Exiting the Mad Hatter's climate tea party

Trump was 100% right (not just 97%) to show real leadership and walk away from Paris

President Trump has rejected and exited the Paris climate treaty – walked America away from the Mad Hatter tea party that was the entire multi-decade, often hysterical and always computer model-driven UN climate process. My article this week explains why this bold move was the 100% right, ethical, moral and scientific thing to do: for the economic security of American workers and families … and the betterment of all mankind.

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

I can guess why a raven is like a writing-desk, Alice said. “Do you mean you think you can find out the answer?” said the March Hare. “Exactly so,” said Alice. “Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on. “I do,” Alice replied. “At least I mean what I say. That’s the same thing, you know.”

“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “You might just as well say, ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!” “You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!” “It IS the same thing with you,” said the Hatter.

Can you imagine stumbling upon the Mad Hatter’s tea party, watching as the discussions become increasingly absurd – and yet wanting a permanent seat at the table? Could Lewis Carroll have been having nightmares about the Paris climate treaty when he wrote Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland?

President Trump was 100% correct (not just 97%) when he showed true leadership this week – and walked America away from the madness laid out before him and us on the Paris climate table.

From suggestions that Earth’s climate was balmy and stable until the modern industrial era, to assertions that humans can prevent climate change and extreme weather events by controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – to claims that withdrawing from Paris would “imperil our planet’s very survival” – the entire process has been driven by computer models and hysteria that have no basis in empirical science.

There is no convincing real-world evidence that plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide has replaced the powerful natural forces that have driven Earth’s climate from time immemorial. Moreover, even if the United States totally eliminated its fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 levels would continue to climb. China and India are building new coal-fired power plants at a feverish clip. So is Germany. And China is financing or building dozens of additional coal-burning electricity generators in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.

Plus, even if alarmists are right about CO2, and every nation met its commitments under Paris, average planetary temperatures in 2100 would be just 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.3 F) lower than if we did nothing.

But “our closest allies” wanted Trump to abide by Obama’s commitment. Some did, because they want America to shackle its economy and drive energy prices into the stratosphere the same way they have. Others dearly want to follow a real leader, and walk away from the mad Paris tea party themselves.

But even poor countries signed the Paris treaty. Yes, they did – because they are under no obligation to reduce their coal, oil or natural gas use or their CO2 emissions. And because they were promised $100 billion a year in cash, plus free state-of-the-art energy technologies, from developed nations that would have become FMCs (formerly rich countries) as they slashed their energy use and de-industrialized.

But the Paris climate treaty was voluntary; the United States wouldn’t have to do all this. Right. Just like it’s voluntary for you to pay your taxes. China, India and poor developing countries don’t have to do anything. But the USA would have been obligated to slash its oil, gas and coal use and carbon dioxide emissions. It could impose tougher restrictions, but it could not weaken them. And make no mistake: our laws, Constitution, legal system, the Treaty on Treaties and endless lawsuits by environmentalist pressure groups before friendly judges would have ensured compliance and ever more punishing restrictions.

But hundreds of companies say we should have remained in Paris. Of course they do. Follow the money.

If we are to avoid a climate cataclysm, “leading experts” say, the world must impose a $4-trillion-per-year global carbon tax, and spend $6.5 trillion a year until 2030 to switch every nation on Earth from fossil fuels to renewable energy. That’s a lot of loot for bankers, bureaucrats and crony corporatists.

But, they assure us, this transition and spending would bring unimaginable job creation and prosperity. If you believe that, you’d feel right at home in Alice’s Wonderland and Looking Glass world.

Who do you suppose would pay those princely sums? Whose jobs would be secure, and whose would be expendable: sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism? Here’s the Planet Earth reality.

Right now, fossil fuels provide 80% of all the energy consumed in the USA – reliably and affordably, from relatively small land areas. Wind and solar account for 2% of overall energy needs, expensively and intermittently, from facilities across millions of acres. Biofuels provide 3% – mostly from corn grown on nearly 40 million acres. About 3% comes from hydroelectric, 3% from wood and trash, 9% from nuclear.

Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia and other states that generate electricity with our abundant coal and natural gas pay 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. California, Connecticut, New York and other states that impose wind, solar and anti-fossil fuel mandates pay 15 to 18 cents. Families in closely allied ultra-green Euro countries pay an average of 26 US cents per kWh, but 36 cents in Germany, 37 cents in Denmark.

EU manufacturers are already warning that these prices could send companies, factories, jobs and CO2 emissions to China and other non-Euro countries. EU electricity prices have skyrocketed 55% since 2005; 40% of UK households are cutting back on food and other essentials, to pay for electricity; a tenth of all EU families now live in green energy poverty. Elderly people are dying because they can’t afford heat!

The Paris treaty would have done the same to the United States, and worse.

The Heritage Foundation says Paris restrictions would cost average US families $30,000 in cumulative higher electricity prices over the next decade. How much of their rent, mortgage, medical, food, clothing, college and retirement budgets would they cut? Paris would eliminate 400,000 high-pay manufacturing, construction and other jobs – and shrink the US economy by $2.5 trillion by 2027. Other analysts put the costs of remaining in Paris much higher than this – again for no climate or environmental benefits.

Big hospitals like Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center’s Comprehensive Cancer Center in Winston-Salem, NC and Inova Fairfax Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Northern Virginia pay about $1.5 million per year at 9 cents/kWh – but $3 million annually at 18 cents … $5 million at 30 cents … and nearly $7 million at 40 cents. How many jobs and medical services would those rate hikes wipe out?

Malls, factories and entire energy-intensive industries would be eliminated. Like families and small businesses, they would also face the new reality of having pricey electricity when it happens to be available, off and on all day, all week, when the wind blows or sun shines, instead of when it’s needed. Drilling and fracking, gasoline and diesel prices, trucking and travel, would also have been hard hit.

Americans are largely prohibited from mining iron, gold, copper, rare earth and other metals in the USA. Paris treaty energy prices and disruptions would have ensured that American workers could not turn metals from anywhere into anything – not even wind turbines, solar panels or ethanol distillation plants.

Most of the “bountiful” renewable energy utopia jobs would have been transporting, installing and maintaining wind turbines and solar panels made in China. Even growing corn and converting it to ethanol would have been made cost-prohibitive. But there would have been jobs for bureaucrats who write and enforce the anti-energy rules – and process millions of new unemployment and welfare checks.

Simply put, the Paris climate treaty was a terrible deal for the United States: all pain, no gain, no jobs, no future for the vast majority of Americans – with benefits flowing only to politicians, bureaucrats and crony capitalists. President Trump refused to ignore the realities of this economic suicide pact, this attempted global government control of American lives, livelihoods and living standards.

That is why he formally declared that the United States is withdrawing from the treaty. He could now submit it for advice, consent – and rejection – by the Senate. He could also withdraw the United States from the underlying UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or negotiate that reflects empirical science and is fair to America and its families and workers. But what is really important now is this:

We are out of Paris! President Trump is leading the world back from the climate insanity precipice.


Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

342 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Griff
June 3, 2017 1:57 am

“China and India are building new coal-fired power plants at a feverish clip. So is Germany.”
Let’s just look at Germany – is it building any coal power plants, let alone at a feverish rate?
No, it isn’t.
The ones planned under its 2008 programme (the intention then to have them replace nuclear) have all been completed or are in the last stage of being brought online. And there is a list -small, but growing – of coal plant to be retired.
https://energytransition.org/2016/10/germanys-last-new-coal-plant/
“Will another coal plant ever be opened in Germany? Only one is currently in the pipeline officially, and it has almost been completed… A wave of new coal projects is now over in Germany”

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 11:18 pm

Whether a new coal plant is opened in Germany for their energy needs or not, Will a new coal plant be opened anywhere in the world to supply power to Germany?

Griff
June 3, 2017 2:01 am

“From suggestions that Earth’s climate was balmy and stable until the modern industrial era, to assertions that humans can prevent climate change and extreme weather events by controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels”
Science does not claim the climate was balmy until the modern age. Rather it shows that the current influence driving climate change is human CO2 and that is producing a warming trend. Paris was not aimed at preventing climate change, but rather limiting it and thus its damaging effects.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 4:38 am

Griff said:
“Science does not claim the climate was balmy until the modern age. Rather it shows that the current influence driving climate change is human CO2 and that is producing a warming trend.”
————————–
If science shows that man’s influence is producing a warming trend, then you should have no trouble producing at least one graph which shows direct correlation between temps and CO2atm.
Well?
Ps Your statement that “science does not claim… is ridiculous, at best.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 7:09 am

I actually read a comment somewhere that it’s not CO2 per se that causes global warming, but the type of CO2, i.e,, man-made CO2. /not_sarc

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 9:27 am

Rather it shows that the current influence driving climate change is human CO2 and that is producing a warming trend.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what it does not show.
Quite the reverse. It shows no underlying detectable trend that correlates to CO2 increase.
What it reveals is that the climate is totally vulnerable to quasi periodic multi-decadal variations in Ocean current and air mass circulation, that happened to combine to match CO2 rises for a 15 year period in the later 20th century.
And stopped matching around the 21st millennium start.
You cant chant yer denialist mantra all you like, but mother Nature ain’t listening, and the smart money is on mother Nature, not the IPCC.

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 4:07 pm

Science does not claim the climate was balmy until the modern age. Rather it shows that the current influence driving climate change is human CO2 and that is producing a warming trend.
I guess the following graph does not show HUMAN CO2, then:comment image?raw=1
That surely explains it — it’s the teeny, tiny percentage of CO2 that is HUMAN that’s causing the catastrophic warming/climate change.
I’ll try to find a diagram of a HUMAN CO2 molecule compared to a NON human CO2 molecule now. Give me a few minutes.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 4, 2017 6:27 pm

comment image?raw=1comment image?raw=1

June 3, 2017 2:02 am

“Wind and solar account for 2% of overall energy needs” are you sure , I have 0.81 % and the problems are enormous-
“Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.
Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind).
Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.
If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.
At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.
Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.
As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.
As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.
It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.
A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output”
Add on that in about ten years you would need to start replacing the old turbines.
This is unsustainable.
Which bring me onto George Soros. He has been buying coal mines. Two questions
1. Is this so they will never re-open?
or
2. Has he crunched the number and knows the coal mines will have to re-open?

Griff
Reply to  englandrichard
June 3, 2017 2:17 am

Wind turbines have a 25 year lifespan
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_20-2-2014-9-18-49
The world’s first offshore wind farm just got decommissioned after running for 26 years
http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/worlds-first-offshore-wind-farm-being-decommissioned

hunter
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 3:24 am

And in 25 years don’t make enough revenue to cover their own depreciation. And the offshore windmills you refer to are in very shallow water 1-2 miles offshore. Not in deep seas 70 or more miles offshore. You never really like to tell the truth do you?

feliksch
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 4:26 am

In Switzerland most windmills were refurbished or replaced after 12 years.

Chris
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 6:21 am

“And the offshore windmills you refer to are in very shallow water 1-2 miles offshore. Not in deep seas 70 or more miles offshore.”
so what, how is that relevant?

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 7:45 am

Griff – The fallacy of wind turbines is revealed with simple arithmetic.
5 mW wind turbine, avg output 1/3 nameplate, 20 yr life, electricity wholesale 3 cents per kwh produces $8.8E6.
Installed cost $1.7E6/mW = $8.5E6. Add the cost of standby CCGT for low wind periods. Add the cost of land lease, maintenance, administration.
Solar voltaic and solar thermal are even worse.
The dollar relation is a proxy for energy relation. Bottom line, the energy consumed to design, manufacture, install, maintain and administer renewables appears to exceed the energy they produce in their lifetime.
Without the energy provided by other sources these renewables could not exist.

Griff
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 9:18 am

Hunter, they are the only offshore wind turbines decommed to this date… so the only whole life example we have.

Reply to  englandrichard
June 3, 2017 6:11 am

Depressing to know that within 50 years an area the size of Russia would have a 1000 tons of concrete on every acre and a road system thru out that wilderness to build and maintain the windturbines.
The madness of the greens.

TA
Reply to  englandrichard
June 3, 2017 9:56 am

Think of the poor birds and bats. Talk about running a gauntlet.

Reply to  englandrichard
June 3, 2017 2:32 pm

Windmills over area size of Russia. Resources of rare earths Nd and Dy may not be sufficient for the purpose! May have to go ferro which would make for greatly lower efficiency mills. On a lighter note, did you know that the distance from Moscow to the Far East coast (Vostok means east [Дальний Восток]) is about the same distance as Moscow to Chicago!!! That’s a lot of Woundmills.

hunter
June 3, 2017 3:20 am

But how to get this important analysis presented to the larger public square? The mad hatters, Soros, Gore, Mann, Hansen, etc., control the public square.

cedarhill
June 3, 2017 3:24 am

An interesting phenomenon is as climate change activists lose their battles and the issue sinks into the minor importance for most voters, the politicians that promote it keep getting elected. Over and over and over.
Germany.

Reply to  cedarhill
June 3, 2017 2:33 pm

Well the politicians can blame the scientists can’t they!

I Came I Saw I Left
June 3, 2017 4:22 am

“When I use data,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make data mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 3, 2017 4:30 am

Science in Wonderland.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 3, 2017 7:22 am

I assume this is a scene from the ‘Science in Wonderland’ film (haven’t seen it yet) in which Bill Nye experiments with new ways to explain the greenhouse effect to his denier friends.
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples_resource/image/22574

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 4, 2017 8:35 am

Bill Nye, the-not-a-science-guy-but-he-plays-one-on-TV: “See, Bruce, this is how the greenhouse effect works. Imagine this balloon is the earth’s atmosphere. Now I warm it up…”
Bruce: “Why don’t you use a heat lamp like the sun?”
Nye: “I like this way. Don’t you?”

June 3, 2017 5:13 am

Sadly the damage to manufacturing has been done – Australia’s manufacturing 60 years ago was almost 50% of GDP it is now 7% of GDP and about to get less. All governments over that 60 year period have sold out our kids rights to the jobs that were their entry point into full employment – Thats why youth un-employment is now so high. However keep up the fight so others will join in and make our nation strong and hopefully become independent of UN influences.

Reply to  davidgraham08
June 3, 2017 2:35 pm

they did it for the grandchildren.

Dodgy Geezer
June 3, 2017 5:20 am

Has anyone noted that it’s REMARKABLY difficult to find out what the terms of the Paris Agreement actually ARE?

A C Osborn
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
June 3, 2017 7:08 am

You can read the Document, you can also go to Paul Homewood’s forum and look at the so called promises made by each country and it’s actual efffect on CO2.
When you put it all together they are actually promising to INCREASE the world’s CO2 output.

observa
June 3, 2017 5:57 am

I see Clive James tips a bucket on climastrology and it’s sycophantic mainstream media followers in The Australian today with- “Western climate change alarmists won’t admit they are wrong” (paywalled)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/western-climate-change-alarmists-wont-admit-they-are-wrong/news-story/892c0088ec01f9186e068f55f2ca6794?utm_source=The%20Australian&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_content=TodaySHeadlines
and he doesn’t mince any words in castigating them all in his inimitable style.

Mike Schlamby
Reply to  observa
June 3, 2017 8:12 am

Paywall alert.

observa
Reply to  Mike Schlamby
June 3, 2017 9:20 am

Without a subscription you’ll get a taste of Clive’s comprehensive spray over at Jonovas-
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/06/end-game-of-climate-wars-clive-james-discusses-how-it-plays-out-slowly/
We live in interesting times it seems with Trump dissociating the US from the Paris Groupthink.

Auto
Reply to  Mike Schlamby
June 3, 2017 2:22 pm

observa
Excellent quotes.
Thank you.
Auto.

observa
Reply to  Mike Schlamby
June 4, 2017 9:05 am

Enjoy some more quotes as it seems a commenter at JoNovas has a link to it here-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a53ztcpsdi00fox/Clive%20James%20extract%20Mass%20Death%20Dies%20Hard.pdf?dl=0

john
June 3, 2017 5:59 am

Speaking if exits…
Toyota divorces Tesla
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN18U05E

Reply to  john
June 3, 2017 9:32 am

Well their Pious outsells Tesla by a huge amount. No technology left to steal in Tesla.

Thomas Gasloli
June 3, 2017 6:05 am

While you are all focusing on the Paris and UN you fail to realize what drives CO2/GHG regulations in the US is the finding of endangerment for CO2/GHG by the EPA. As long as that stands, President Trump is merely one environmental lawsuit, one Federal Court order away from being forced to impose draconian GHG regulations. You haven’t achieved victory yet and you won’t see it until the finding of endangerment is withdrawn.

Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
June 3, 2017 2:49 pm

Gee, it’s painful grabbing at straws. Sounding gleeful about the problems to be solved I guess is all there is Left.

jake
June 3, 2017 6:07 am

One minor point on terminology – CO2 is not plant fertilizer, it is plant food.

Reply to  jake
June 3, 2017 8:49 am

I think even “food” understates CO2’s role . It is the molar equal with H2O in forming the structural mass of plants and thus all life .
CO2 is the anabolic half of the respiratory cycle of life .

Craig W
June 3, 2017 6:19 am

The leftist of the world would come off as more genuine if they weren’t such a preachy lot of fakes.
Musicians, filmmakers and their mouthpieces should produce their fantasies using nothing more than so called renewable energy.
They should stop building elaborate stages, film sets and should only shoot by the light of day.
Tents, not trailers.
Bicyles, not automobiles.
Everything related to their productions must be 100% green and 97% of their income should go to their mad, mad cause!

Non Nomen
Reply to  Craig W
June 3, 2017 8:50 am

Railroads, not interstates. Ships and riverboats, not aeroplanes. But the leftist Greens are deceitful preachers of drinking water but swallow plonk galore.

Alx
Reply to  Craig W
June 3, 2017 12:03 pm

The greens have rejected any of the world religions and created their own green religion which they dress up with science. In the end they have become horrific fundamentalist hypocrites. They are like the brimstone and fire preachers who rail against the gay lifestyle during the day while frequenting homosexual prostitutes at night. They are about as phony as a human can get.

Auto
Reply to  Craig W
June 3, 2017 2:33 pm

Craig
But actors [both sexes – all sexes] are paid to mouth other folks’ words.
Talking heads on dramatic bodies, if you like.
Me – much less.
I suppose it is possible to wonder who pays them [useful idiots? Surely not.].
And who writes their scripts [Ahh – the puppet masters . . . . . . .].
Most actors are, I suggest, no better at atmospheric sciences than I am (One or two may not be that good. Possibly), yet a red carpet transforms their breathless drivel into Commandment chiselled into rock tablets, it seems.
Auto
Master Mariner, and award-winning [No! Not a Nobble] Voluntary Observing Ship Observer [Met. Office].

Eugene WR Gallun
June 3, 2017 7:47 am

Today in downtown Portland, at 2:00 pm, I will show up at a pro-Trump rally. It is hoped that about 400 people will attend. (Yes, there might be that many forthright people in the Portland area willing to put their lives on the line to show support for Trump.).
Upon hearing about the Trump rally, “protests” were immediately planned by the Left. Earlier in the day (the first starting at 11:00am I believe) four (yes, four) different anti-Trump rallies will occur — their purpose being to rally all elements of the city against the “fascists” at the Trump rally. (One will include a mass feeding of the homeless to insure that the drug addicted and mental elements of the city will be gathered and properly galvanized.)
It is expected that a “totally spontaneous” convergence by the four groups on the Trump supporters will occur.
The police have vowed to keep Trump and anti-Trump supporters separated. (These are the police who were ordered to stand down after the election when rioting broke out in the Portland streets. Good cops with bad leadership.)
Maybe everything will be peaceful — with just name calling and a few bottles being tossed.
Eugene WR Gallun

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
June 3, 2017 8:26 am

Antifa is so effing stupid. A while back at a protest in Olympia WA, after the Trump people left the scene, the homeless people attacked and ran off the antifa crowd because they were sick of their nihilistic chit.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
June 3, 2017 8:54 am

Antennas up, close the hatches, ready for action. Good luck.

TA
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
June 3, 2017 10:10 am

Good luck, Eugene.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
June 3, 2017 10:24 am

It is now 10:30 and I have been following the local news. The story line is set. Whatever happens it is the fault of the Trump people because they wouldn’t cancel their rally.
Eugene WR Gallun

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
June 3, 2017 10:44 am

As an add the Trump rally will have to take place on federal property in the city. The rally was granted a federal permit. The city has clearly stated they would never issue the Trump people a permit to rally on city property citing the potential danger such a rally would cause. The left never has problems getting a city permit. And the left never cleans up its garbage.
Eugene WR Gallun

Gabro
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
June 3, 2017 11:57 am

Eugene,
You’ll be on federal property, but US Marshals and Park Police won’t be there to protect you from angry mobs.
Hope you wear a helmet and flak jacket.

Alx
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
June 3, 2017 11:56 am

Those fascists, I mean liberals, who protest on behalf of Hollywood and political elites, I mean the down trodden, are extremely committed to their narrow, megalomaniac single worldview, I mean diversity. Long live the resistance or something like that.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
June 3, 2017 12:32 pm

OH MY GOD WHAT AN EMBARRASSMENT!!!!!!
THE TRUMP RALLY IS FOR SUNDAY AND TODAY IS SATURDAY. I WILL NEVER LIVE THIS DOWN.
TALK ABOUT POETS NOT KNOWING WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK IT IS!!!!!!
EUGENE WR GALLUN

Gabro
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
June 3, 2017 12:34 pm

Well, if you showed up there today, you’d at least be safer.

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
June 3, 2017 2:54 pm

Gee in the ’60s, we handed out flowers and kisses to the ‘establishment’. Whatever has become of unhappy youth!

David S
June 3, 2017 12:32 pm

Trumps speech was epic. Whilst the alarmists and other idiot world leaders have gone on the attack mode I have not heard one person actually say that what Donald said was not true. In fact from that perspective it was a brilliant speech. It was based on the economics and not the science. It actually makes sense to both alarmists and sceptics because why would anyone economically sabotage their economy when it is so clearly apparent that it won’t and cannot achieve the stated aim. This is true no matter what the science says. I think that any person who listens to what he said must question the logic of what is being sacrificed on the altar of the global warming gods. Cult beliefs are so entrenched it is difficult to deprogram people who have been subjected to such constant brainwashing and propaganda but Trumps speech is a good first step. Once progress is made in arguing the economics we can then try convincing these poor misguided souls on the science.

The Reverend Badger
June 3, 2017 12:50 pm

Today I started reading a book called ” The Great Illusonists” by Edwin A Dawes. Here’s something I found in the introduction (slightly edited by me for the meaning here):
“Professor A.V.Hill, distinguished physiologist and Nobel prize-winner once advocated that every student of science should be shown in his university classes how the skill of the conjurer deceives the human brain, including the ways this is achieved, that nothing supernatural is involved, only the fallibility of the human senses. Were this done, Professor Hill believed that fewer scientists would publish mistaken conclusions and incorrect observations. It is a well know fact among conjurers that the more intelligent the audience the more readily will they be deceived by conjuring principles of which they have no knowledge: cause and effect are so rapidly associated that the unexpected denouement catches them off-guard”
In my discussions/arguments on line with AGW enthusiasts it certainly seems that the cause (CO2) and effect (Global Warming) are very solidly linked in their minds. This is the area that needs to be attacked.

mark
June 3, 2017 5:15 pm

Yup another brilliant move engineered by the orange haired buffoon, the lame ass republican party and cheered on by the ingnorant masses that read this crap website.

Reply to  mark
June 3, 2017 5:48 pm

Mark, the orange haired buffoon is incapable of engineering anything. He even has trouble with covfefe. You need to direct your scorn at Vice President Bannon.

mark
Reply to  Mark S Johnson
June 4, 2017 12:18 am

You’re right. Got it backwards, engineered by the lame ass republican party and signed off by the orange haired buffoon.
The ignorance contained in almost every comment in this feed and indeed this website is astonishing. The media elite can be really proud for having pulled off the greatest disinformation program of all time.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Mark S Johnson
June 4, 2017 6:13 am

There there, Mark, go take your meds and have a lie-down.
There’s a good troll.

TA
Reply to  mark
June 4, 2017 6:16 am

Don’t get mad. Get an argument.

observa
Reply to  mark
June 4, 2017 8:21 pm

“the ingnorant masses that read this crap website”
Dripping with irony or is it just more of the usual leftist self loathing mark?

Uncle Gus
June 4, 2017 7:12 am

This seems to be Trump’s speciality – doing something notably sensible and making it look like an act of utter lunacy.
He did it with the so-called “Muslim ban”. It was an option that had been set up under the Obama administration, and if Obama had implemented it (say in response to the Boston Marathon bombing) nothing would have been said. Trump managed to do it out of the blue with no prior preparation and no guidelines issued to customs staff, and implied (or allowed it to be assumed) that it was the start of a national campaign against Muslims. Not a PR victory.
Now he has withdrawn from an environmentally ineffectual agreement (and the Greens would be railing against its ineffectuality, in the good old days when they still expected to win!) that appears to be deliberately designed to be unfair to the US. Of course he did. And he’s promised to renegotiate something better – not that *anyone* wants to be across a negotiating table from DT! – which of course nobody is taking seriously.
Actually, this is the nearest thing to a sensible decision I’ve yet to see Trump make, and it really has nothing to do with climate change. He is not a climate denier, or even a real sceptic. He is simply standing up for American interests.
I’m surprised. I didn’t think he really gave a damn.

Ed
June 4, 2017 12:21 pm

Years ago when I was young, naive and idealistic I was on the board of the largest chapter of a major environmental group. I was also doing research that involved ocean currents and therefore also weather and climate. We suddenly had a influx of young, well educated, new members to our environmental chapter. One was elected chapter president. Because I was out spoken and also knowlegedable he invited me to lunch. Why? Because as he admitted he knew nothing about the environment and honestly didn’t care. He and “his friends” had joined in order to develop allies for their cause. Their goal was to bring together the socioeconomic liberals (think hard left) and the organized environmental community. “Together they would be a formidable political force. It was true prior to the global warming hysteria while both groups tended to be more liberal than the average American, they had never come together. The young man made it clear he hated capitalism and therefore also the USA since in his mind it was the bastion of capitalism. It was “their goal” to destroy capitalism and all the evils it had brought to the world. While the folks I knew at the time in oceanography were just beginning to discuss anthropogenic climate change, this young man was already spouting about how the world would come to end if we didn’t do something AND SOON. In other words what we are facing as a country is an organized socioeconomic attack on the USA. Why? because the left, many liberals and the hard core environmentalists see the USA, its economic engine as the only evil in the world. That they now have a cause, supposedly backed up my a consensus of scientists, that they can now use to kill the golden goose. Few of them see the USA as the freest, most environmental country in history and even those that will admit that will not do so in front of their friends. For the scientists involved it is all about the money. The millions we spent from the end of WWII until 1990 on weather, climate and oceanography, all dried up at the end of the Cold war. Where, oh where were their salaries and research grants going to come from? I once held the “keys” to a scientific grants program. What those in that field would do to get a piece of the action was profoundly amazing yet while at the same time lecturing everyone about proper Scientific Method.

markl
Reply to  Ed
June 5, 2017 8:59 am

Careful. Your personal experience notwithstanding, you are entering the “conspiracy theory” zone for some people that would prefer to ostrich and avoid the messy truth.

Ed
Reply to  markl
June 6, 2017 9:08 am

No conspiracy theory. This group of young people at the time lobbied all our members very, very hard to become more “socially concerned.” In fact it was from these folks that I first heard “social justice” used. They spent a great deal of time talking about how the environment and social justice were intertwined. They had all sorts of “data” they handed out supposedly supporting their arguments. I kept a file of the stuff they handed out for years but long since lost track of it.

Verified by MonsterInsights