to undermine the election result.

      If you can win control of words like “collusion” then Trump becomes a “Traitor” for having lunch in the Russian Tea Room with the family in the 80’s. All the false shock about back channels to Russia are preposterous from the onset.

      If all you have is hammer then everything is a nail. It’s been effective as a tool to “investigate” which means anything they want as opposition and the richer targets of tax returns are the short term goal.

      • What the he**! Sorry for this because it sounds so cattishly female, but the clothes those women are wearing are FUGLY!

      • “What the he**! Sorry for this because it sounds so cattishly female, but the clothes those women are wearing are FUGLY!”

        Yes, but that was the Vatican dress code for women until recently changed by the poser on the right. For some reason they went with it. Melania is Catholic and maybe she doesn’t like this guy.

      • Ivanka the very embodiment of Hester Prynne. She paid attention in finishing school. The other three display extreme discomfort.

  29. I can forgive him for not achieving things which were never politically possible in the first place: E.g. there is NO simple solution for funding the health-care solutions that everybody might want. But there are are some things that just require his signature and the decision making ability of Vladimir Harkonnen. Haters gone hate, anyway, whatever else they may be threatening behind the scenes. The greenalists are not people you can do business with, Donald.

    Hell, anyone could just be ‘not Hilary’ or ‘not Obama’. I will judge him on this issue.

  30. Climate change policy should be based on the mitigation needs of the US. Period. Mitigation should consider and prepare for all the vagaries of climate disaster that impedes gross national productivity, transportation, energy production, clean water and air, infrastructure and national defense. Being concerned about essential CO2 is a ridiculous focus. Simply tearing up the Paris agreement is low hanging fruit.

  31. Dumping Trump is exactly what the Progressives want. They wanted it with the last election. They have two to four years to turn your “I love Trump” to “Never Trump” and run in their candidate, thus giving you everything you wanted—no Trump and catastrophic government. Comment sections lead me to believe there are enough gullible, impatient Trump voters (NOT supporters, that’s different) that will follow this road to perdition come 2018 or 2020.

    • Sheri,

      He ran on a Paris exit claim. There is no exit and you have Tillerson at SOS who clearly doesn’t want to exit. The whole NY money faction wants the scam as well.

      It’s this type of deal making that destroys your political base. I know we are a minority inside the Trump base, the issue of climate just isn’t scaled on the GOP side especially while the entire academic media left are dedicated fanatics. If Trump followed through and hard there would be suicides and violence over the policy direction on the left.
      \
      It’s healthy Trump should know if he weasels on Paris he’s a dead-man-walking come 2020. It really is worse then “read-my-lips”. Paris is 100 trillion iron boot on the face for all humanity and those babbling about lack of “enforcement” seemed to have missed the point of the entire academic climate/greenshirt movement of the past 60 years. It’s the heart of political correctness in the world today.

      Instead of defining between voters and supporters you should call the WhiteHouse today and complain about the pandering incompetence and betrayal a no hard Paris exit would mean;

      https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

      I think calling is better then just writing, it takes a little more time investment. All the whining skeptics who actually mean it should make a few calls and letters to the White House. One problem is many skeptics are in fact politically clueless about how the issue gets decided or what the actual road climate represents at all.

      From the Trump tragic view; People hate the media and they would naturally despise the media climate totalitarian world view. All it would take is an aggressive anti-fraud policy approach and millions more would join in if they thought they could win. More then anything people hate being on the losing side with waffling leadership. It’s why I’ve come to dislike most skeptics who might coincidentally share a similar climate position, skeptics lose because they cling to outdated trivial scaling of the climate policy stakes. They are like the modern White Russians surrounding the Reds in 17′ Moscow more likely to shoot each other then win the conflict. Hanging on to make some “deal” with people who want to totally destroy you and in fact did.

      Paris has to die right now. It isn’t even enough the entire UN climate protocol should be eliminated. Killing Paris, defeating the backlash would still be a huge win for humanity and for Trump himself. If Trump isn’t up to the task then he has to be replaced.

      • “..through and hard…”

        Yes.

        Through and hard
        and hard and through
        will only see off the enviro-crew

        Their skins are green
        but their hearts are red
        and they went to sea in a shed

        in a shed they went to sea

  32. Well, he was elected to fight the climate-alarmism juggernaut waste-of-money, so he should keep fighting no matter what.

    • Trump should keep fighting at any level but note;

      It’s so much more then “money” but that is another reason skeptics lose all the time. It’s why Trump hasn’t garnered support in larger numbers on climate reform. He’s playing small ball all the time on climate. The public is more than happy to throw money at causes even if they are based on ignorance, emotions, appeasing or confusion. Fear and desperation of alarmism looks foolish to the informed but it’s been a winning ticket for decades of green authoritarians and the media sales people.

      Climate policy is an existential threat to freedom and that’s the level skeptics have to reach if they expect to win. Why fight if you adopt a doomed tactic? Just focusing on money and “cost” is only part of the argument. Your children being subjected to endless leftist propaganda in schools at any level and forced to eat academic communism under the PC programming system is worse than the money wasted. We already have a Millennial generation that more so then not has lost basic critical thinking skills under green educational doctrine. Tyranny is worse than the money wasted but they are directly related.

      Don’t forget all the crony quick bucks being made either, the fraudsters have a money case all their own. It’s corrupt but that is how it works. The Paris price tag appeals to the under employed, government funded Millennial since they assume a potential share and it meshes with their other economic political fantasies. Good luck explaining their job is based on crony malinvestment. Some might realize the political corruption of climate policy to convert but only if it’s the central argument that main stream skeptics seldom make primary. Truthfully, telling them they are on the side of evil is what is going to win the debate and explaining why that is. You’re already an assumed a Holocaust Denier so you shouldn’t feel bashful about elevating your dissenting points.

      “Money” has sadly reached critical mass in favor of alarmism even if it’s a long-term destructive economic blunder. It’s a massive wealth distribution policy and the beneficiaries will cling to their imagined nobility regardless of all facts to the contrary. New skepticism should be proportional to the extremism that Greenshirt climate activism represents. Spaghetti charts and classical science? Cost analysis? Much less effective.

    • Very few voters had the climate alarmism hoax in mind when choosing trump. Very, very few.

      • You are wrong. Furthermore, he was elected as a man of action, who would get things done, not waffle and kowtow. He needs to show who he is now, a waffler or a doer.

      • He won by a few hundred thousand votes in key states, some of those directly impacted by EPA excess on climate. Elections often come down too a “few” on particular issues.
        Climate fraud reform matters to some of the base, enough I would say as to not to be described as a “few”. Immigration dwarfs climate but how many can Trump lose on a Paris betrayal? The other point is that climate is more intellectual, abstract and specific. Surrendering to the establishment would carry a specific political cost at the higher end of the conservative dissenting class who understand the core politics of climate fraud. Many held their nose but this issue won them over or at least got them to the polls.
        It’s true there isn’t a hard core GOP base of skeptic since there isn’t anything to analogous to the motivations of leftists and climate crony’s to be gained. Not wanting your money filtered through taxes should be enough but it’s a relatively cottage industry political topic. Sadly, many here who might know more then most greatly understate the Paris implications. Same arguments were made about the IPCC formation or even the UN creation. Both disasters for America as would Paris also be.

      • cwon14,

        You made my case, thanks. A few hundred thousand are indeed “very, very few” of the many 63 million who voted for Trump. Furthermore, “some of those directly impacted by EPA excess on climate” were votes for coal, coal jobs, and manufacturing jobs in general, not a statement against the CAGW hoax per se. Prove it to yourself: Ask those voters what “CAGW” stands for, or what “IPPC” stands for, and perhaps a few hundred will know. Ask how many of them have ever visited this web site. Those revealing Jesse Watters man-in-the-street interviews cut both ways, there’s plenty of ignorance on both sides of the political divide. I’m grateful for those Trump voters in those swing states, but let’s not dress them up as anti-climate change warriors.

      • brians356,

        Many issues are in constant debate but in small audiences until a populist legislative motive arrives. For example the capital gains tax, non-stop argument since the 1930’s. Estate taxes are another. It isn’t that the topics don’t have an economic or cultural impact. When the issue becomes “hot” more people will weigh in and have an interest. We’ve seen oscillation on the climate debate as well. Often the debate becomes less informed as it expands but that doesn’t mean the worst outcome is assured. We certainly saw that with cap and trade for example. Once the mendacity of the tax portion was revealed the plan went DOA. Does that most grasped the entirety of climate fraud motives?

        Climate was definitely a plus for the Trump base, I never argued it was huge in mass and I’m sure after 8 years of green idolatry under Obama some of it was just backlash as the population becomes more aware of the socialist/totalitarian underpinnings that become apparent as a policy design is introduced. I do think there was a significant under served anti-authoritarian voting block that Donald Trump tied into. At the same time I’m sure the Greenshirt base was even more agitated on the issue as the recent too little too late science march indicates. As Dr. Lindzen points out most of the academic elite are solidly pro-statist alarmists and I’m sure many know exactly how bogus and contrived the actual science argument is. They are basically corrupted by rent-seeking and political ideology cultures in large swathes. Climate is a means to a larger state end, similar to the everyday cry of “Russians” in the same media messaging system since the election except it has been evolving for 60 years or more on being “green” as a political mantra. The neutral layman is the core of the skeptical base at a number of levels with only a skeleton of skeptical experts left as technical support. It’s still wrong to label these parties as “few”. I’d argue climate pushed Trump over the top as a base motivator. IF THE SKEPTICAL BASE IS SO SMALL WHAT EXACTLY STOPPED MASSIVE GLOBALIST CLIMATE POLICY UP TO NOW? It’s not they haven’t shoveling it out since the 60’s in one form or another.

        The sadder part is what would have happened if a principled, consistent anti-ethanol position was added in, what would those results have looked like? Nothing is pure in politics is a fair conclusion.

  33. DailyCaller is reported yesterday that the proposed Trump budget eliminates funding for climate alarmism and green energy promotion:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/23/trumps-budget-eliminates-funding-for-un-global-warming-programs/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=thedcenergy.

    ‘…..The Trump administration has proposed eliminating nearly $1.6 billion in international programs aimed at promoting green energy and fighting global warming.

    That includes providing no funding to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund (GCF), which hands out money for programs to adapt or mitigate global warming.

    The White House said this proposal is in line with President Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to “cease payments to the United Nations’ climate change programs.” The budget “fulfills that pledge,” according to budget documents………………’

    I say bring it on.

    • OMB has been a bright spot. It’s the NY money crowd and Tillerson that are a hazard.

      Like to see DeVos take a hard line of climate propaganda in public schools. Very quite on that front as she’s tied up on Choice politics.

      Trump should come down very hard on the climate religious left in academia and education. The optics would be very good for him. Aside from the media they are another group vast numbers of Americans are sick to death of.

  34. Disagree with this post. Trump wanted more consensus than forged to date. Tillerson’s argumentnis better to have a seat at the table than not. Trump will use the G7 to personally decide whether that is correct. My guess is he will come back and kill Paris. His proposed 2018 budget already zeroed 1.5 billion in international climate funds.compared to Obama 2017. An indicator.

    • Yes. Trump is getting considerable pushback on the Paris Agreement – from Tillerson as well as Ivanka and Jared. Tearing up the deal will win him God-awful press and international isolation. Ignoring the deal but remaining within the mechanism won’t hurt him much.

      • You can’t rail against anti-American “globalism” and even tolerate a wiff of the Paris outline.

        The Tillerson Exxon appeasement and double talk strategy isn’t a suitable national policy.

  35. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:22 PM Watts Up With That? wrote:

    > Eric Worrall posted: ” Guest essay by Eric Worrall Trump supporter Myron > Ebell, former vice-president Al Gore and UN Deputy Secretary General Amina > Mohammed all have one thing in common – they have all just independently > suggested that President Trump’s campaign climate agen” >

  36. With 17 Trillion in market cap backing Paris you would think the arm chair communist crowd at least wonder aloud about what is going on and where their principals are sleeping with;

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-24/president-trump-arrives-at-vatican-for-meeting-with-pope

    Then again they aren’t a curious lot as a rule. Climate “policy” is as curious sausage making contest if there ever was one. If everyone thinks their face ends up on the back of a coin anything is possible. Where are those hippie G-8 protesters whining about globalism on this issue? Having protests and riots? Right in their pockets naturally! Against the system? They are the system!

    Gold standard arguments are the only modern analogy I can think of. They all hate “bankers” who are basically enabled by government but they always want more redistribution and could never live otherwise. It’s only possible WITH GOVERNMENT BACKED BANKING who they love to hate. The hypocrisy couldn’t be more clear, they protest the forces they demand must exist in the first place. How about we abolish climate policy and take money policy private as well at the same time? It would end the delusions of the forever disappointed leftist collective once and for all. I include all the business interest cronies who can’t imagine a world without financial inflation or fake climate fears (Paris for example) to exploit for the remainder of the century.

  37. The great thing about the Paris Pledge is that it will define the true Trump .
    Keep the promise and he still has a chance . Bail on the promise as it appears he is doing and
    he will be back to real-estate and beauty pageants in no time at all .
    The closet liberals inside the white House will take him down .

    • Actually it will be the neocons that do in Trump. People are sick and tired of wars in the middle east and he is slowly but surely giving in to the neocon agenda. Most people don’t care about CO2 one way or the other.

  38. Trump sure drained that swamp in Saudi Arabia this week. Drained the one in Israel too.

  39. You can buy your Trump flip-flops here:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+flip+flops&oq=trump+flip&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.4835j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=trump+flip+flops&tbm=shop

    The president is just a puppet. No way Donald would have been allowed anywhere near the White House if he wasn’t on board with the program. All the programs. Endless war to control the resources of the middle east being the most important and expensive. The lies Trump told make Hillary look downright honest….well, not really. I suggest the only recent politician who ran for president who told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is Ron Paul. And that’s why Ron was portrayed as a whack-job by the media.

  40. Key figures in the Trump Administration are confused about what “science” is. Thus they are ill-equipped to attack the argument of the opponents of the Trump Administration’s policy on global warming at its position maximum vulnerability. The vulnerability is that the “science” of the opponents is pseudoscientific. Trump administration officials are unaware of the difference between a “science” and a “pseudoscience.”

    • the difference between a “science” and a “pseudoscience.”
      ===============
      “pseudoscience” looks for positive examples, such as arctic ice melting as proof of climate change.
      “science” looks at negative examples, such as antarctic ice growing as proof of the null hypothesis.

      the problem is that you can ALWAYS find examples showing the climate is changing, simply by chance. that doesn’t mean that it is. science tells us that it is the examples that show climate is not changing that are important. if you cannot find any of these, then climate is indeed changing.

      the problem is that there are a great many examples showing that any change there might be is so small that it is insignificant as compared to the daily change that occurs when the sun rises and sets. and equally insignificant as compared to the change the occurs between winter and summer. thus there is no “signature” scientists can point to that definitively shows climate change beyond what might occur due to chance.

      as such, climate science has been reduced to proof by pseudoscience, rather than proving the null hypothesis to be wrong. the IPCC is chock full of positive examples that do not prove science, they prove via pseudoscience in support of politics.

    • trump won the counties marked in red below. hillary the ones marked in blue. there are a whole lot of people in rural america that think the system is broken, that the traditional politicians don’t represent their interests, and feel disrespected that press and entertainment industry continually try and tell them how to think. as if the entertainment industry should lecture anyone on morality.

  41. I would submit that President Trump has
    already won for the United States. Abolished
    BO’s Coal Killing Executive Orders. Keystone.
    Offshore drilling…on and on…

  42. If trump focused on the enormous business opportunities of the change to renewable energy, then hed be a support it.

    The previous Prime Minister of Australia tried to wreck progress and innovation. And all he achieved was increase the cost of energy to everyone, by destroying confidence of investors.
    Fortunately things are shifting towards renewable energy again now because it is cheaper than coal, gas and nuclear.

    The question is – why wouldn’t we want to avoid the risk of climate change?

    • “Ian May 24, 2017 at 10:12 pm

      Fortunately things are shifting towards renewable energy again now because it is cheaper than coal, gas and nuclear.”

      Which is why Australia is going down the economic pan. Renewables are becoming cost competitive BECAUSE of subsidies. Nuclear? Sheesh man, this *IS* Australia.

      When a politician talks of “renweables” and “energy security” they are talking rubbish!

  43. Trump Slashes Climate Funds

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/msar.pdf

    Trump said in November 2016 “We’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars. We don’t even know who’s doing what with the money.” Trump promised to cancel UN global warming payments while on the campaign trail. Trump’s budget makes good on that promise, and Congress is likely to agree.

    The Trump administration has proposed eliminating nearly $1.6 billion in international programs aimed at promoting green energy and ‘fighting global warming.’ There will be no funding to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund (GCF), which hands out money for programs to adapt or mitigate global warming. The White House said this proposal is in line with President Trump’s campaign pledge to “cease payments to the United Nations’ climate change programs.” The budget “fulfills that pledge,” according to budget documents.

    The budget has withdrawn funding for the Clean Technology Fund and the Strategic Climate Fund for a savings of $239m. It would also stop funding the Global Climate Change Initiative – saving $362m.

  44. Trump has done very poorly in all his promises. It was too good to be true, came out to be just your usual politician but this time it’s even worse.

    • Really.
      Trump has:

      Canceled TPP
      Approved Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines
      Got the release of aid worker Aya Hijazi held in Egypt almost 3 years
      Protecting our borders
      Enforcing immigration laws.
      Illegal immigration down 70+%
      Deported hundreds of MS-13 illegals
      Arrests of illegals up 38% 2016 (75% have criminal records)
      Arrests of CRIMINAL illegals up 156% from 2016
      Deported 2 waves of illegal Somalis
      Massive tax cut and simplification bill underway
      Established VOICE to help victims of crime by illegals
      Warned bloated bureaucracy to prepare for cuts of 20% and greater.
      Returning land seized by Obama to state and rightful owners
      Removed global warming nonsense from EPA website
      Solicited designs and bids for wall.
      Appropriated funds to build winning designs near San Diego to test
      Appropriated funds to repair border fence and build new sections
      Deployed border guards and will hire 5,000 more
      Increased defense spending and BROKE parity rule
      Stymied dimocrites party of ‘no’ by changing filibuster rule
      Got China working to reign in North Korea
      Market up $3 trillion in value since his election
      Commitments from Canada & Mexico to renegotiate NAFTA (although congress hasn’t accepted letter allowing negotiations to start)
      Originalist supreme court justice
      Forming coalition in mid east to control ISIS and Iran
      Bringing back 1000s of jobs – each month jobs exceed analyst expectations
      Reduced deficit by $100 billion (Obama increased by $600 billion in same time)
      Eliminated Obamacare mandate
      Passed legislation through the House to repeal/replace Obamacare
      Ordered IRS to side with taxpayer & against government
      Gutted Obama regulations
      Established organization to verify voter rolls – including matching with DHS Alien lists
      Ended war on coal
      Negotiated initial trade deal with China favorable to US including export of LNG & coal to China
      Fighting back against sanctuary cities
      Drafted plan to defeat ISIS
      Isolated Russia in UN over Syria vote
      Signed 2 executive orders to protect us from terrorists (both halted by left wing judges)
      Fired Comey
      5-Year lobbying ban
      Established group to examine and ensure US gov’t cybersecurity (gov’t computers massively hacked under Obama with no consequence)
      Sanctioned Iran over missile program
      Responded to Syria’s use of Chemical weapons
      Created task force to reduce crime
      Signed executive order to protect police officers
      Signed executive order to target drug cartels
      Imposed anti dumping sanctions on Canada

      You’re a bit stupid, aren’t you?

  45. Trump just delivered one heck of a good speech at NATO! Classic Trump! He pulled no punches and showed what a leader looks like.

Comments are closed.