The Guardian Just Noticed Greens are Losing the Climate Debate

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Greens are inventing elaborate fantasies of shadowy right wing conspiracies to explain President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Treaty – but still refuse to consider the possibility they are wrong about global warming.

Trump’s Paris exit: climate science denial industry has just had its greatest victory

Graham Readfearn

Trump’s confirmed withdrawal from the United Nation’s Paris climate deal shows it’s time to get to grips with the climate science denial industry.

Moments before the US president, Donald Trump, strode into the Rose Garden, TV cameras pictured his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, shaking hands and looking generally pleased with himself.

Bannon once called global warming a “manufactured crisis”.

Bannon, with Trump’s head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, were among the loudest and most forceful voices in Trump’s ear, imploring the president to pull out of the Paris climate change agreement.

During his speech, Trump claimed the Paris deal was bad for America. The themes were economic, but the speech was laced with jingoistic protectionism.

“Our withdrawal represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty,” he said.

The foundation for Trump’s dismissal of the Paris deal – and for the people who pushed him the hardest to do it – is the rejection of the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change.

So what comes next? Hopefully, one realisation will be this.

Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.

They just convinced the leader of the United States to pull the plug on a historic deal signed by almost 200 countries, and instead join Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not signed up.

It is time to take that climate science denial industry seriously.

Read more:

Why do Greens feel compelled to invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain their failure to convert people to their cause? My guess is the reality is simply too hard for greens to swallow.

The climate alarmist cause is failing because it is based on a false premise. The idea that the Earth currently faces a manmade climate crisis is quite simply nonsense.

No amount of green money, psychological “inoculations”, propaganda and tub thumping can hide this simple fact from ordinary people who have access to the evidence.

Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

So, climate science denial is an industry. Who knew?
Is climate science alarmist propaganda an industry too?
One good conspiracy theory deserves another.

Looks like my comment counts as a “0 thought”. (^_^) [in moderation cue, maybe? — that’s okay, I’ve been called worse than a “0”.

Up ! … spoke too soon. Delayed counter.

John F. Hultquist

Some filters might choke on the word ‘ den1@l ‘.


Alarmists capability for projection knows no limits.
They are the ones who have been “denying” the scientific method, inverting the null hypothesis and running a multi-billion dollar bogus science industry for the last three decades.
M.E. Mann lies before congressional committee in similar attempt to accuse others of exactly what he has been doing himself.
HYPOCRITES , the lot of ’em.


The Guardian Just Noticed Greens are Losing the Climate Debate

there never was a debate because they refused to have one. See Gavin Schmitt childishly walking of set and refusing to debate Roy Spencer.
Mann refuses to debate with anyone.
What they are loosing is a propaganda war, not a scientific debate.

Robert W Turner

Chalk this up as yet more proof that what we’re dealing with here is a cult.
I’m serious.
This is a cult brainwashing tactic. They aren’t telling their followers to learn the science or the truth, they are telling them to be wary and be ready to reject any information that does not conform to the inside groups (cult) beliefs.
“Isolation – Cults cut off members from the outside world (and even each other) to produce intense introspection, confusion, loss of perspective and a distorted sense of reality. The members of the cult become the person’s only social contact and feedback mechanism.
Cults may keep new recruits from talking to other new recruits. They may only be allowed to speak with long-committed members for a period of time.
Cults may not allow unsupervised contact with the “outside world.” In this way, there is no chance for a “reality check” or validation of a new member’s concerns regarding the group.
Cults typically instill the belief that “outsiders” (non-cult members) are dangerous and wrong.”


Robert W Turner….
Don’t forget cults also employ low protein diets (vegetarianism), repetitive chanting (the planet has a fever… the planet has a fever…), and sleep deprivation through in this case… fear.
If it looks like a duck and it qwacks like a duck it’s probably Mann and Gore!


“…running a (mostly) taxpayer-funded multi-billion dollar bogus science industry…”


PiperPaul, Bloomberg is going to fix that (there’s a sucker born everyday) just keep me out of it


If this is an industry, why am I doing this for free? Let’s unionize!!

Clyde Spencer

Do you suppose we could get back pay for our previous volunteer efforts? sarc/ Seriously, the fact that those who think that opposition is present only because they are being paid is evidence of just how out of touch with reality these alarmists are.


The Climate Science Denial Industry is one of the many industries that should flourish under the Trump administration.

Curious George

Climate alarmism was a three hundred billion dollar industry till yesterday. Please give them ample time to cry.

Greg Woods

Do we get our own initials: CSDI?


The Guardian is only (somewhat) useful as a fish wrapper.


I find it makes the taste odd.

You’re supposed to eat the fish, not the wrapper. 🙂

michael hart

Truthfully, I think somebody at The Guardian is actually quite happy with articles that go full-retard because it brings in more clicks, and the seriously afflicted don’t realize how much other people are laughing at their histrionics. Links from articles such as this will increase site traffic and please the advertisers. There is not a lot to please the advertisers at The Guardian in recent times.
They probably don’t much care if the traffic actually comes from political opponents and people who go there to gawk and gloat. Out of morbid curiosity I might now go there myself for a quick look. It almost feels like there’s been another election and Trump won again.

Stephen Richards

Illegal these days. You are showing my age. :))

Tom O

Actually climate “science denial” has always been an industry – that’s why we have billions of dollars worth of bat mincemeat makers, and bird broilers. The only people that have been denying “climate science,” has been the AGW crowd, and they’ve denied “climate science” from the beginning, preferring pre-programmed hysteria models.


Spot on Tom O – my thoughts on the matter as well.

DD More

Grammy has it very wrong.
Bannon once called global warming a “manufactured crisis”.
Nope, He said that many times.
The foundation for Trump’s dismissal of the Paris deal – is the lack of science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change.

Where can I send a resume. One of my key accomplishments was to get banned from most alarmist blogs for asking questions whose undeniable answers undermine the foundation of the climate alarmist industry.

The Reverend Badger

Now if only you could get banned from one or two of the Anti-AGW blogs as well we might be convinced you are on the right track.

That would only happen if the moderators believed that incremental atmospheric CO2 has no more than a negative effect on the average surface temperature.
This probably won’t happen since the majority of readers and contributors to the anti-AGW blogs are actually anti-CAGW and understand that incremental CO2 has a finite effect on the surface temperature, but the size of this effect is dramatically over-estimated by the IPCC and the self serving consensus surrounding the reports it generates.

Robert W Turner

Cult behavior.

What alarmist blogs did you get banned from?
I’d like to post some comments there — I find it amusing to annoy the climate parrots and their memorized talking points.
I may be more of a “denier” than you.
I think the climate in 2017 is wonderful.
There has been no problem from climate change in the past 150 years.
Sea level rise is not accelerating.
Night are a little warmer, but that’s good news.
I propose doubling the CO2 level ASAP to further green the Earth.
And if a doubling of CO2 happens to increase the average temperature by one degree C., as suggested in laboratory experiments, that’s even better.
Warming at night in cold climates, the primary claimed effect of greenhouse gases, would be a bonus on top of CO2 greening the earth and accelerating green plant growth.
Can you imagine me going to an alarmist blog and telling them I favor doubling the CO2 level as soon as possible?
It would be similar to walking past the monkey cages at the zoo while banging my steel cup against the bars — they would go berserk — the liberals I mean, not the zoo animals. I hope I didn’t offend the zoo animals by comparing them with liberals?

“What alarmist blogs did you get banned from?”
Real climate, Skeptical science, scienceofdoom, to name a few.

Leo Smith

The guardian and the IPCC are all part of the great climate science denial conspiracy.

john harmsworth

Why is it that the Left owns nearly ALL the major media? As long as that is the case, we will have climate science nonsense, massive deficits and public policy made by the SJW’s at everyone’s expense.


John: Because the Right refused to believe it was happening and thus did nothing to stop it.


Of course. Look at all those documentaries and movies.


Does anyone know why I haven’t received my paycheck for the last several years of climate denialism? I mean it is a giant industry supported by ???? and clearly paying people to say evil and hateful things. There after all couldn’t possibly be any reason for me to have questions about climate alarmism. Just because I have a solid well educated prior to the attempts to rewrite it grasp of history. And had questions about the medieval warm period. The roman warm period. The end of the little ice age and what impact that had on their numbers…. I mean just because I actually know something about history and don’t blind myself to asking questions.


I love the label of “jingoistic” when he is simply supporting our country and its future health as a viable economy and society. Jingoism is patriotism that leans toward warlike. Short of standing up for our principles in the face of other countries and fighting the forces of Jihadist Islam, he is not warlike. What he is doing is totally adult, which drives the libtards crazy—their emotionally-based ideals and policies are being supplanted by real world policies that will allow them to keep, but not impose, their feel-good thoughts.

Brent Hargreaves

“What he is doing is totally adult…” writes Higley7. The German magazine Der Speigel is appalled that Trump is telling NATO partners to pay what they agreed to pay for their own defence. That’s adult. The agreed level is minimum 2% of GDP. Britain and Estonia meet that commitment and the US spends more than 4%. Apart from these the rest of NATO is slacking.
Spiegel reports in outraged tones that he dares point out to Germany and others that “there are large and prosperous countries not living up to their alliance obligations”. I think that your president has said something like “if they won’t pay for their own defence why should America make up the shortfall?” I heard on BBC Radio the Swedish defence minister answer, in response to a journalist making that very point: “Well, we have other things we need to spend our budget on!” Darn cheek!
I encourage people to read the Spiegel article.
As a Brit I salute your president’s bold stand on the global warming hoax, and fervently hope that my own government will do the same after next week’s election.

george e. smith

Well for starters the set of persons of genus homo who deny that climate changes, is an empty set containing exactly zero set elements.
So now what was the second complaint.

> Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.
I gotta tell ya. The Jobs Board at the global climate science denial industry website has exploded with new listings. [snark for the humor deficient]

I Came I Saw I Left

“Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.”
They’ll never figure it out…


From what I can see the sceptics are disinterested people with an interest in the subject. There are no personnel or structure. This is not a James Bond scenario where we all live on a tropical hideaway ( about to be inundated by rising acid sea levels). Sarc off/
Perhaps they should consider it as asymmetric discussion and read “Street without Joy ” before launching their conventional media onslaughts.

john harmsworth

It isn’t complicated. It’s called legitimate scientific inquiry unpolluted by politics.

Stephen Richards

No, they will make it.

george e. smith

Well I was born and raised on a continent that was already under water. So I don’t care if it floods a bit more.


Method – Giving out facts
Tactics – When someone brings up Global Warming, we correct them with facts
Personnel – Anyone can do it, facts are facts
Structure – Ground roots
Reach – Anyone that wants the truth can be converted
Oh and the more you call it denial, the more people investigate what it’s all about, then they convert after finding the facts.
How to stop us – One World Gov’t, but Trump just put a big ding in that


I’m not sure that the ding is that big.
It would have been a much bigger ding if he had used false or indeed fake science rather than economics as the reason for withdrawing.


But the global egalitarian economics of spreading wealth from wealthy nations to 3rd world countries (including those who do the spreading) IS the underlying reason. The man-made catastrophic climate meme is just the façade to sell this to those that can’t/won’t use critical thinking skills


Oh, I thought the science of CAGW was about siphoning wealth from the former US middle class into the pockets of otherwise unemployable “academics”. CAGW being the religion promoted by Globalists to get money and power.


Mike, the CAGW folks expanded the agenda to include sending money to totalitarian and socialist dictators and autocrats to “spread the wealth around”. The next step would have been to ask for even more money to build more projects because the first tranche wasn’t big enough- meaning the kleptocrats wanted better furniture and even bigger palaces and armies.


Not even a one world government could stop us.
The thing tyrants fear most is the single slave that refuses to be a slave, and the inevitable revolt where the tyrant ends up against a wall.


The idea that the warmests want to spread wealth from the wealthy nations to the third world never made any sense to me. They don’t care about the Third World. What they want is a One World government, with them at the helm. Carbon tax revenues are simply a clever way to buy allies with the money of your enemy. If they could pull this off, they would gain some power over the west with their taxation, and some power over the Third World with their bribery. Not to mention lining their own pockets for their services as money changers and self proclaimed saviors of the Planet. Its a pretty clever scheme. Evil…but clever!
Trump was absolutely right when he made his decision based on US Sovereignty. After all, if this was about climate science, the issue would have died before it got started. There is simply no compelling reason to be worried about man-made climate change. The science does not support the theory and the theory does not support a crisis. 3 degrees warming over 100 years is nothing for opportunistic, adaptable humans to deal with, and the biosphere would love the warmth like it already loves the increasing atmospheric plant food.

Crispin in Waterloo

Personally, I don’t see why people are so worried about world governance. There was a meeting in Paris, they agreed to do just about nothing. Some people agreed to sign on, some didn’t. What’s wrong with that? It is democratic in that sense.
If some US States want to continue in line with the Paris Agreement, nothing prevents them from doing that, even before the announcement. People are free to implement any CO2 reduction schemes they want to pay for. A democratic movement would not permit that option, and it does, so is that a problem?
Countries that want to get gobs of money from the other participants are free to try to get it. Those who want to hand out gobs of money can do so – that is their choice.
The problem comes when those who are in charge of the international process are not accountable to anyone at all. That is taxation without representation, something that has caused “certain problems” in past centuries.
The UN is not accountable to the peoples (the electorate) of the world. That is a problem. Until the UN is a properly constituted and responsible (in the conventional political sense) it should not have taxation powers that are not agreed by the members. The Paris Agreement was a substitute for such a responsible body and a substitute for democratically agreed action.
Bringing hundreds of participants to Paris is not a democratic act – such movements are far to easy to bias through the organising committee. It has a very European Union feel about it where there are a few people who leverage a committee who leverage a large committee who leverage an entire convention to produce a pre-determined outcome that serves the initial small committee of ‘people who think they know better’. How conventional. How dishonest. How unfair is that? “Fasipulation” is not a form of democracy and a poor method of consultation.
We have lots of international governance and failing to recognize that is an error. Law of the Sea, Telegraphic conventions, satellite orbit spaces, allocation of web names – lots and lots of things are decided based on international laws. Nothing wrong with that at all. Ultra-nationalism and isolationism are not the only alternatives to global domination by an unelected elite.
Contributors should not support going off the deep end (“Island America”) just because we need to have some cooperation on major issues. There are numerous global issues and they cannot be settled by worshipping nationalism. If the USA supports democracy, do it, not talk about it for the US alone. The Paris Accord is not democratic and was not democratic in its genesis. It was also not done competently which is, alone, a good reason not to sign it. But it does not mean we should give up all the other international agreements which have served humanity well for over a century in some cases.


“Personally, I don’t see why people are so worried about world governance.”
World government will be controlled by India and China.
Do you really want to spend the rest of your life being told what to do by India and China?

David Chappell

Oldseadog, you must have been a stoker or engine room mechanic because you obviously didn’t learn anything about the weather, and, consequently, climate, from your time at sea.

Steve Thatcher

Crispin in Waterloo
June 2, 2017 at 3:51 pm
“………….. People are free to implement any CO2 reduction schemes they want to pay for…………………………..

Hidden in your response to Jared is the root of the problem – They DON’T want to pay for their schemes, they want OTHER people to pay for their schemes.
Behind their outward intentions lurks their true intention – to bring down capitalism as it currently exists and replace it with a Marxist/communist/socialist/green/progressive system of governance (choose one – they’re all the same). The renaming just tries to hide the fact that previous names have been rumbled. As with global warming – climate change etc.
Never mind that so far all these systems have done is to fail miserably, leading to chaos/revolution/uprising/poverty/deaths etc etc.


“World government will be controlled by India and China.
Do you really want to spend the rest of your life being told what to do by India and China?”
Oh please, what will be the mechanism to make that happen? Not the UN – give me examples of laws passed by the UN which were forced on the US, where the US did not want to comply.

george e. smith

Can’t use what you don’t have.
A two year old child can make better traffic control decisions, than all the third world software geniuses living on an H1B visa enslavement.
The ability to write beautiful spaghetti code does not endow one with the ability to solve simple problems.
That same two year old child can identify a tree ; ANY TREE, and distinguish it from the AT&T-Tree ; AKA a telephone pole.
Those third world code writers cannot identify ANY tree, from a telephone pole.
Well it is possible that some of those two year olds might not recognize a Boojum Tree. But there are few two year olds that have ever seen a boojum tree or a picture of one.

ron long

we can all learn about the “global climate science denial industry” by watching the court case of Mann vs. Steyn (countered by Steyn vs Mann). This is an impending trial of interest and both sides well represented, one to win and one to lose. Mann has tried several times to abandon the suit he filed but Steyn counter-sued and won’t let it stop. Although this is dragging on it will eventually be the new version of Scopes Monkey Trial. Adult beverages and popcorn for sure. see

Steve Case

ron long … at 10:16 am
…Mann vs. Steyn (countered by Steyn vs Mann)… will eventually be the new version of Scopes Monkey Trial.

Good one!

john harmsworth

If we’re comparing Mann to monkey it is an insult to monkeys!

john harmsworth

But it does raise the image of Mann throwing his feces around at the Senate hearings or anywhere else his credibility is questioned.

Alan Robertson

I’ll be more than happy to perform a study which will might support the alarmists’ new conspiracy theory.
With past as prologue, there is already a long line of potential authors, applying for the position.

john harmsworth

Just whatever you do-don’t look at the science! Avert your eyes, lest ye be enlightened!

Please find my check, or an email address for accounts payable.

Gunga Din

cAgw seance
“Definition of anthropomorphic
: described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes, anthropomorphic deities, stories involving anthropomorphic animals
: ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things, anthropomorphic supernaturalism. anthropomorphic beliefs about nature”
Not sure which of the two fits best. But I’d say, in regards to the CAGW hypothesis, they need emphasis that it “morphs” all the time to fit what that “Anthropo” is the Cause that needs to be controlled.


The way “to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure, and the reach of the global climate science denial industry” is to join it. While you dwell within the CAGW realm you are ever happy there, but once you cross its borders you can never return again.


It’s anthropogenic (well, actually it isn’t, but the word is) …


Gunga 3:11 pm:. Defining “anthropomorphic” reminds me; let’s also look at “anthropogenic.” E.g., if “carcinogenic” and “mutagenic” mean things that can generate cancer and mutations, and “photogenic” means something that emits or generates light or something that can result in a photograph, then “anthropogenic” means something that generates or results in an anthropoid (an ape-like or humanoid creature). A child’s or ape’s parents are anthropogenic. In vitro fertilization is anthropogenic. The word has been misinterpreted to mean something that is caused by humans; it’s actually the other way around. Someone who knows Greek or Latin perhaps could help generate an English word that would correctly have the intended meaning.

george e. smith

So what causes an anthropoid to suddenly get anthropomorphic ??
R Lowland Gorrillas; that’s ” gorreeyas ” anthropomorphic ??

“the rejection of the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change”. I’ve been searching for over 10 years, but I’ve still to find the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change. But I am a scientist, so I perhaps look a bit harder than the Grauniad’s Graham Readfearn. He has no qualifications to make any claims about science, being an ex-BBC journalist (no surprise there).

Harry Passfield

Hi Philip. The Harrabins, Readferns and Shuckmans of this (BBC) world need challenging at every soundbite they utter. Currently, the meme seem to be that solar/wind is cheaper than coal, yet they offer no attribution for their claim. I shall be writing to the BBC to demand that controversial claims are backed up with references – at least on the programme’s website.

Wow !
I had to check it was not a satire .


offer no attribution for their claim
Nebulous “externalities”. Fossil fuel “subsidies”. Nameplate output figures quoted for intermittent supply renewables. Omission of water vapor/cloud effects. MWP.
It’s as if everything they (alarmists) say is conditional, with crucial details just omitted for obvious reasons. It’s infuriating, but I suppose that itself is part of the strategy as well (i.e. frustrate “the enemy”).
The gullibility (or is it really masqueraded malfeasance) of otherwise intelligent-appearing people is astounding.

PiperPaul: PT Barnum wasn’t stupid, the “suckers” were.


I mean really what are the actual chances of any of the bad things they predict happening?
Anyone? Chances? Anyone?
Odd how they never ever actually want to answer that question.
Now what are the actual chances something good happens from global warming?

george e. smith

I’d say 50:50. Either they will (do), or the won’t (don’t); only two choices there are.
Probabilities only tell you the expected average frequency of qualified events, given a large number of candidate instances.
Tells you exactly nothing about the very next event that is yet to occur.
There was an occasion back in the 1960s where a University Statistical Mathematical Expert (self appointed no doubt) declared that the outcome of a single lottery event; an event that had never occurred before, was NOT RANDOM.
The (non random) selection that actually occurred, happened to be ONE out of factorial 366 possible selections; every one of them as likely as the one that did occur. Factorial 366 is a number, larger by far than any person ever has a practical need for. No one needs to be able to distinguish between (factorial 366), and (factorial 366 -1).

Dodgy Geezer

…The Guardian Just Noticed Greens are Losing the Climate Debate…
Yes. They just banned me again from commenting. Looks like they are circling their wagons and pulling up the drawbridge…

They banned me three times. The last time was when I posted a WMO piece about African temps being estimated and the need for 5000 automatic temp stations.


I have been banned too but I went back and re-registred and so kept on going. I have got some good licks in today and the hobgoblins are going nuts. They seem to realize that Trump has done something fatal to their obsession but they can’t figure out how he did it and they are in denial.
None of them can see that there is no link whatsoever between man made CO2 and Global Destruction which is what their cause requires for it to be scary enough to harvest cash for their pursuits. Their day is over and Donald J Trump killed the beast.

Clyde Spencer

Yes, the question is, just WHO is in denial. There is an old saying that when you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at yourself. All this time, skeptics have been called “deniers,” when it is the alarmists who have had their heads in the sand.

M Courtney

I just checked. I’m not banned and have not had many recent posts deleted.
Even when I linked to the IPCC AR5 which usually gets a snip.
Maybe the fact that the Guardian has now come out for Corbyn means my other comments are more welcome.
Perhaps the Guardian will come round on the climate issue too.


“Perhaps the Guardian will come round on the climate issue too.”
Not a chance, they have a Moonbat to keep busy.

john harmsworth

How can any rational human being think that a paper that supports Corbyn, who supported the IRA, can have any credibility?

Philip Mulholland

Only if they start following his brother Piers Corbyn, see

John F. Hultquist

… wagons and drawbridge …
What an interesting image.

Yes! As a longtime player with words (there must be a name for people like us — apart from ‘idiot’!) I tried mixing the metaphor completely and ended up with “pulling up the wagons and circling the drawbridge”. Passes a dull Saturday morning!
For the average Grauniad reader probably makes about as much sense.

george e. smith

As I recall, some of those wagons actually crossed rivers. So nyet on the effectiveness of drawbridges.
I have a bridge, but it is not withdrawable.
Izzere some reason why this stupid editor doesn’t speak English ??

Henry Galt

“Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.”
Yes, let us do that. Trey Gowdy gets my nomination as chief investigator. Let us have a thorough and penetrating investigation into … well, people just like me,
Ask us, nay, interrogate us, at length. Transcribe and record our sworn statements.
Then force the MSM publish them all, on the front page, without editing, to the world, under penalty of perjury.


Gets my vote Hank. It all needs to get out now.


Gets my vote as well, but how do you force the MSM to do something they don’t want to do because if they do it thay will look silly


They not thay.

Why wait to be interviewed? We can post our own screeds as to “How I Became A ‘Climate Denier” on various blogs, perhaps with a slightly puzzled take, as if to say, “I was a true believer, how did I end up here?”, while at the same time socking it to them with science.


is the best article I’ve ever read (along with Dr. Moore’s) on the Climate debate. As you might expect with Michael Crichton as the author. Written some 15 years ago it sums up the “science” BS perfectly.

Frederick Mackintosh

Crichton’s fiction book “State of Fear” was also full of links to NOAA websites showing temperature graphs with no trend of warming, etc. It was enough to convince me that most of the global warming alarmism was just a ruse to increase global government power. Probably the links in the book have been removed by now, but I reviewed them as I read the book to verify his claims of temp stability.

Went to your link, what a great, great article. Now if only it would be published on the front page of the newspaper that prints all the fake climate science that is fit to print, my opinion. Read all of his books. Thank you again for that link.


I am still waiting for my check from the Global Climate Science Denial Industry (GCSDI). I’m sure it’s simply lost in the mail and will arrive any day now. When it does, I’ll be able to retire to a tropical hot-spot in Antarctica.


There is a nice little spot just around the corner from my secret underground base where I make nefarious plans and drink imported Russian vodka.
It has a great view of my herds of penguins and polar bears.
(I rescued the bears from the Arctic , they said the researchers were beginning to get on their nerves hopefully I didn’t mess with the count up there.)

george e. smith

Any Penguins at Vostok Base, would have to lick their vodka popsicles, and their tongues would likely stick to the popsickle.


Not the brightest newspaper.
“U.N. sponsored global poll rates climate change dead last…/climate..”

A person becomes a liberal (er, now a “progressive”) when they decide, often in their teens, that they can continue to live in the feel-good world of make-believe rather than transitioning to living in the real world. This can be viewed in terms of where a person anchors their reality, in their private thoughts and feelings, or is the outside world the hard reality that they must compare their privates thoughts and feelings against?
When a person decides that what they feel is more “real” than some fact or timeless principle of the outside world, they create a private reality that can be whatever they want. Things they don’t like can be excluded. More important, their failings are never their own fault because it becomes an easy reflex to excuse any failure. In essence their reality is continually malleable and plastic.
You will notice that liberals do not share ideas by appealing to commonly known facts and principles. They convey ideas that “resonate” with others, much like the old high school science experiment with bells or chimes that vibrate in sympathetic resonance even though they are not touching.
So it should not come as any surprise when a hive of liberal finds that people who anchor their reality externally refuse to accept the hive-meme of the day. The “facts” that liberals present for climate change are not solid and consistent. Way too many of their models simply cannot be validated by backtesting. Their demands converge far more to advance socialism than to advance the wellbeing of the biosphere we all depend upon for food. In short, “climate change” has all the hallmarks of being a liberal trojan horse to destroy liberty, prosperity and to justify big and ever bigger government.


‘More important, their failings are never their own fault because it becomes an easy reflex to excuse any failure. In essence their reality is continually malleable and plastic.”
Perhaps this explains Hillary C. and all her reasons for failure. Just never grew up.


The Green/Liberal/Progressive worldview is shaped mainly by emotion. Any rational thinking is secondary and used to support the emotional position rather than challenge it. Those of the G/L/P mindset are upset emotionally by contradiction and cannot bear being found wrong. None of us likes to be found wrong, but with this group it goes to the core of their being, meaning, and worth. Thus they fight with great tenacity and with few moral strictures or understanding of their inconsistencies (claiming a right to free speech will denying it to others, is simple example). They do not know themselves and like very young children cannot see how they behave as anything but noble and good. Feelings replace actions and manifest as virtue-signaling. Anger easily rises to hatred. If they weren’t so dangerous, pity would be enough response to their behavior. Until self-awareness dawns on a G/L/P, there is little hope of him changing.

There is a strong herd mentality to it , too . They consider their echo chamber can overpower reality , eg : that gender is just a social construct rather than grounded in the doublehelix structure of DNA .
For me one of the appeals of mathematical physical science is its humbling requirement that you submit to mapping your mind to tested reality no matter how much of a morph that demands .


gender is just a social construct rather than grounded in the double helix structure of DNA
“Science” for progressives is just a prop (an impressive stack of dubious ClimateChange™ research papers, for example) to be used to, uh, ‘prop up’ their non-load-bearing arguments. Sometimes science is used as a stick with which to beat The Bad Evil People (i.e., people who don’t agree with the groupthink– even though the groupthink can change at the drop of a hat, depending on if a Cult Cultural Commander decrees it so) or to be dismissed and ignored entirely (the DNA example above).


+97! Self-delusion is a communicable (and convenient) mental condition for many people and very common amongst hard core progressives.

george e. smith

Well most of them think that WW-II was a video game that resets itself tomorrow. The most noticeable thing about a rainbow, is that it is well on its way to getting around behind your arse.

Mr Bliss

They may be losing the debate, but doesn’t Herr Cook have a vaccine that will provide a solution – a solution that will finally win the war?


Yeah he does! Except that intelligent life forms are immune to the vaccine. He and Lew are embarrassments in the world of psychology. And since psychology has never really been highly respected in the first place, that’s quite the accomplishment.


“This to me is a mystery. Why have scientists, psychologists and others gone along with the damage to the good name of their chosen fields?”
Well, Forest, it seems to me the most logical answer is that the corruption of science in general has proceeded further than one might wish. Which is not to say each and every person is involved in corrupt/unethical practices, but that the organizations/institutions have been infiltrated and co-opted to the point where it’s very costly to speak openly about certain matters, and in particular the mass media has been corrupted to the point where there’s little hope of vindication/support from anyone with a personal reputation/career they don’t want destroyed.
Not dissimilar to the way things work/have worked in many countries, wherein it’s virtual suicide to buck the “ruling elites” . . Just grown up, so to speak.

george e. smith

Well are you equating psychology with ” psychiatry “; which was best described by Ricky Ricardo, as ” Pee-sick-ee-a-tree ” with the accent on the “sick “. ??
You have to be sick to get your jollies listening to the most intimate secrets of your victims, that their partners thought were private between them. And your fetish is carefully protected by secrecy laws, So why would you cure (if you even could) a “problem ” that is actually providing you with a legally protected income stream.
Those witch doctors are the ultimate perverts.

Tom in Florida

“but the speech was laced with jingoistic protectionism.”
He’s just upset because the backers of globalism lost one yesterday. He doesn’t understand that those voted from Trump want jingoistic protectionism from the likes of the globalists. Most of us don’t give a rat’s ass about what he and his cronies think. Let the world try to get along without the U.S.


With the Alarmists’ Climate models now looking more like Mann’s Hockey Stick Graph, I can’t help but believe that Climate Alarmists are incapable of recognizing the Simple fact that all of their “Projections” and “Predictions” continue to diverge from REALITY. We have over 50 years of such Predictions, and not a single Claim has come to pass, yet these imbeciles continue to “accurately predict” what will happen in 10, 20, or 100 years!

Henning Nielsen

“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”
And nothing is more desperately defended than an idea whose time is up.


+ a very loud ONE.




“Nothing is more ridiculed than an idea whose time has passed”

I Came I Saw I Left

What would you expect from the Guardian…
It must really suck to spend all that time and money to get a journalism degree and then have to resort to presstitution to pay the bills.

Javert Chip

It takes time to earn a journalistic degree? Time for what? This stuff looks easy:
– Learn how to not check sources
– Learn how to not to even use sources
– God forbid you actually name a source
– Learn how to substitute uninformed personal opinion for facts
– Learn how to not quote both sides in a dispute
– Learn how to breathlessly report trivial studies & comments
Hmmmm. maybe this is the tough part:
– Learn how to switch sides when the wind changes

george e. smith

What’s journalistic about a journalism degree ??
Who needs journalists, when most newspapers simply reprint from the AP, or the NYT, or the LAT.
By the time the LAT has cooled enough to actually put on the shelves, I have already erased from my mind the original source of that fake news that they are interpreting, and explaining to me, what I already actually heard somebody say in their own words.

Reasonable Skeptic

“Why do Greens feel compelled to invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain their failure to convert people to their cause? ”
People devoted to a cause simply can’t see that they may be wrong.

They push nonsense conspiracies about their opponents to cover up their own accidental conspiracy that resulted from group think, confirmation bias and a destructive political ideology. Some may argue that it’s not accidental at all, but I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Ben Dover

Does a devout Christian believe it when told there is no scientific proof of God?

They would say that faith alone is enough. While this is fine for something completely subjective like religion when all you’re really concerned about is what happens after you die, faith is insufficient as a justification for the objective scientific principles guiding the living world.


Faith alone is not just enough, it’s essential. Were there scientific evidence for the God hypothesis, then the value of faith would be diminished. If there mathematical proof certain of God, faith would have no value at all.


Ben Dover
June 2, 2017 at 12:12 pm
The Trinity, the Christian main way forward to salvation,,,,, repent, confess, accept fault and failure….and be back again in the beautiful “game” of life…..A new chance to “parley” again:)
just trying a be funny…..honestly confessing..:)

I Came I Saw I Left

“Does a devout Christian believe it when told there is no scientific proof of God?”
No, because science is incapable of proving the existence of a non-physical being.

Roy W. Peterson

“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: “I refuse to prove that I exist,’” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

Michael 2

“Does a devout Christian believe it when told there is no scientific proof of God?”
Yes. The claim or question itself is something of a tautology. That thing for which no proof can exist is “God”. Those things for which proof exists is not “God”. It is *defined* that way for many instances of religion.
People are looking in the wrong places for the wrong thing. God might be sitting next to you in McDonald’s right now. How can you know that he is, or is not, God? You cannot.
What is God? If you define God, you have just created a straw-God; maybe it/he/she exists but probably not. If you do not define God, then it will be very difficult to prove or disprove that *something* exists, or does not exist, with unspecified properties! In fact, one can presume the existence of a thing whose properties are not known: “Is there a thing existing whose properties I do not define?” Indeed there is. Pick anything.


Stern wants 4 trillion $ per year, and the best they can promise is avoiding a 0.2C increase in temperature in 80 years? They wonder why people won’t buy it? (except those that think the government should actually have all the money and distribute it as they see fit)


Stern is a loon and Jeremy Grantham who funds him is one too. Jeremy means well but is nto scientifically literate.

Bryan A

W O W,
Those guys are such poor losers that they need to invent an entire #Conspiracy-Industry to wrap their heads around the fallacy of their shortcomings.


“Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.”
So they are going to learn proper scientific procedures, math based statistical analysis, proper scoping of variables, the difference between empirical and inferential evidence, how to set up testable hypothesis, how to properly verify or eliminate said hypothesis, etc.? Sounds like a lot of work. . .

Yup…..And even more work when you consider how many of them likely either never took high school physics or if they did, they flunked the course. Words are their specialty, the more meaningless the better, just as long as whatever it is is easily memorized, recalled and regurgitated. Analytical thought processes are a strange and foreign concept.


Bannon once called global warming a “manufactured crisis”.

A crisis is a time when people will accept change. The way it goes is: The old way isn’t working, let’s try this new way.
By manufacturing a climate crisis, the left is trying to create a situation whereby they can abolish capitalism. link, link


“inventing elaborate fantasies of shadowy right wing conspiracies”
Much like what Hillary Clinton is doing right now on her ” I am really the President” tour.


That was the point I was going to make just listen to Hillary’s list of excuses for why she is a loser. It’s not her fault.
+10 for naming the tour. Although I would liken back to Nixon’s “I am not a crook” contention. and call her’s the “I am not a loser tour”

Charles Curley

Brad at has made that list for you. In song, and neat,

rejection of the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change.


Someone should tell them that refusing to debate the science is interpreted by many that you don’t think you can win the debate. And using Bill Nye as a proxy is like sending a rodeo clown into the ring. (No offense to rodeo clowns.)

M Courtney

From the UK political perspective that seems like a Rudd-y good point.


Actually that is a very good comparison. The job of the rodeo clown is to distract the angry bull so he does not gore the star. Bill gets stand center stage and attract the attention while the former personalities slip quietly off stage and pretend they were never there.


Thanks, I had not considered the rehashing and updating of such old terminology of activists from military industrial complex to climate science denial industrial complex. The simpleton mind of libs is both repetitive as it is shallow. Stupid is as stupid does.

Tom Halla

To borrow a term from another busted theory, Freudianism, the green blob as exemplified by the Grauniad is indulging in projection–attributing their own faults to others. The green blob does fit the description of a conspiracy or a secular religion, with preachers and an orthodoxy.

M E Emberson

Perhaps it resembles an ideology more! The groupthink is more like the ideology of the U.S.S.R. Remember East Germany.


Simple put, CAGW is a manufactured crisis. Full stop.


I look forward to there now being a mature, adult debate about this issue in the USA. My only fear is that this gets smothered by virtue signalling media folks and doesn’t reach the UK.
We are constantly told this issue just a matter of basic physics, and there is overwhelming supporting evidence.
If it’s just basic physics, it should be easy to explain. If the evidence is overwhelming, it should be easy to present persuasively.
But anybody who dares to ask an awkward question is immediately condemned for expressing a non-expert opinion.
If only experts can understand it, it cannot be just basic physics. And if the evidence cannot be presented persuasively, it cannot be overwhelming.



Well, as I found out, it is basic physics and easy to explain. So I did it..

Michael 2

Remember to capitalize: Basic Physics, not just basic physics. There’s nothing basic about the physics of climate. But when you want to insult your opponents, you put a sneer and say Basic Physics; maybe draw out the BAAsic physics!

Michael 2

Indur Goklany asks: “Does insulting one’s opponent win the argument?”
It works on 40 to 60 percent of the population. It doesn’t matter if you actually “win” anything; what matters is what your target audience perceives, strength versus weakness. In the scenario I describe, the idea is to cast “Basic Physics” as a natural Good, and anyone that does not comprehend Basic Physics is an idiot, which is cast as naturally Bad.
You have doubtless noticed that in nearly every instance where “Basic Physics” is proclaimed, no example is offered of what exactly *is* Basic Physics, neither does it matter. It is whatever I want it to be Right Now.
This suggests a good response is to ask “describe this basic physics” and it’s off to the races.


A few questions for our alarmist friends on here.
What would stop Trump and America from continuing to clean air and water, and producing cleaner energy outside of a Paris Accord? Why do we need to specifically help other countries clean up their act? Why do we need someone in Brussels to tell us how much CO2 a power plant in Montana can produce? Can’t we figure that out for ourselves? After all, we reduced our CO2 footprint by 18% in the last 20 years without an Accord because of our investment in renewable energy and industrial automation.
The real question is why does the USA need to stay in the Paris Accords in order to reduce our footprint? What specifically in that Accord will actually help us do better? Better environmental training? Being able to acquire advanced green technologies? What?


Don’t forget our switch from coal to gas for electricity.
But you’re right, we don’t need to be told what to do by anybody else, we can do good things off our own bat.


The switch from coal to natural gas was probably the biggest factor.
Now, to your question “[w]hy do we need to specifically help other countries clean up their act?” This was explained on the radio yesterday (less than an hour after the POTUS announced the US’ intention to leave the Paris Accord) – because the USA was the world’s greatest CO2 polluter, and that has damaged and is still damaging, and will forevermore damage the developing nations, it is our responsibility to pay them to recover from all the damages we inflicted. It’s so simple.

Except that the US absorbs all that it emits, and China has passed us without any required reductions before 2030.

Cranky Old Crow

Simple … they need somebody to pay the rest of the world.

Javert Chip



Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, it’s plant food. If it were Tucker, every breath you take or have ever taken would be considered as polluting & I’m not talking halitosis. Therefore, whether the USA has reduced Carbon Dioxide emissions by 18% or not, is irrelevant. Burning coal to produce electricity is sensible. That’s not my opinion, but Merkel’s government in Germany. She closed 8 nuclear power stations in the wake of Fukushima, but between 2011 and 2015 Germany opened 10.7 GW of new coal fired power stations. The output of these new units matches the combined output of all Germany’s solar & wind farms. However, investment decisions for these new coal fired power stations were made between 2005 & 2008.
Carbon Dioxide it not the problem, it’s green socialism & the sooner it’s stamped out, the better it will be for the poorer nations of the world. Africa needs cheap electricity & the nation that delivers that will win the hearts & minds of Africa. So far, that is China. The West ignores this at its peril.

Tim Hammond

It is perfectly possible to accept the science and still reject the proposed solutions. The Greens and Alarmists seem to ignore this – deny it if you will,
Even if I believed in all the climate science, I am utterly unconvinced by the politics and economics. And both have been imposed without any real discussion or debate, and with a fair few lies about both how bad it will be if we do nothing and what it will cost to solve the problem.
What we are seeing is not so much a rejection of science, but a growing understanding from people that the solution is going to cost them money, jobs and sovereignty, and lead to despoliation of the countryside and a disregard for other environmental issues. Oh, and a few getting rich at our expense.
In other words, the Greens and Progressives are losing the political argument, as they always do once implementation of their ideas occurs.

john harmsworth

The trick is to kill their ideas before the implementation, thus preventing the damage instead of having to cope with it afterwards. We’re not doing so good on that score!

Roger Knights

Tim Hammond June 2, 2017 at 10:02 am
It is perfectly possible to accept the science and still reject the proposed solutions.

I think there’ll be some rehabilitation of geoengineering. It has been too summarily dismissed.

Bill Treuren

Actually the issue for me is not that there may be an impact from CO2 emissions but the claim in the Guardian article that we reject the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change.
This all hinges around materiality of the change, I still cant believe that there is any measurable impact.
The final weakness is the grasping for evidence when the 0.7C since 1850 is rolled out and we know that the first 100 years of that time period were subject to just 10% of the present day human tally of CO2 emissions.
Why not talk about the temperature change post 1950 and the rate of change increase since then relative to the 1850 to 1950 period. the word dangerous would soon be lost.


So, in this industry what union can I join?


The foundation for Trump’s dismissal of the Paris deal – and for the people who pushed him the hardest to do it – is the rejection of the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change.
this is a fundamental error. the worst case projection shows that the risk is 0.3C from US withdrawal. Does anyone seriously think 0.3C temperature change is dangerous? It is the same change you get by moving 150 feet lower down a hillside. Few if any human beings can detect such a change without instruments.
calling a 0.3C change in temperature dangerous is not science.

And BTW, the 0.3C change is based on the grossly overestimated climate sensitivity proclaimed by the IPCC. In reality, it would be far less.


The most remarkable statement comes in another piece today:
“Even a flattening of the decline in US carbon emissions – if not compensated for by other nations – will slow progress and might bump up global warming by a tenth of a degree or two. That could be enough to push the most vulnerable nations under the waves of a rising ocean.”
One or two tenths of a degree warming will push vulnerable nations under the waves? This will happen because the US fails to meet its commitments, which are to lower emissions by some 2 billion tons, from a total now of a bit over 5 billion.
On the other hand, the continuing emissions of 10 billion tons by the Chinese, and their published intentions to raise this number to 15 billion, what effect will that have?
“Most remarkable is China, the world’s biggest polluter, which has transitioned from climate laggard to climate leader in recent years.”
That’s right. If you are the US and you fail to reduce by 2 billion tons, you are pushing vulnerable nations under the waves. If you are China and you raise emissions by 5 billion tons, you are transitioning to climate leader.
It is complete insanity.


Source, please.

Curious George

“will slow progress” – a desired progress toward zero. It is nice to see a progressive goal stated so openly.

Guys, guys, guys… Rememer, this whole climate scare thing is, and has been, a WAR. Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord is just one BATTLE won. There are many battles ahead. Also keep in mind that our friend Trump is a politician – and politicians tend to change their minds (when it suits them).


Cutting off a promised stream of free money to others always involves a lot of yelling and name calling, for a few days anyway. Trump could have gone further to list what Americans already pay for in the ARGO system, satellites, and the climate research industrial complex that ranges from real science all the way to funded theater performances and poetry about global warming. Those who are still underemployed in America need to see all of that to go with what they already see in the the foreign workforce in their communities.


I’m troubled. I don’t like Trump’s supporting argument, which is that the “deal” is a bad one for the U.S. He did not tackle the flawed science and as I monitor the news cycle, I see NOBODY arguing the science.
We need the flawed science EXPOSED if we want public sentiment to swing our way.
(Sorry about the shouting).

Curious George

Clearly, Trump is not a climate scientist. He is merely a politician. Worse still, he has a responsibility and takes it seriously.

Greg Woods


john harmsworth

@Oatley-I agree. He certainly could have stated that there has been no warming for almost 20 years and that the theory cannot explain that. That alone may have put the Alarmists on their heels or provoked a useful argument on the science.

Roger Knights

He should set up a White House site where a team of skeptics could counter warmist arguments.


Roger Knights
June 2, 2017 at 11:31 am
He should set up a White House site where a team of skeptics could counter warmist arguments.
Actually that can not be done, and it is not even necessary.
There in the Congress,,,,,,,, the distinguished USA scientist have already spoken and clearly….that is it.
Any one that thinks that this is not enough, for what ever reason, can get their bum and get before Congress and testify….. as simple as that…….
Congressional testimonies are a very serious matter to consider……The megaphones in the street or from MSM are just noise compared to it…….PUB “science” is just that, no more no less…..
Sorry it seems to be a done deal already as far as USA and it’s constitution concerned…..
No guts, unfortunately no case….regardless of how much noise or shouting, or praying to whatever for the and of AGW, even in a heavy snowing day..:P

Roger Knights

The public is not very aware of congressional testimony—and there is lots of warmist testimony too. The court of public opinion is in session, and it’s important politically to Trump (see below). He needs to let his allies use his bully pulpit to defend what he’s done or his party will suffer.

“Democrats see political opportunity in Trump’s decision to abandon Paris climate deal”
By John Wagner, Abby Phillip, http://www.washingtonpost.comView June 2nd, 2019
Trump, whose approval rating has hovered around 40 percent for most of his presidency, probably did not gain new converts with his decision, and Democrats now see an opportunity to further intensify the focus of their base in upcoming midterm elections. They also foresee the climate-change decision as a key part of their broader argument to college-educated swing voters who have been among Trump’s weakest supporters.
“He’s unleashed a number of forces that I don’t think he understands that ultimately are going to work against him,” said Tad Devine, a longtime political strategist and former adviser to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential run. “People are interpreting this not as my house is going to be flooded tomorrow, but our federal government is being run by people who don’t care about science.”
. . . . . . . . .
For college-educated moderates, including some Republicans, the issue could become emblematic of the Trump administration’s disdain for science and the long-lasting consequences of his leadership.
“It’ll affect Trump in that there are moderate Republicans who believe in science,” said Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg. “It has implications for the midterms if they’re not that excited about being involved in this mess.”
Climate change alone has never been much of a motivator for the electorate, although younger voters typically name it as one of their top issues in polling. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that 38 percent of Americans said it was a top priority, compared with 76 percent who name terrorism and 73 percent who said the same of the economy.
Yet climate change and the environment are issues that move political money in the Democratic world like little else. Major Democratic donors, such as financier and environmentalist Tom Steyer, who co-founded NextGen Climate, insist that Trump’s move is yet another provocation that will push younger people to become more engaged in politics.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
The risk for Republicans in the near term remains that even small shifts in enthusiasm could make the difference in competitive congressional races.
“All these things cumulatively spell real trouble for my party,” said Republican strategist John Weaver, who worked on Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential bid. “It adds passion to the left, which brings us one step closer to Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi.”

The deal was so bad, there was no need to address the broken science to justify withdrawal. Pruitt, and I suspect Bannon, do seem to grasp how broken the science is, however; the broken science has become the status quo and will be difficult to diffuse, so it was a good decision to show how bad the accord was, even based on the flawed science that dramatically over estimates the effect of CO2 emissions.

This might be what is sometimes call DJT’s 4-d chess. It appears a blunder avoiding the science fraud and offering “renegotiation’s”. How is validating the fraud of your adversary ever a good idea?
Time and again The Donald has put out inane arguments devoid of objective logic only win by encouraging his enemies to destroy themselves in reaction. Maybe keeping the academic left climate cartel around serves a political purpose or maybe it’s been calculated that totally dismantling and destroying the Greenshirt left costs more politically then its worth. Post exit they may well destroy themselves trying to remain authoritative, I can imagine this likely in fact. You take kingly climate authority away you have bunch of later middle aged academic hipsters with an ancient and stale set of talking points. AGW is really old in the contrived political talking points world. They’ve been at hard since the 70’s effectively. Balding, overweight, rotting teeth with a pony tale just isn’t that politically hot and now with the exit they are confirmed LOSERS. Perhaps DJT is right and realizes they don’t even merit special targeting. The core greenshirts are dying in nursing homes soon enough. Also, perhaps a new wave Democrat leader will connect the dots and realize aligning with the UN world rule, anti-American left wasn’t the best strategy to begin with.
I know this, DJT isn’t going to cut off the billions in green subside fraud and deal with the natural market force unemployment and public equity devastation. He’s not going to wear that yolk around his neck. The scammers are safe for the moment. It will take $1 a gallon gas prices to do that handy work, not pulling the solar panel subsides from the government. You know he made that calculation by endorsing the corn factors and ethanol crony fraud.
I thought the economic, sovereignty speech half a loaf myself. Obviously they made their political calculation and went this route. Without the US “Paris” redistribution the climate “movement” and all the crony forward beneficiaries are in for some downsizing. The EU climate cult is under serious pressure already. If the carbon price is driven further down the green money bubble is under forces it can’t survive. The political fallout will be the Trump policy without ever be named or targeted. This happened on a much smaller scale in the late 70’s and early 80’s with the Reagan oil deregulation policy.
While I didn’t like “don’t touch” the science fraud policy yesterday I’ve learned not to underestimate DJT and his instincts. We might be looking at the events due to our hobby stake in the debate as well. They’re playing for a much wider electorate that in fact largely doesn’t care about detailed climate policy. It’s low information on both sides when it gets to yesterday’s scale the MSM presentation illustrates it. Now that we’re in the post exit world perhaps Pruitt and others can do some of the heavier science reforms such as firing Gavin Schmidt and the rest of the NASA/NOAA climate trolls which is long over due. It looks like decades more of hand to hand climate war disguised as academic debate. Where is that skeptic organization trying to message Betsy DeVos at the Education Department on cleaning out climate propaganda dressed as “science”?
Trump’s potential weakness fits the crowd of supporters around him. The skeptic support base are largely contradictory, nerd driven and politically obtuse. The core Breitbart wing? Not that interested either, immigration is their trigger issue for them. Harder core skeptics didn’t get the ideal payback yesterday because we frankly haven’t earned it.

Debating the science would be a quagmire.
The “Consensus” scientists now have the burden of proof to demonstrate rising CO2 will be catastrophic. They have the “hot potato”.
Don’t get pushed into the impossible position of trying to prove a negative; i.e. the equivalent of showing that unicorns never existed.
Job loss, electric bills, gas prices and “Fairness” are concepts the general public can absorb.

The Reverend Badger

On important matters you are allowed to shout a bit (as long as you shout about the “right” things).

Leo Smith

arguing the (lack of) science cuts no ice with voters.
protecting their incomes does.

Michael 2

Science is nearly irrelevant in a policy decision. When has it ever been otherwise? Trump’s argument is economic; a nation 19 trillion dollars in debt cannot continue to hand out money and sabotage any hope of reducing that debt.

“Greens are inventing elaborate fantasies of shadowy right wing conspiracies” … this is standard from the left when they fail to win an argument or election, it used to be the fault of the right-wing media, but that no longer applies, now it is “fake news” and conspiracies. Surely this is a worthy subject for academic study, why lefties are incapable of grasping the real reasons for losing.


These Greens … “Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.”
They probably believe the moon landing was faked as well. Mebbe somebody can get a grant and falsify a study.

Old England

The simple truth is that people who plot and conspire in complicated subterfuge always assume that others do exactly the same.
Greens operate through networks which plot and conspire together to achieve their aim – small wonder then whenever they face setbacks that they assume that there is some ‘conspiracy’ that has defeated them.

Bjorn Ramstad

Now is the time to learn about what real genuine science is.

Michael 2

It’s what you get in a sociology department, or perhaps from the New York Times that famously pronounced rockets cannot fly in space because there’s no air to push against.


“Greens are inventing elaborate fantasies of shadowy right wing conspiracies to explain President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Treaty – but still refuse to consider the possibility they are wrong about global warming.”
I did notice an enormous number of heads of state/governments and international organisations and the Pope all accept the science of climate change and have also denounced or criticised Trump’s action.
I haven’t seen a single national leader/govt outside the US praise, applaud or welcome Trump’s announcement.
Added to that the CEOs of a great number of the world’s largest companies which operate in the US criticised Trump’s stance – which is odd, because if he’s right their profits and workers and business would have been decimated by the US being in the Paris agreement.
Really I think its up to those who don’t accept the science to explain how so many national leaders and businessmen and people of importance in the world can be ‘wrong’ and not accept the President’s vviewpoint…?

M Courtney

The US President’w view is that the Paris Accords are bad for the USA. Not that they are bad for the countries the USA has to give money too or lose a competitive edge against.
Of course China will support something that they don’t have to obey for 15 years but which hamstrings the USA.
You have just detected that politics is cynical.


M Courtney, who exactly has the US given money to in your accusation? The entire US corporate world is against this decision = except for the coal companies. If it is bad for the US, why is that the case?

Curious George

Chris, the stock market rose immediately. In your world, that’s the usual way the corporate world expresses a disagreement.


Curious George, I go by what the companies themselves say. You have a few coal companies on your side, and half a dozen semi retired climate scientists. That’s your “A” team. Sad.

M Courtney

Chris, the Paris Accords are quite explicit.
They say quite clearly that rich, developed countries should give money to developing countries to ensure they can cope with climate change.
The USA has to pay most because it is richest.
Personally, I think we in the West should pay the poor to help them develop. It is compassionate and will make the world a better place.
But not because of false arguments about 0.2°C temperature rises. Only honest arguments will last long enough to change to world.
Here is the relevant section of the treaty:

53. Decides that, in the implementation of the Agreement, financial resources provided to developing countries should enhance the implementation of their policies, strategies, regulations and action plans and their climate change actions with respect to both mitigation and adaptation to contribute to the achievement of the purpose of the Agreement as defined in Article 2; 54. Also decides that, in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Agreement, developed countries intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation; prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries; 55. Recognizes the importance of adequate and predictable financial resources, including for results-based payments, as appropriate, for the implementation of policy approaches and positive incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks; as well as alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests; while reaffirming the importance of non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches; encouraging the coordination of support from, inter alia, public and private, bilateral and multilateral sources, such as the Green Climate Fund, and alternative sources in accordance with relevant decisions by the Conference of the Parties;

And here is the link to what you are supporting.

Bryan A

Here is a quick Google search looking for Obama & Green Fund
First on the list is this from the Independent in the UK

Three days before leaving the White House, President Barack Obama sent a $500 million check Tuesday to the Green Climate Fund, an international organization designed to help poor countries adopt clean energy technologies.
Today’s check is the second payment from the Obama administration, marking a total of $1 billion in contributions to help developing nations cope with the threat of climate change, the State Department said in a statement

So in 2 payments on his last 3 days in office, President Obama, acting as an official U.S. representative, gave US$1bn to other countries


Added to that the CEOs……….
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

Gerry, Engliand

We do accept the science, and so does Donald. It is up to those who support Climate Science Fiction like you and the Guardian to explain why for 18 years there was no statistical rise in temperature yet CO2 increased. You can also explain what caused the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period – all warmer than today.


or why…in over 100 years….they can’t qualify simple physics

Tom in Florida

Explain why you think he was wrong on the economics of the deal? Did you even notice that was the main thrust of the speech? Why don’t yo address that. The reason the rest of the world wants the U S in the deal is because we bring loads of cash that others think they can have. Make no mistake, that is the only reason.


Wrong, nice rant but zero defense of your position.


well fine Chris…if it’s not about the money….then what’s the problem? Can’t be CO2…the US has already reduced that.
…and since it’s not about the money, no one is stopping the rest of the world…they didn’t need us at all


Latitude, there’s a concept called leadership.Look it up in the dictionary if the word is not familiar to you.


see….now that’s where you and I differ
What I just saw was strong leadership…
..and you’re saying following along and status quo is


it’s not just a matter of reducing CO2 by a small amount – just switching from coal to natural gas will do that. It’s a matter of taking additional steps in increasing renewable energy, making progress on energy efficiency, and on CAFE standards for vehicles.


Care to comment on the quote you open with and then prove by example?

Russell R.

Very simple McGriff: Those that receive and do nothing to earn, believe that they should continue to receive. Those that pay, and receive nothing in return, think they should not have to continue to pay. It is the same struggle that the public has been having with governmental bodies, since they first were forced upon free people. And the struggle continues. If we pay for something, we expect to get something of value in return. And what we get instead is propaganda, aimed at convincing us, we need to pay more in order to avoid the future boogeyman.
The key thought for you to take away from this is: The idea that the Earth currently faces a manmade climate crisis is quite simply nonsense.
So I hope you are getting paid to troll. Otherwise you have wasting a sizable amount of your life, trying to turn lead into gold.

john harmsworth

Do you really think the Pope is an authority on the science of global climate? Laughable nonsense from Griff! We count on it! The rest are all looking after their image-ala Justin Trudeau of whom I am ashamed. Just an ego parading around the world with other people’s money.
If you want me to explain how all these people can be wrong I would simply point to the state of the world’s finances, as created by all these same idiots. Elected by the millions of lesser idiots who can’t count and only care about keeping power by not rocking the boat.

Leo Smith

Appeal to authority?
where is the science?
in terms of climate change who does NOT benefit by espousing climate change?
Only the electorate.
For everyone else it is a most convenient lie which keeps them in power and money.
Doesn’t it Griff?


The science is there. You just choose not to believe it.
“in terms of climate change who does NOT benefit by espousing climate change?
Only the electorate.”
Tell me , then, how does Walmart benefit by espousing climate change?

Martin Tyska

The reason that so many notional leaders and businessman and people of importance won’t accept the Presidents viewpoint, is because they are the very people who stand to benefit the most from the whole global warming meme. For them it’s the venerable goose that lays the golden eggs. It’s literally every politicians dream, because it is a cause that justifies their existence, which of course is to save us from ourselves. For the business community, particularly, wind and solar it’s an endless stream of government subsiditys, and for the people of importance, I’ll assume we’re talking about Academics, its funding for one grant proposal to the next. It’s not about accepting the science, science is verifiable, or it’s not science. It’s about control, control of you, your money, your way of life.


Wrong. Walmart will not benefit. Microsoft will not. Google will not. McDonalds does not.

Michael 2

Chris, I wonder sometimes if you read the comment you respond to. The multinational companies you cite benefit from globalism; Donald Trump is challenging globalism even though he is also a beneficiary of it. Most globalists, in my opinion, don’t mean to include their own nation in the proletariat; Germany for instance would very much like to rule this new almost-a-world-government thing.
It is easy to figure out who intended to be in charge; just look at the vitriol of their comments; Merkel seems to top the list.
If Donald Trump were to rule globalization, which may well be his goal, he’s got a good start on it.


All the dictators can’t be wrong, can’t they, not to speak of the money-grabbers, and the pope is infallible in matters of (climate-)believe, isn’t he?


Yeah, dictators like the governments of the UK, France, Australia, NZ, Germany, etc.

Michael 2

It is too soon to say whether anyone is right or wrong. In 80 years our descendants, if any, will have an answer. Meanwhile there’s a war for your mind and your money, a war that probably started before words could be written in clay.

Michael 2

“Really I think its up to those who don’t accept the science to explain how so many national leaders and businessmen and people of importance in the world can be ‘wrong’ and not accept the President’s vviewpoint…?”
Why is it always “the science” rather than just “science”? Answer: It has become “the science”, a dogma, a new religion, that must be accepted in total or else you become a heretic, a social outcast on the world stage.
I accept science, even some of “the science” (such as it is) and I STILL accept the president’s viewpoint which is economic rather than scientific. It is, or was, a bad deal for the United States. His view on “the science” is nearly irrelevant; I don’t know what it is and neither do you.
Every human on Earth can be wrong about any particular claim at any particular time. But when that is the case, what is the benefit to being the only right person on Earth? Rocket scientist Goddard was ridiculed by the New York Times who asserted that even a high school student knows rockets cannot fly in space because there’s no air to push against. Of course nobody had actually tried to fly a rocket in space, that would be scientific (test by experiment) and we don’t need no steenkin science!

FJ Shepherd

“Climate debate?” What is that? There never has been one, and there never will be one. The Guardian is just trying to scare its climate alarmist followers yet again, by suggesting that the Greens are losing the debate. Hello, the debate never existed!


Yeah, the global business community, which supports the Paris accord, are wankers. Are you a Communist?

Leo Smith

‘Global business community’?
Ah that shadowy cabal of secret bankers that speaks with one voice? that does sound a bit tinfoil hat to me.
However, would that be the same ‘business community’ that benefits directly from all the subsidies and tax rebates accruing to renewable energy, or is that the community the Guardian refers to when it talks about the huge tax rebates govern to ‘fossil fuel’?
Or is it the ‘global capitalist’ community it rails against when promoting the interests of its Marxist readership?
I think we should be told


You’re the pathetic one, Forrest. “Alarmists have always been wankers.” The true sign of an intellectual lightweight is when personal insults are their method of debating.


Leo Smith, 30 seconds of searching on Google will give you your answer. Companies like Walmart, McDonalds, Pepsi, Coca Cola. All the consumer products companies. None of these companies will gain from the Paris Accord. On your side, tell me who the corporates are who say AGW is not real? Go ahead, I’ll wait.


Is there any greater lie then the climate debate being politically neutral at the core?
Yet, many of the most frequent “skeptic” posters here back that claim for over a decade now. Once you address the lie directly the entire debate becomes explainable. If you live in the science only or mostly cocoon you’ve set the actual debate back and the politically corrupted academic activists/scientists ahead. Consider this is from the skeptic orthodox, add that to the warming left and you see why we’re still here.

Michael 2

Your comment didn’t make a lot of sense to me. Skeptics are not themselves a thing, a cabal, aligned among themselves along any axis of alignment.


“Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.”
Um, for a decade they have been screaming that the conspiracy is some known fact.
And, now they are going to begin examining it?
This is like the “Russians hacked the election” story: “we are sure it happened. Soon, we will get an investigation to figure out where, how, and who.”
-Um, if you already know, just come out and say.

Bruce Cobb

Uh-ohs, we’re in trouble now. They are mad as heck, and can’t take it any longer. No more Mr. Nice Guy. They will be sending industrial spies here to lurk, and watch everything we say and do. We will need a secret code to communicate, changed daily by HQ. Shhhhhh! Mum’s the word now. Loose lips sink ships.

Nigel S

Worth remembering that the Grauniad (famous for its ‘corrections and clarifications’) is haemorrhaging money and only kept afloat by the automobile industry (sale of ‘Autotrader’) and tax avoidance industry (proceeds booked via Caymans to avoid making their fair contribution to the upkeep of the workers’ paradise). The only readers are public sector employees, teachers and lecturers, and BBC.

Gerry, Engliand

Actually they have a trust fund to bankroll them but at the current rate of loss they will not last a decade. Hard to believe that it used to be a respected paper back when liberal did not mean a leftist tosser.

Nigel S

The Scott Trust was the beneficiary of the tax efficient sale of Autotrader. Scott Trust is tax efficient too of course “up the workers!”.

Let us not forget how important it is for that “endangerment finding” to be reversed. It would be a “lawsuit stopper”.

Roger Knights


Anybody who thinks they can assign dollar amounts to the Earth’s temperature changes is not very smart or they’re sure everyone else is not very smart.
To say that:
the USA refusing $100B per year re-distributon will “cause” .3C rise in temperature
is patently stupid.

Michael 2

It may even be true; but the United States doesn’t have $100billion to give.


Just watched your Whitehouse press conference with Sean Spicer re Paris Accord in what looks like a basement. Best place to ‘host’ the journalist vermin who now must be considered as low as bankers and estate agents in the public esteem. Well down Potus from UK

chris y

“They just convinced the leader of the United States to pull the plug on a historic deal signed by almost 200 countries, and instead join Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not signed up.”
I don’t think Readfearn reads his own newspaper.
A December 12, 2015 Guardian article featuring the climate science prophet Dr. James Hansen, is all President Trump needed to read in order to decide to extract the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord.
““It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”


Do you have a link for this, chris y? Appreciate it.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark

Psychological Projection, are they simply accusing others (us) of what they themselves are guilty. Oldest trick in the book.
Or is it chaff, a distraction. A distraction from the fact that none of them, not one, could or can put together a coherent story about how this GHG Effect actually works. (Without trampling the laws of thermodynamics and calling upon positive feedback. The very fact we are here discussing it means the positive feedback thing is junk) Or explain how temperature relates to climate.
Or, as I maintain, sugar is destroying not just bodies but also minds. It takes strong character and courage to admit a mistake. Even minor.
Any of us who has, while stone cold sober, entered a ‘debate’ with a drunk will know. The depressed, inhibited, switched off brain thinks it can lie and lie and lie and will call on its friends (consensus/authority) to try escape any sort of rap. From spilling a drink to wrecking its own car and will readily resort to verbal and physical violence to defend those lies.
Sugar is simply un-refined alcohol. It has the same effect but not so strong.
So hardly anyone no-one will *ever* admit they were/are wrong about cagw because, we have nothing else substantial to eat any more. There are too many of us to allow that.
I don’t have a solution.

John Haddock

The Guardian has wedded itself to the church of ‘Climate Change’ but finds its faith increasingly under question and one rich parishioner has just quit attending church. So, invoke the devil, challenge the believers to uncover his devious ways, and amplify the warnings about hell and damnation.
But behind it all is desperation because, if their dire predictions about climate change prove to be wrong (as they will), the Guardian will lose the last shreds of its credibility. It is already losing money, so further erosion of their readers/subscribers must be really scary. All they can do is yell louder. So it is with the faithful, (although don’t rule out the stamping of feet on the floor).


Liberal behavior is often based on the psychological issue of projection. They subconsciously know that THEY have a global climate change progressive/academia industry. So they assume that the “bad people” must have one too.



Clyde Spencer

I’d like to thank you for the great effort you expend to communicate with those you disagree with. I guess that is the sum total of your arguments.

Joel Snider

He’s been in a two-day tantrum, with sulky snaps of sarcasm.


Clyde Spencer, when I see a nonsensical post, it’s not worth any more of my effort. I know a lost cause when I see one.
Joel, nah, everything is good here. A carbon tax is being rolled out, the government is fully committed to the Paris Accords, and industry is doing their part It’s nice to be a doer, and not a whiner.

Michael 2

Chris writes: “it’s not worth any more of my effort.”
But it is worth the effort to post some z’s. Maybe 0.2 on the effort scale. You have not responded to most of the postings here so why is this one worth 0.2 Effort and the rest 0.0 Effort?
The question answers itself: It resonates with you. Psychological projection is interesting to you; most of the comments here are not interesting to you. I do not have enough information to guess why it is interesting to you but your other comments suggest you are strongly motivated by group think; if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you? Very likely so, they know something you do not. This is the inverse of projection; the herd projects itself into you rather than you into the herd.
When a herd is stampeding it is doubtful that any member of the herd actually knows why the stampede is happening; but none wishes to find out whether there’s actually a lion chasing the herd. Herd mentality evolved for a good reason. But humans would still be living in caves if *some* humans did not leave the herd and go exploring for better forage and better methods of shelter, food and protection. These explorers then return to the herd and suggest a better place.
BUT this can be counterfeited to a predator’s advantage; trick the herd into thinking a box canyon is a better place, and it will be better until the predator starts eating members of the herd and they cannot escape.
The box canyon in this metaphor is international treaties. It seems like a good idea but there’s no escape. You ought to look closely at whoever is suggesting entering such a box canyon (treaty) and who is benefiting from it. The real beneficiaries are probably not going to be all that obvious. However, one can be almost certain that in some way or other it relates to competition. If you are the weaker person, you seek to impose rules that reduce the advantage of the stronger. But when that is achieved, such as in the case of women’s rights or affirmative action, what then? Competition! Then you go for the “win”, pretend to still be a minority, choke the opposition while not being choked yourself. BLM, SJW and so on.
Or as Saul Alinsky wrote, make the other guy live up to his rules! Of course, you might have to suggest those rules and trick him into making those rules his own.