Renounce Climate Alarmism

Guest essay by Leo Goldstein

“There is no greater mistake than to try to leap an abyss in two jumps”

– David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister in WWI

I think the Republican administration should renounce climate alarmism and climate pseudo-science sharply, unequivocally, and irrevocably.

Climate alarmism is a tool used to wreck America and possibly the rest of Western civilization. It is not about science. It is not about energy policy. It is not even about the power and politics. Climate alarmism is like a memetically engineered weapon of mass destruction unleashed on the U.S. and destroying our country from the inside.

Climate alarmism might be the most dangerous threat the U.S. faces today. The magnitude of this danger can be seen even by the sheer size and sophistication of the media’s attempts to push the Trump administration to compromise with climate alarmism. The regulations remaining from Obama’s term are only the tip of the iceberg and are the least important part of the problem.

There is no middle ground between the alarmist and the realist positions today, and there hasn’t been one for about twenty years. Furthermore, the attempts to find a middle ground with climate alarmism eventually led to its growth. Twenty years of trying to appease climate alarmism led to one outcome — many reasonable people came to the conclusion that the basic tenets of climate alarmism are correct, and that those who reject “climate actions” do that for some other, possibly ulterior, motives. These motives and reasons are thought to be economics, national egoism, excessive influence of some industries, libertarian ideology, public misunderstanding of science. But the basic tenets are wrong.

Climate alarmism is a system of beliefs and rituals whose leaders demand our conversion or submission. In other words, it is a cult with a pretense to rule the world. It has been called a cult many times by distinguished scientists, clergymen, and former environmentalists. How can one even think of finding a middle ground or a compromise with such a thing?

In practical terms, unless the U.S. government renounces the self-proclaimed scientific authority of IPCC, other UN agencies, associated NGOs and the “consensus scientists,” it’s going to appear as accepting such authority. This appearance is sufficient for these actors to make any demand on the U.S. and its citizens, alleging scientific support for that demand. By making various demands, and occasionally receiving demanded goodies, climate alarmism accumulated the power it wields now.

For example, a few days ago, Rex Tillerson signed The Fairbanks Declaration, which contains phrases like “the Arctic is warming at more than twice the rate of the global average, resulting in widespread social, environmental, and economic impacts in the Arctic and worldwide,” “the pressing and increasing need for mitigation and adaptation actions and to strengthen resilience,” etc. A knowledgeable but naive observer might think: so what? Twice zero is still zero, and “to strengthen resilience” doesn’t sound like a bad idea. Also, this is just a declaration so what’s the harm? The harm is that when the U.S. Secretary of State signs a document containing specific vocabulary and symbolism of the climate cult, that will appear as deference to this cult. In this case, the fakestream media exaggerated the importance of this declaration, amplifying this appearance.

There are only two ways of dealing with a cult like this: to submit or to fight. The former is forbidden by the Constitution.

Sufficient reasons to reject climate alarmism

– By Constitution, the president must stop the establishment of the climate cult as the state religion. That includes teaching “climate change” in public schools.

– By Constitution, the president must restore the sovereignty of the American people on its soil. Obama’s administration used to fulfill orders by the IPCC and other UN agencies, the orders disguised as summaries of science.

The executive branch has no choice on these matters. Also, climate alarmism claims that carbon dioxide produced in human breathing is a pollutant, and acts upon this belief. This country has never tolerated such behavior.

Current Situation: The State of Indecision

We are under attack, and must fight back. But the fight won’t be as hard as it seems. Today, enormous pressure is exerted on the elected administration to keep the U.S. chained to climate alarmism. Trillions of dollars speak loudly, eloquently, and forcefully. But it would be a mistake to think that breaking the chains would increase the pressure, or that yielding would decrease it.

Foreign Policy

The international situation can be compared to what existed in Eastern Europe before the fall of Communism, or in the Nazi-occupied countries during WWII. Today, Europe is occupied by climate alarmism. Given no choice, Europeans support the occupant, but when there is a choice they will support the liberator. Well, real life is not that black and white. To paraphrase a fashionable expression among libs, one man’s liberator is another man’s occupant. Nevertheless, most Europeans would prefer liberation from the yoke of climate alarmism. And those who collaborated with the occupant will lay low and stay quiet — as quiet as they are loud now.

Many Western governments, centrist, and right-of-center parties are ready to jettison climate alarmism but cannot do so without a firm commitment from the U.S. Any European or British Commonwealth country that would attempt to do that without U.S. support would face its domestic leftists and enviros and the whole “global governance” that grew up around climate alarmism.

Domestic Conditions

The U.S. government’s opinion on scientific issues matters. It matters to the general public. It matters to judges at all levels. It matters to the federal agencies, to the state governments, to the businesses and non-profits. It matters even to Pope! Currently, this opinion is expressed in the 2014 National Climate Assessment, which is still posted at This report was written under the Obama administration by pseudo-scientists and under the leadership of Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s puppet (p. 9 of the linked document). It references IPCC papers as if they were holy texts. This report should be annulled, too. Of course, the fakestream media will yell “war against science,” but it will yell that with the same intensity whether the Trump administration repeals the whole “assessment” or changes just a few words in it. The two terms of George W. Bush (2001-2009) provide an example of the pointless kowtowing to the left. Bush bent over backwards and even appointed a Democrat John Marburger as the Science Adviser, and still was hounded by the media, accusing him of “silencing the science.” And the fakestream media will continue smearing President Trump with the same intensity no matter what he does or does not do, so it can be safely ignored.

By the way, unlike Obamacare, the ObamaClimate does not need to be replaced, only repealed.

The main domestic factor in the climate debate is the huge gravy train carrying the climate alarmism industry forward at the annual rate of hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. alone. This money is stolen from the taxpayers and does not include damages from restrictions on fossil fuel industries. A large chunk of this money feeds the fakestream media. This is why it becomes so agitated on this topic. Of course, those who stand to lose such income, which they receive with no real work or investment, can and do throw a big punch.

And here comes another advantage of the firm renouncement. It empowers the administration to stop the gravy train, to channel its content back to the hard-working Americans, and to claw back some of what has been stolen by the climate alarmism industry over the last eight years. This money will be needed to restore the scientific institutions decimated by Al Gore and his minions. In the process, a small fraction of the recovered funds will rub off on those who aid the recovery — lawyers, journalists, academics, artists, media personalities, etc. — and on those who will be the counterweight to the forces of chaos.

Another domestic factor is the suppressed dissent among U.S. scientists, engineers, executives, and owners of manufacturing and natural resources industries. Many of them are afraid to speak now. The EPA can quickly destroy a company that employs or contracts with a scientist who speaks up. Obama’s DOJ criminally prosecuted engineers for simply doing their jobs in the oil industry. The last 8-15 years can be compared to a street gang rule. The victims of the Clinton-Gore-Obama gang will speak up, but only after they see that the sheriff is back in town and is willing to take on the gang even when the media is on its side. George W. Bush was not up to the task.

Firm Renouncement

The Trump administration should reject climate pseudo-science decisively and unequivocally, once and forever. Any renouncement of climate alarmism, or ignoring climate pseudo-science will not do the job. Understandably, politicians are not scientists. But climate pseudo-science is hanging by a chain, with which most links are broken. Many links are so broken that everyone can see that after a few days of study. Reading a two-page summary of climate debate science might be sufficient for some, but even this is not necessary for government officials to act. The government doesn’t have to establish which theory is correct. Science proves itself in nature, in the lab, and in its applications to human needs. If something demands establishment by the government, it is not science. The First Amendment forbids government to establish this “something.” Climate pseudo-science must be renounced under the First Amendment.

As a non-specialist in government affairs, I don’t know what form such firm rejection might take. In my opinion, the main part of it would be President Trump’s address to the American people. Such address would be more important than the G7 summit scheduled for May 26-27. The administration should also send a withdrawal notice as required by the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). That Convention is the only properly ratified “climate treaty.” The U.S. becomes free from UNFCCC one year after the notice. A withdrawal has been urged in a recent petition by eminent scientists and subject matter experts, led by Professor Richard Lindzen. The U.S. is not a party to the Paris Agreement and the parties to this agreement knew that when they signed it. Appropriate messages might be sent to foreign governments and the UN agencies through diplomatic channels. (The message to the European nations: “We are coming to liberate you!” The message to the UN agencies: “Just make a squeak! We will appreciate an opportunity to defund you.”)

The Day after the Renouncement

The renouncement of climate alarmism is not going to come completely unexpected. There are or will be cabinet discussions, and some news will leak to the media. The public will hear only an increase in the media pitch on the subject, up until the President delivers his address. What happens next?

When the U.S. government renounces climate alarmism, it is a fait accompli. Climate alarmism will explode like a watermelon dropped from the top of the Trump Tower. Media personalities who have been making living off it will get up and go look for the next feeding ground. International organizations will leave us alone and start fighting among themselves over the funds they have. And so on.

Next, the public and some very important persons will take a harder look at the climate debate. These include top “tech” and media executives, billionaires supportive of liberal causes, Dem politicians at all levels and so on. They will want to learn the arguments of the other side, and some of them will discover that there is no other side. There are laws of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and engineering, and a few hundred men and women unafraid to speak up about them. Then, those VIPs will understand that the enviros and their accomplices in academia have been lying to them all the time, putting at risk their fortunes, careers, and in some cases, their freedom. I think they will be mad as hell. After some agony, the evil climate alarmism empire will crumble. Fixing regulations would become a technical matter, rather than an uphill fight.

I think that a large part of the Democrat/liberal/leftist camp would then have second thoughts about their ideological and political allegiance. They will see how fake their media became. They will be disgusted by the suppression of the conservative thought committed by the Obama administration and by some government agencies even before it. They will look at many other facts that escaped mainstream discussion.

Is There a Downside?

Finally, and least importantly, honest believers of dangerous anthropogenic climate change and the supporters of renewable energy sources should not be alarmed by such renouncement. The global consumption of fossil fuels and the emissions of infrared active gases and substances have been growing over the last eight years. Political division made it impossible to take any costly action they believed was necessary. Thus, honest believers should welcome a political reset. It would clean up their cause of corruption, opportunism, and polarization.

Competent and honest research in the atmospheric and ocean sciences shall continue after renouncing pseudo-science. Then, the government may resume funding bona fide research and manufacturing in solar and wind energy, energy storage, and energy efficiency. Today, only a small fraction of the funds officially appropriated for such R&D and manufacturing reaches workers, engineers, and scientists. Most of the money is diverted into propaganda and activism. The activists and journalists who receive it are right to be worried, even alarmed. But the rest of us shall welcome the abolition of climate alarmism.


The administration becomes slightly more associated with climate alarmism with each day it doesn’t renounce it. Soon, this association will rise to the level of complicity, and it will become an additional factor that prevents action. The opponents of the administration, foreign and domestic, will be able to say something like, “If climate science and action are so wrong, why did it take you so long to reject it?”

Ask President Trump to renounce climate alarmism now!

Thanks to H.J. for collaborating on this article.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
oebele bruinsma
May 24, 2017 12:18 am

“Climate alarmism is a system of beliefs and rituals whose leaders demand our conversion or submission. In other words, it is a cult with a pretense to rule the world. ” It is unfortunately not the only cult with the same goal.

Reply to  oebele bruinsma
May 24, 2017 12:36 am

I would rather say that is its a cult designed by those who wish to rule the world.
Such people have always had an eye for whatever narrative people have found acceptable, and engulfing – Christianity, Marxism, Islam, National Socialism, Green politics and climate change…
…What do all these have in common? They define the moral rights of one group to enforce their narrative on others. They define a moral reason why extra taxes and hardships should be imposed on one set of people so that another may benefit. They are all at some level moral crusades.
And there is a very tiny grain of truth in all of them.
They all perhaps started out as little ideas that had a bit of traction and some degree of self honesty – before those that want to rule the world picked them up and transformed them into state religions of one sort or another for control of the populations.

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2017 2:10 am

“Such people have always had an eye for whatever narrative people have found acceptable, and engulfing – Christianity, Marxism, Islam, National Socialism, Green politics and climate change.
…What do all these have in common? They define the moral rights of one group to enforce their narrative on others.”
Sir, I don’t mean to be rude, but from my perspective you just tried to “enforced your narrative” on me . . as a Christian. Why are you demonizing me? Do you fancy yourself morally superior to me?

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2017 2:55 am

PS~ “…before those that want to rule the world picked them up and transformed them into state religions of one sort or another for control of the populations.”
Such people will use whatever they can to control populations, it seems to me . . including food, but that don’t make food the problem . . it’s those people . . right? Such people need to be constrained (which is a lot like having a moral “narrative” enforced” on them, from their perspective) or things can get really nasty, it seems to me. Like North Korea, ya know?
And Christians are the people who came up with the separation of church and state (Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. ?), and brought us science, and ‘unalienable rights’ which the rule the world types surely are not happy about, but I bet you are ; )

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2017 4:08 am

PPS ~ Mr. Trump is (ostensibly) a Christian . . as are most Americans. I suggest you refrain from further attacks on that particular “cult” . . ’til after you’ve used us ; )

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2017 6:13 am

Christianity, Marxism, Islam, National Socialism, Green politics and climate change…
Until the separation of church and state, the church of rome did indeed inflict many horrors on the world. The problem is that marxism, isalm and the rest want to be like the old church of rome. even the church of rome would like its old powers back, as witnessed by the current pope.
For my part, I’m happy for people that want to worship in a Church. It is when they want to force me to worship in their church, and help pay for it as well that I object. The same for marxism, islam and climate change.
If someone wants to give up their car and central heating why should I object. It is when they want me to do the same, and pay taxes as a penalty if I don’t, that is where the problem begins.
So many people support freedom of choice, so long as the choice means everyone else having no choice.

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2017 12:33 pm

Throwing Christ’s teaching and Christianity in with the cults “designed by those who wish to rule the world” has become fashionable lately to demonstrate unbiased open-mindedness.
It is nonsense, of course, as is the idea that Islam, Marxism, National Socialism or Green Climate Totalitarianism could lay the foundation for free societies built on respect of individual liberties.

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 25, 2017 12:18 am

Leo I think you did a very good job of briefly summarizing or perhaps amplifying the author’ message. I’m sorry to see so few people of faith find the criticism only applies to other people’s faith. Kind of ironic but probably to be expected. They don’t get the part about not inflicting your morals on others and stoutly proclaim they would never do that.

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 25, 2017 7:59 am

Bartlby, it would help if you could actually demonstrate that your criticisms of Christianity are actually accurate, rather than doing the standard atheist nonsense of just declaring that all religions are the same.

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 25, 2017 8:00 am

Bartlby, you would do your cause justice by actually demonstrating that criticisms are accurate, rather than just declaring that the fact that people object proves you right.

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 25, 2017 11:54 am

So, you favor no laws at all, Bartleby? . .

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 25, 2017 1:38 pm

Any more straw left where you build your arguments, Bartleby?

Reply to  oebele bruinsma
May 24, 2017 2:31 am

I’ve been waiting for the synthesis of those two cults, but it ain’t happenin’.

May 24, 2017 12:54 am

If people claim to be skeptics when it comes to black holes, dark matter, or even gravity, they might get a few strange looks, but nobody seeks to throw them in jail or have them executed. But when it comes to climate change, people become angry and unhinged at skeptics and want them punished. Sometimes they even advocate the death penalty for them. That’s when you know it has crossed over from science to religion. When the failure to accept the consensus becomes a form of blasphemy, for which severe punishment is demanded, you are no longer in the world of science.

Reply to  Louis
May 24, 2017 5:08 am

That is your personal perception maybe. In general people ignore those who reject science or look at them slightly puzzled. Calling yourself skeptic seems to be a trend among those who would have previously been called conspiracy theorists, giving that designation a bad name.

Reply to  SebastianH
May 24, 2017 8:04 am

Except that there is a conspiracy of sorts going on here, although it’s more of an accidental conspiracy driven by the IPCC’s self serving consensus fabricated around the reports it generates, notwithstanding climate-gate which seems to point to active collusion. The baseless conspiracy theories tend to come from the alarmists in an attempt to mask their own behavior.

Reply to  Louis
May 24, 2017 7:45 am

A property of subjective discourse is that the depth of the self righteous indignation is inversely proportional to the strength of the logic behind a position. This seems to occur when the brain is overwhelmed with logical contradictions and picks a position based on emotion instead. While climate science should be limited to objective arguments, political interference has changed the dynamic.
There are no emotional triggers with black holes, dark matter, etc. Consensus climate science on the other hand is supported solely by emotional arguments and so rather than grasp the logic disputing the emotion, the response is to get angry. I think the term ‘climate rage’, describes this perfectly.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 24, 2017 10:04 am

Have you read any skeptics website lately? It’s the skeptics who respond angrily and have no problem insulting everyone with an opposing view.

Reply to  SebastianH
May 24, 2017 3:41 pm

Not me. I don’t have to. I have the laws of physics, ice core and satellite data on my side. Of course, there are always those on both sides who make mean and angry responses, however; left leaning supporters more often get angry when they don’t get their way and there’s no denying that climate science has digressed into a left/right issue.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 24, 2017 11:49 am

It appears that’s exactly what you are looking for….
If you describe/spell out some specific points of your opposing view (if you have one), I am sure that others would like to discuss with you.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 25, 2017 2:02 am

co2isnotevil, I agree. It has deterioted into some kind of ideological battle about good and evil. Often replies are reflex “I am against whatever you said, because you are the enemy” comments.
P.S.: Of course the AGW crowd has the laws of pyhsics on their side too. It boils down to selective perception of those facts that agree with your world view and denial of everything that could contradict that view, because “no actual measurements exist” or “where is the proof?”, etc pp

Reply to  SebastianH
May 25, 2017 8:01 am

CAGW driven by the UN is pure evil disguised as benevolence and many are misdirected by the unwarranted greater good message which is there only to obfuscate the evil.
I disagree that the AGW crowd has physics on their side, even selectively. What they need to support their hypotheses is magic which circumvents the laws of physics.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 25, 2017 2:17 am

SebastianH writes

Have you read any skeptics website lately? It’s the skeptics who respond angrily and have no problem insulting everyone with an opposing view.

Name a more diverse group than “the skeptics”. There isn’t any. Everyone writes their own opinions only.
But the man-made climate change claim cult is institutionalised. All the way to UN. And it has declared a war against mankind by definition. To make matters worse, non-gov arms produce ghastly hate such as the “10:10 no pressure”. I challenge you to find a worse insult than that.
So no problem at this point, I perceive victimisation as a hull-breach in the unsinkable man-made climate change Titanic.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 25, 2017 6:06 am

“There are no emotional triggers with black holes, dark matter, etc. Consensus climate science on the other hand is supported solely by emotional arguments and so rather than grasp the logic disputing the emotion, the response is to get angry. I think the term ‘climate rage’, describes this perfectly.”
There is also a lot of genuine fear in the alarmist camp. They have been thoroughly fooled by the propaganda and some believe those who don’t agree with CAGW are putting them and their children in danger from a threat that is just around the corner.
People with that kind of fear get desperate, and desperate people call for all sorts of radical things if they think it will fix the situation.
There are millions of people who have accepted the scare tactics of CAGW as being real. Telling a lie over and over again until it becomes the “truth”, works. Especially when those doing the telling are overwhelmingly on one side of the issue, as is the case today.

Reply to  TA
May 25, 2017 8:06 am

Yes, fear is a powerful emotional trigger and for those who can’t or don’t want to think for themselves, fear can override logic.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 25, 2017 7:59 am

There is also a lot of genuine fear in the alarmist camp. They have been thoroughly fooled by the propaganda and some believe those who don’t agree with CAGW are putting them and their children in danger from a threat that is just around the corner.

Perhaps. But even the most genuinely fearful reproducing fool isn’t excused for behaving like a kapo towards the rest of the mankind. Based on the evidence so far I’m not expecting any signs of integrity, such as, remorse and empathy towards alarmists’ victims.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 25, 2017 8:02 am

I can’t speak for other skeptic sites, but around here opposing view points normally get a respectful hearing provided two conditions are met.
The opposing view is presented thoughtfully and actually supported with science.
The opposing view is not being presented by a known troll.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 25, 2017 8:05 am

Sebastian, the AGW side does not have physics on their side, they have models on their side.
They claim that physics is baked into the models, but the fact that the models both fail when hindcasting and fail when making predictions about the near future bely that claim.
(By near future, I’m talking about predictions made over the last few decades and comparing those predictions against what has actually happened.)

Ron Williams
May 24, 2017 12:59 am

Does not the Sense of the Senate vote in 1997, regarding Kyoto, but also explicitly stated that any future discussion on any future climate agreement, not only require the vote and consent of the Senate, but that (a.) would also have to include all countries to participate, and (b). not damage the USA economy? Does that not still apply today?

Reply to  Ron Williams
May 24, 2017 3:43 am

Ron Williams:
The 1997 vote does not still apply today.
The matter was discussed on WUWT following my asking about ithere.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 24, 2017 7:44 am
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 24, 2017 8:32 am

That is correct,Richard.
The 1997 Senate Resolution wasn’t even about the treaty itself,it was to inform President Clinton that his proposed Treaty he was planning to submit, was already UNANIMOUSLY considered unacceptable in its present form.
Read the whole thing to show why the Senate ran ahead of President Clinton who didn’t even submit the Treaty form.yet.
Byrd-Hagel Resolution
July 25,1997
“Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations… (Passed by the Senate 95-0)”

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 24, 2017 8:38 am

Thankyou for adding your answer to my question on the other thread.

Reply to  Ron Williams
May 24, 2017 6:46 am

A sense of the senate vote is non-binding. Even on the senate that voted for it.

May 24, 2017 1:01 am

“Drive out Climate Alarmism from our communities, places of worship, our country and the Earth. Drive it out!”

Ron Williams
Reply to  JPeden
May 24, 2017 1:26 am


tony mcleod
May 24, 2017 1:18 am

You want to talk about “cults” and “memetically engineered weapon of mass destruction unleashed on the U.S.”… you’ll probably get a better outcome demanding Trump renounce US’s association with Wahabists.

Reply to  tony mcleod
May 24, 2017 1:29 am

Instead of bowing to receive a gold medal from their king!

Reply to  benben
May 24, 2017 4:17 am

Heh, the other bowed for no medal. How artful this deal.

Reply to  benben
May 24, 2017 6:47 am

Obama did the bowing.

Reply to  benben
May 24, 2017 6:48 am

Mclod, I realize that as a troll, you are paid to distract, but out here in the real world, the president has to deal with everyone. Even people you don’t like.

Tom Halla
Reply to  benben
May 24, 2017 9:23 am

Trump is about six inches (15cm) taller than the King, so ducking his head so the King could put the medal around his neck was not quite bowing. Obama, in the same awards situation, and with a similar height difference, put the medal around his own neck (shades of Napoleon).

Reply to  tony mcleod
May 24, 2017 8:37 am

Tony Mcleod, did you graduate from Jimmy Carter foreign policy school?

tony mcleod
Reply to  sunsettommy
May 25, 2017 1:37 am

Why? did he lay down with extremist Saudi Wahhabist too? and sell them arms as well?

Reply to  sunsettommy
May 25, 2017 8:08 am

The Saudis are at present our allies and are in fact using those arms to fight against jihadists.
Are you even capable of dealing with the complexities of the real world?

Reply to  tony mcleod
May 25, 2017 6:21 am

King Salman was delighted to have President Trump visit. I don’t think I have ever seen a spectacle like the one he put on for Trump. Of course, the alliance with the U.S. is essential to Saudi Arabia at the moment. Things were starting to look bleak for Saudi Arabia while Obama was running the show, but Trump has turned that around 180 degrees and the King is very happy about that, as he should be.
Trump told the Muslims to throw the Islamist extremists out of their midst. Trump wasn’t kidding. Trump is not going soft on Islamist terrorism just because he makes an alliance with Saudi Arabia.
An alliance that has the potential to solve a lot of problems for the Middle East and Europe, like stopping the flow of refugees out of the area, and providing for the refugees already displaced, and eventually ousting Bashar Assad, the Russians and the Iranians from the area.
Obama left Trump with a mess on his hands internationally. Trump decides his first foreign trip will go right to the heart of the problem in the Middle East. I think it should be obvious that Trump is willing to take even the biggest problems head on. He’s not running away, he is going to do everything he can to fix the problems he sees.

Roger Knights
May 24, 2017 1:57 am

“There is no middle ground between the alarmist and the realist positions today . . .”
Sure there is: Nuclear power for electricity, plus a national-level “nudge” to get people and organizations to switch from oil heating to natural gas heating, plus research money on compact fusion power and advanced nuclear (including thorium, although it’s iffy). (Also certain forms of geo-engineering, like the successful iron-enrichment experiment in the Gulf of Alaska a few years ago, should also be included, on an experimental basis.)
If Trump made a push for nuclear as part of his rejection of the Paris agreement it would drive a wedge into his opponents’ ranks and discredit them with much of the public if they rejected it.

Reply to  Roger Knights
May 24, 2017 2:52 am

No, Roger, there is no middle ground.
Your suggested ideas assume that if the alarmists aren’t right then at least they are righter than the realists. They aren’t. There is no scientific basis for the alarmist position and there never has been. Climate alarmism is not and never has been about science; it was a cult from the beginning.
It is based entirely on the output of computer models programmed — because that is the way human nature works even sub-consciously — to produce the results which the programmers want. Set against observations it fails every time unless the observations are manipulated. Set against the prime (alleged) cause — CO2 — the correlation does not exist except by careful manipulation of the figures. (While temperature has fluctuated throughout the last century, CO2 level increases have been on a more or less straight line.)
Assertions about the behaviour of the oceans as CO2 sinks, about heat transfer, about the behaviour of arctic ice, about the ability even of CO2 to behave as it is claimed to outside laboratory conditions, all go far beyond the actual current state of scientific knowledge.
Shall I go on?

Reply to  Newminster
May 24, 2017 8:36 pm

the source code for the NASA GISS model is available on line at
I would like to know which parts of it are “programmed to produce the results which the
programmers want”. Similarly many other global climate models have their source code
available on line. Any claim that they are wrong either due to a programmer error or via a
deliberate mistake can be verified by analysing the code. Hence you should be able to provide
evidence for your claim.

Reply to  Newminster
May 25, 2017 12:38 am

Germinio , it’s generally been shown to be impossible to prove a non-trivial computer program even ends, much less produces correct results 🙂
I’m afraid you just reduced your own argument to absurdity.

Reply to  Roger Knights
May 24, 2017 3:25 am

Absolutely there is some middle ground, but many people on the middle ground, like Pielke Jr, are being attacked in a serious manner. Trump should aim to move funding to where it actually helps.

Reply to  Roger Knights
May 24, 2017 4:51 am

There definitely is “middle ground.” It’s just very thinly populated.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  David Middleton
May 24, 2017 5:48 am

“thinly populated” As in “flat as a pancake” after being trampled by both sides.

Reply to  David Middleton
May 24, 2017 6:50 am

I believe it was LBJ who said – The only thing you find in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead skunks.

Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2017 7:05 am

In this case, the “middle ground” is in between…
AGW is a myth!!!
and this…comment image
Most of the lay public who express opinions on climate change fall into one camp or the other. They either flat-out deny the so-called greenhouse effect and our minimal contribution to it or they embrace the alarmist propaganda.

Reply to  Roger Knights
May 24, 2017 5:05 am

nuclear power though is not under active development in the US… Westinghouse has gone bust trying to make it so and the investment needed compared to natural gas or solar makes it a non-starter.
Perhaps small/modular reactors or thorium may deliver – but not for over a decade.

Reply to  Griff
May 24, 2017 10:51 am

Nuke the Wails.

Curious George
Reply to  Griff
May 24, 2017 5:52 pm

No small reactors – not without any active development.

Reply to  Roger Knights
May 24, 2017 6:49 am

That would only be a middle ground if doing so was the economically right thing to do. In which case it doesn’t matter what the extremists are saying.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Roger Knights
May 24, 2017 7:43 am

There are “no regrets” measures that can be taken. that’s what I mean by “there is a middle ground.” If Trump promotes some of these no-regrets measures, such as I listed, at the same time that he disavows the Paris Agreement, he’ll minimize the political pushback.

Reply to  Roger Knights
May 24, 2017 11:46 am

There is no middle ground for zealots. If you choose to occupy this middle ground, they will soon create a new middle ground between your new position and their old position.

Reply to  Roger Knights
May 24, 2017 12:21 pm

But the climate alarmist organizations also oppose nuclear energy! And they do not distinguish between natural gas and other fossil fuels! They are also against new hydro power plants. In short, they are against all sources of energy!
No, there is no middle ground with them.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Leo Goldstein
May 24, 2017 4:10 pm

Russ & Leo: The alarmists are not going to compromise; I agree. But the general public would be satisfied, including many who are alarmed, by a president who proposed a way to cut emissions substantially at low cost (including a commitment not to fund the UN’s green fund) and without imposing hair shirt regulations. The general public has not nearly the resistance to nuclear power that the eco-left has. And there are some big names among alarmists who favor nuclear power, notably Hansen and Stewart Brand.

May 24, 2017 2:20 am

Man’s minimal warming will be net beneficial; man’s momentous greening already is miraculously so. These are and will be facts, and will be revealed, rather than imposed by government action. The alarmism is, was, always will be and always will have been a fable. But my Gawd how long it will take for this truth to be established?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  kim
May 24, 2017 7:37 pm

The television must make it so, or it will not become real.
Did Max Headroom already say that?

May 24, 2017 2:29 am

Lloyd-George also said: `there are no friends at the top`

Reply to  Dave
May 24, 2017 2:37 am

My father knew Lloyd-George…

Reply to  Griff
May 24, 2017 3:55 am

Heh, with friends like that.

Reply to  Griff
May 24, 2017 5:03 am

Lloyd-George knew my father…

Reply to  Griff
May 24, 2017 5:58 am

so what. !

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
May 24, 2017 6:01 am

He was, or his father was, in coal, right? And you want to deprive others the same benefit?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
May 24, 2017 6:04 am

I know an actor, personally and he has served me chinese takeaway, and starred in the movie “The Fifth Element”.

Reply to  Griff
May 24, 2017 8:48 am

Lloyd-George knew my father… my father knew Lloyd-George …
Was a 1st World War song (to the tune of – ‘The church has one foundation’).
THE ORIGINAL version was more pointed: ‘Lloyd George knew my mother.’ As Lloyd-George was not famous for monogamy.
The substitution of ‘father’ seems to have been made in interests of discretion and delicacy,

Reply to  Dave
May 24, 2017 7:29 am

Father knew Lloyd-George

Reply to  Griff
May 24, 2017 10:42 am

Mother Gaia knew Lloyd George, but her price was too high.

Reply to  Griff
May 24, 2017 11:26 am

Lloyd-George knew my fa-ather, father knew Lloyd-George…

May 24, 2017 2:50 am

Easiest solution IMHO is for the US to stop paying the UN all its fees.
It is the UN that leads/fronts this mess.
The US contribution, if withdrawn, may well cause a large enough deficit to destroy the United Nations and its many nefarious tenticles.
My blog covers some of the things the UN is up to.

May 24, 2017 3:17 am

Excellent piece! Trump is setting the groundwork with the reformulation of science advisory boards. The confrontation is coming….

Reply to  Oatley
May 24, 2017 7:58 am

Trump is an idiot. Counting on him for any rational talk is as big a myth as AGW.

May 24, 2017 3:33 am

Today, only a small fraction of the funds officially appropriated for such R&D and manufacturing reaches workers, engineers, and scientists. Most of the money is diverted into propaganda and activism.

If that can be proven, it provides a powerful weapon. People hate to think they are being swindled.

Reply to  commieBob
May 24, 2017 3:58 am

In 2008 Al Gore bragged that he had a $300,000,000(that’s three hundred million dollars for the innumerate) fund to promote climate alarmism. When asked the source of the money he said it was from ‘internet and anonymous donors’. Even Andy Revkin blanched at that.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  commieBob
May 24, 2017 4:41 am

@ commieBob
It can and has been proven, day after day after day, for the past 20+ years, but the “proofgivers” have all been demonized by those who have control of the “public microphones”.

Bruce Cobb
May 24, 2017 4:05 am

No appeasement, and no quarter for Climatists. No forgiveness for what they’ve done.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 24, 2017 4:15 am

The verdict of history is already that climate alarmism was wasteful and destructive, an experiment that has failed early trials and should be abrupted on ethical grounds. There is no need to add even more tragedy to tremendous and over-reaching foolhardiness.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  kim
May 24, 2017 4:46 am

Open the doors and gates to all the jails and prisons.
There is no need to add even more tragedy to tremendous and over-reaching foolhardiness.

May 24, 2017 4:48 am

Isn’t this Ari Halperin’s stuff? The whole climate conspiracy shtick to eat the world? Sounds pretty familiar.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 24, 2017 1:00 pm

The “conspiracy theorist” slide is wearing a bit thin these days, RS . . but if’n I were youz, I’d go for; the Russian’s shtick. It’s all the rage ya know ; )

Don B
May 24, 2017 5:25 am

It would be helpful if more of the US media would provide accurate information, such as —
“Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy–Matt Ridley”

May 24, 2017 6:10 am

One of the best (worst?) examples (per capita) of the damage these alarmists can do is Ontario. A fiscal boondoggle of waste unmatched in Canadian history.
And it’s approaching $100 billion. Shutting down coal, refurbishing old nukes, wind/solar parks with conventional back-up, excess power sold to the spot market….total $fiasco and no reason for it.
Even more mind boggling is the support. All of our educated and political class are on board the good ship AGW. They have to be, otherwise they are irrelevant.
Now we have a carbon tax combined with cap and trade. They will never admit to being wrong, they can’t, there is too much water under the bridge. This is not going away.

Peter Cummings
Reply to  M.W.Plia.
May 24, 2017 8:01 am

The descending of Economic stupor on the Canadian economy as a consequence of climate policy is likely the only thing that will jerk a sufficient number of Canadians out of their seeming indifference as to where our politicians stand on climate change. Trudeau was relatively mute on the issue in the last election and deceived the population in his real intent which has now unfolded. Our country requires more politicians like Brad Wall and Max Bernier who have the intelligence and political (and integrity) to take on the climate complex. Uninformed people need to get informed and start connecting the dots between their deteriorating life style and climate policy.

Reply to  Peter Cummings
May 24, 2017 10:45 am

We have already irreparably damaged our grandchildren with this social mania of alarmism, this madness of the herd. Lost opportunity costs compound, and there is no catching up to where we could have been, but for this misadventurous detour into politicized science and corrupted narrative.
You should worry, Jim Hansen.

Reply to  M.W.Plia.
May 24, 2017 12:24 pm

Has Maurice Strong started his career in Ontario?

Reply to  Leo Goldstein
May 24, 2017 3:56 pm

Strong’s career began in the oil business. Later he was head of Ontario Hydro. Owned property in Ontario and had a residence in China.
Then into developing UNEP.
Ontario is and has been ground zero for UNEP.
Strong had an OC/Order of Canada status given to him by the Canadian government.

John Bell
May 24, 2017 7:16 am

Alarmists believe that renewables and free energy are within technical grasp, it just requires convincing people to push for the political will, that it is only politics and nothing technical, they think that the oil companies are preventing it just for profits. I would love to force greens to live by their own dictates.

Bob Hoye
May 24, 2017 7:57 am

Very good essay!

Reply to  Bob Hoye
May 24, 2017 12:25 pm


May 24, 2017 8:43 am

They wouldn’t know that “song,” Griff. Most of them don’t seem to know what is going on outside their own homes. Also, Lloyd George made the quip mentioned. He did not, however, encourage jumping into an abyss as most of the commentators here would do. The world is teetering on the brink of an abyss and they are looking at the pie in the sky.
[??? .mod]

Reply to  John
May 24, 2017 10:41 am

An abyss of cold, forward the world, looking neither to left nor to right, but steeled to the challenge.

May 24, 2017 8:51 am

Alarmists are the pollution, they are polluting western civilization.
The alarmists are trying to eliminate everyone who disagrees with them, because they think people are the problem, they hate people just as much as they hate themselves.
The alarmists are not just advocates, they are criminals, because they are stealing money for themselves.
Renounce them sure, but that’s not enough. Harsh words don’t stop criminals. Defund them.
Pull the plug on the United Nations, EPA, etc.
Remove all money from any group that claims any advocacy of global warming. Use the same tactics on them that they are using on sane people.
Every time you see a climate alarmist, paint their face with the universal symbol of poison. Then ignore them, and go about your life and business just as you do now.

May 24, 2017 9:18 am

I think Leo is right. A direct speech by Trump is probably the best strategy. (His underlings like Mad Dog Mattis are on record stating that CO2 is the greatest threat to America’s national security.) Outline for the speech:
1) Compare America’s experience to Germany. We have reduced emissions vs Germany which followed a reckless conversion to ‘green’ energy. But Germany has not reduced emissions etc.
2) Compare America to another disaster, like Ontario. (Within 24 hours the residents of Ontario and Germany are fuming mad. Choose 1 more comparison and start a 3rd revolt.)
3) Declare the Paris Agreement fatally flawed and announce our withdrawal.
4) Declare our support for each country to follow its own path in confronting the problem.
5) Remind everyone that the father of global warming (Hansen) has recently retracted his earlier belief that we only have “years” to solve the problem, and now says that we have “decades” to act. Assure everyone that we will revisit this issue every 10 years and employ new technologies when they become available.
Trump can change the world!

Reply to  eVince
May 24, 2017 10:48 am

Politics is local, as is adapting to climate change. We’ve already wasted untold trillions of treasures attempting to globally mitigate a good, the mild and net beneficial anthropogenic warming and the miraculous belly filling greening of increased CO2.
We need to get on with things; wasting money, treasure and lives on this chimera of guilt and fear is near enough catastrophic already.

William Astley
May 24, 2017 11:31 am

“The Paris climate treaty is an all-pain-for-no-gain agreement that will produce no measurable climate benefits and exacerbate energy poverty around the globe,” Myron Ebell, former head of Trump’s EPA transition team and a director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
How much is it going to cost to reduce CO2 emissions by 25% without the massive use of nuclear power? Is it even possible, ignoring costs?
The problem is the green scams are scams.
The energy calculations as to how much CO2 emissions can be reduced by wind farms and solar farms are fudged, incorrect, as they do not include the energy cost to construct the green scam and do not include the grid efficiency loss that is caused by forced used of ‘green energy’.
1) ‘Green’ energy wind and solar require storage. Western countries are spending billions upon billions to subsidize wind and solar ignoring the storage problem. Ignoring economic and engineering reality does not make the problems go away.
2) If there is no practical storage system then it is a fact that there is a limit to ‘decarboning’ using wind and solar. The limit without storage is around 10% to 15% (very, very optimistically). The 10% to 15% limit is due to real economic and engineering facts which do not change by being ignored. The storage problem has been ignored. As there is no ‘practical’ storage solution the only viable option to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by say 40% is nuclear. The problem is the ‘green’ parties have a pathological hatred against nuclear.
3) There are currently no practical storage systems. A back of the envelop calculation indicates the proposed storage schemes are not scalable and the cost to store energy is more than double the cost to generate the power. This fact has been hidden from the public and politicians when funding ‘green’ scams. Obviously it does not make sense to subsidize wind and solar as they are dead end schemes if ones goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 40% and then by 80%.
4) Cost, scale ability, efficiency, and reliability of the storage system are key factors. The current compressed air storage system is 50% efficient; however, other losses such as 20% to 30% power system losses to transmit electric power from the wind farms or solar farms needs to be included. Cyclic fatigue and cracks likely make compressed air storage not viable. (The compressed air will escape into the geological formation if the scheme is tried for say 20 years or 30 years which require a new geological formation.) There obviously are limited geological formations. (A very large storage system is required.)
5) There is a limit as to how much industry and the public can pay for electrical power. The cost of electrical power in Germany is twice that of the US. The high cost of electrical power is a type of tax as there is less money available to tax and for basic needs. The Western countries are already spending more money than take in via taxes. Very high yearly deficits lead to collapse.
6) A back of an envelope economic analysis indicates that wind and solar are ridiculously expensive if the cost of storage systems is added, even if there was a scalable reliable storage system which there is not.
Germany Energiewend Leading To Suicide By Cannibalism. Huge Oversupply Risks Destabilization

The coming age of power cannibalism…Germany on the verge of committing energy suicide
Capacity without control
The problem with the “renewable” power sources of wind and solar is their intrinsic volatility coupled with their poor capacity utilization rates of only 17.4% for wind and 8.3% for solar (average values for Germany).
Yet Germany has a unique peculiarity: its leaders sometimes exhibit a stunning inability to recognize when the time has come to abandon a lost cause. So far €500 billion (William: €500 billion is $550 billion US) has already been invested in the “Energiewende”, which is clearly emerging as a failure. Yet all political parties continue to throw their full weight behind the policy rather than admitting it is a failure (which would be tantamount to political suicide). Instead, the current government coalition has even decided to shift into an even higher gear on the path to achieving its objective of generating 80% of German electric power from “renewable” sources by 2050.
If the situation is practically unmanageable now with 25% renewable energy (William: Note that the Germans are receiving 25% of their electrical power from green scams, the actual carbon reduction is only 15% to 25% due to requirement to turn on/off/on/off single cycle natural gas power plants rather than to run combine cycle more efficient power plants that take 10 hours to start and that are hence left on for weeks), it’ll be an uncontrollable disaster when (if) it reaches 80%.

Reply to  William Astley
May 24, 2017 8:10 pm

Slow motion train wreck, William . . and there’s got to be thousands of German engineers slowly going nut’s watching it happen . .

May 24, 2017 11:33 am
May 24, 2017 11:55 am

‘Climate alarmism is a tool used to wreck America and possibly the rest of Western civilization.’
Note that it is a transient tool. When lost, the objectives won’t go away. They’ll try other tools, like SLR or Ocean Acidosis. As you say, Climate Change is not the objective, it is only a tool to help accomplish the objective.

Chris Hanley
May 24, 2017 2:22 pm

The ‘middle ground’: basic to the task is to untangle the semantic jungle that cultists and rent-seekers, ‘baptists and bootleggers’, have intentionally created to confound any rational discussion.
Calculated Orwellian corruption of language has corrupted thought to the extent that any balanced discussion has become almost impossible.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 24, 2017 10:26 pm

Yes, given the corruption of language, and given that climate may be too complicated for us to express with language yet, stir in fear, guilt, and crowd behaviour, and we should probably consider ourselves lucky that an even more formidable monster than modern climate alarmism hasn’t created itself.

May 24, 2017 7:18 pm

Yap, yap, yap. Treaty this and politics that.
Can we talk about other things instead, important things such as getting India to clean up the polluted mess on that country’s western coast? Or getting Beijing to really address its smog problem? Somehow stabilizing governments in Africa so that power generating plants really will benefit those who don’t have access to reliable electricity, but keeping the jungles intact as much as possible? Can we discuss really finding a way to use trash to power generating stations – a proposal from the 1990s, I think – as a way of disposing of trash and eliminating garbage dumps that are as much as a quarter miles high? You know, we may just need all that trash for fuel for generating station incinerators some day.
Thees are things we should be addressing everywhere, and instead, we get into name-calling, finger-pointing, sniping, and other childish antics for no purpose other than to pick a fight that a bantam rooster would laugh at.
I’m still running my furnace and it’s definitely post-mid-May. My cold weather is lasting longer every year. I’m having to put out mealworms for birds that would normally be collecting stuff out of the ground, but instead are finding nothing because the ground is so soggy, worms can’t breathe. The weather has gone wacko, okay? It may change and go the other way. But if I look at a weather map that includes wind patterns, it is QUITE clear that in the northern hemisphere the jet stream is so full of convoluted Rossby waves, it might as well be freakin’ winter right now. And this may last until long after I’m gone, and may even get worse.
Now just what in the blue-eyed pingpong playing world makes anyone with a working brain cell think that we puny humans have any control whatsoever over any of that?

Reply to  Sara
May 26, 2017 6:06 pm

We humans ARE influencing the climate. Google my post “Climate Change Deciphered”
And, no, its not greenhouse gasses.

May 29, 2017 11:30 am

It’s critically important that we stop lending tacit credence to the idea that carbon dioxide causes global warming. My new book, “In Praise of Carbon: How We’ve Been Misled Into Believing that Carbon Dioxide causes Climate Change” ( lays out the clear reasons why this arcane notion should be abandoned. Briefly, these are:
1) There is not even one hard-data-based study in the peer-reviewed literature that supports the theory and there are at least two that refute it (one of them mine). Note that spectral absorption/re-emission characteristics of CO2 (e.g., the HITRAN database) DO NOT prove an actual link between CO2 and warming. That link has only been theoretically inferred, but has never been shown by hard-data.
2) Ground measurements of back-radiation from the atmosphere by infrared astronomer Michael Sanicola and others have shown no wavelengths that are characteristic of Earth’s surface temperatures, thus effectively removing the rationale for the supposed CO2/warming link.
3) A better warming mechanism, and one that more closely reflects the actual behavior of temperature anomalies over the past half century, exists in the form of chlorine photodissociated from anthropogenic CFCs released to the atmosphere in the last three decades of the 20th century and catalytically depleting the ozone layer, admitting increased irradiation by high-intensity UV-B radiation. Basaltic volcanoes, like Iceland’s Bardarbunga, which recently (2014-2015) underwent the largest eruption since 1783, also release chlorine as HCl, which similarly affects the ozone layer, and this effect is not countered by albedo-increasing aerosols because basaltic volcanoes produce no eruption clouds and therefore cause warming rather than cooling. Warming following Bardarbunga’s eruption is a likely cause of the large El Nino and temperature spike of 2015-16, from which we currently seem to be returning to the “hiatus.” The catalytic nature of ozone destruction by chlorine and the long residence time of chlorine in the atmosphere guarantee that temperatures will remain elevated through at least mid-century.
If we fail to counter the myth of a CO2/warming link aggressively, especially by pointing out that such a link is baseless by 1) and 2) above, it will continue to dominate all debate regarding “climate change.”

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights