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.
…
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.
…
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?
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!
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).
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.
http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr340/jaschrumpf/gsn_global_mean_and_anomaly.png
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.
Yeah, it works nick, just ask President Hillary Clinton.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
dang anti-American spell checkers: string’em along..
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.
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
‘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.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
That’s the same thing 🙂
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.
*popcorn*
“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.
Paris agreement for time being is just a peace of paper …
Drilling for oil in the Arctic is the ‘line in the ice’ …
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.
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.
President Trump just met the pope in the Vatican
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40023725
BBC tv said that the pope has conveyed his climate change views to the President.
(entertainment in progress)
the first daughter Ivanka is there too
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2017/05/24/TELEMMGLPICT000129795026-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq2GBvoi56f_mjvGr7nbM6SlstQxipA0zo9OfNnzPwo1k.jpeg
Our Pope looks like his dog died this morning. The Trump’s look dressed for the funeral!
What the he**! Sorry for this because it sounds so cattishly female, but the clothes those women are wearing are FUGLY!
The pope doesn’t look too cheerful either.
“Solemnity and the Mischievous Grin” – credit : Vatican’s art archives
“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.
Recently our Camilla wore a fetching and matching attire
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/05/24/16/40BEC7CE00000578-4536468-The_Duchess_of_Cornwall_also_broke_with_tradition_when_she_wore_-a-45_1495640724396.jpg
Ivanka the very embodiment of Hester Prynne. She paid attention in finishing school. The other three display extreme discomfort.
Trump lovingly holds out his hand to Melania after the great sex they had last night.
Melania (afraid it will be a giveaway that she can barely walk): “Not now sweetie”
Media: “Trump Marriage on the Ropes!”
Yes, I did watch, and obviously you’re kind of tone deaf when it comes to my humor.
Ej above has the most compelling explanation. It was the typical husband/wife unspoken communication thing. For all we know Trump could have been thinking about all of the times the media mocked him for not holding hands with Melania, and Melania was simply telling him it wasn’t necessary. A smart man listens to his wife.
enargpia is rather tone deaf to reality.
Humor is way beyond it.
“enargpia is rather tone deaf to reality.
Humor is way beyond it.”
Yes. That’s the place I frequently go to when I’ve had enough of reality.
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.
Much ado about nothing. My wife never wanted me to hold her hand when walking down stairs. She was afraid of heights and felt more secure holding on to a handrail. Otherwise, we held hands constantly when walking together.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
“I can imagine inside her head she could have been thinking ‘ I’m not going to wear a head scarf but lets not tee them off to much by showing a married couple expressing love by hand holding ‘”
Haha, except that this happened in Israel, when they were walking alongside Netanyahu and his wife, who WERE holding hands. What, did you think they were in Saudi Arabia? So Ej, your point makes zero sense. If anything, she would normally be inclined to take his hand to match the behavior of their hosts. “Love tap” – that is some serious denial!
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.
So basically the opposite of whatever the MSM is reporting…good news everyone!
Moving right along in this world tour let’s go to Italy and get inside the first couple’s heads.
http://ll-media.tmz.com/2017/05/24/0524-ivanka-melania-donald-trump-pope-gettty-7.jpg
Starting from the right…
Pope: “I know what they did last night. I hope they used condoms. We don’t need anymore like him,”
The Donald: [well the smile says it all, doesn’t it?]
Melania: OMFG! I can barely stand up…
Evanka: [crickets…]
Media: “Convicted by His Holiness, Melania ponders divorce”