Subject: Has the UN’s Human-Induced Global Warming/Climate Change Movement Always Been Based on International “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American” Agendas?
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing you this open letter to ask you for your insights into the “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American” agendas behind the international catastrophic human-induced global warming/climate change movement, as discussed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in her 2002 memoire Statecraft.
First, my background: I am a regular contributor to the “World’s most-viewed site on global warming and climate change”, a website called WattsUpWithThat. The topics I normally discuss in my articles include:
- Climate models are not simulating Earth’s climate,
- When presented appropriately, climate model outputs clearly show that the climate science community still cannot differentiate between human-induced and naturally occurring global warming, and
- Since the early 1980s, surface temperature data clearly and strongly suggest that the surfaces of the global oceans warmed in response to naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes, not as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.
In my recently published short story Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier?: A Short Story That’s Right for The Times, I discussed those topics, and I also presented a topic that’s new to me: the politics behind the international global warming/climate change movement appear to be based on agendas that have no relationship to global warming or climate change.
For the political aspects of my short story, I relied on numerous lengthy quotes from Margaret Thatcher’s memoire Statecraft that were included under the heading of HOT AIR AND GLOBAL WARMING.
The following are two of those quotes from Thatcher’s Statecraft.
The first paragraph under the heading of HOT AIR AND GLOBAL WARMING reads (my boldface):
The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.
As one of the characters in my short story says in response to the highlighted last sentence, “‘Worldwide, supra-national socialism’? That would fly like a lead balloon here in the States.”
Also, next is a paragraph written by the Iron Lady in Statecraft that you may find interesting, in light of your withdrawal from the subsequent Paris Agreement (my boldface):
Actually, President Bush was quite right to reject the Kyoto protocol. His predecessor had supported it for international effect, while knowing its provisions made it a dead letter at home: the US Senate had voted unanimously on the matter. The protocol would have placed all the burden for reduction of CO2 on developed countries, while leaving the developing countries — including India and China — to keep producing it at a rapidly growing rate. America’s target for cuts was totally unrealistic — a 7 per cent reduction of overall emissions of greenhouse gases below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. And all this is before anyone considers the scientific arguments about why and to what extent global warming is occurring. Kyoto was an anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American project which no American leader alert to his country’s national interests could have supported.
If the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher believed the Kyoto Protocol was “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American” and that President George W Bush was right to reject it, do you believe the esteemed Prime Minister would have had similar thoughts about the subsequent wealth-distributing Paris Agreement, and that you, Mr. President, were right to reject it, too?
That brings me to my subject question: Has the UN’s Human-Induced Global Warming/Climate Change Movement always been based on International “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American” Agendas?
I am very interested your views on these matters.
In closing, I thought of you many times, Mr. President, while writing Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier?
Most Respectfully,
Yes.
The Donald
Mr. President, turn your Fire and Fury through your Twitter account against the loser VP Al Gore, and his loser minion Dr. Michael Mann. The masses despise this deception by these charlatons of science, and will bring global awareness to the fr@ud they are perpetuating on civilization and the waste of trillions of dollars of global wealth. Al Gore will possibly be your opponent in the 2020 election and crushing him now and the decievors of science will rally the troops for the 2018 mid term elections this fall. This will be the key issue they will try and turn against you, and being proactive against these dimwits now will ensure the population is informed about climate malfeasance and misinformation in advance of the elections. Just say no to Klimate Fr@ud.
@Earthling2…This is right on. I would add that the left base is already massively pumped up with the deadly combo fuel of Trump Derangement Syndrome, AGW, and socialism. I’m surrounded by these alarmists and they are meeting in full force right now across the country. Unlike the fairly massive but clandestine Soros network of years past, it’s rather a badge of honor to be a part of it today just to see Trump crash. Exposing the CO2 fraud now and relentlessly is essential. It cannot be underestimated.
Add to that a reduction of the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15% in a year or two and you’ll see China’s economy crater, which eliminates their dreams of world domination.
At that point China might have to finally include their middle class in their country’s prosperity, whatever will be left of it.
Be sure to use your elbows Mr. President. And don’t stop with Gore and Mann. Take down President Marcon in France and PM Trudeau in Canada, and all the other little climate monsters in one fell swoop. Once this cat is out of the bag and it is not politically incorrect to question current climate science, there will be tens of millions all over the world that will come out of the woodwork to support the takedown of established climate ‘science’. Science has been raped and tortured by these hideous li@rs and a lot of people will be very happy to to not have their necks under the jackboot of ‘academic’ climate science. It has been perverted like a cheap hooker by these so called ‘people of science’.
Do it Mr. President, and my bets are that you will save the House and Senate in the mid terms, and have a great shot at a second term. That is, unless these same style conspirators of truth in science succeed in taking you out as President, acting as leftist liberals in the political arena. You have nothing to lose now, since the Fake News networks are now so blatenly biased as to be questioning your mental stability. Aim for the bleachers Mr. President, and swing with all your might. This is the metaphorical war on Science, between the Sons of Light, and the Sons of Darkness. And daughters too. What is at stake is the future acedemic freedom of the Planet for all the peoples of the good Earth.
It would be nice to think that President Trump will be given notice of this open letter by a member of his staff tasked to read this & other sceptical blogs. Let us keep our fingers crossed.
Why an open letter on WUWT ?…..just send it to him
Bob, you’ll love this one
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075419/abstract
Agreed.
Maybe a simple lab experiment should be sent along with it displaying the temperature difference between 3 atmospheric parts of CO2 per 10,000 and 4 parts per 10,000. For comparison send along those stupid videos that 10 year old kids (guided by their ignorant teachers) make on YouTube proving that CO2 is a greenhouse gas by “filling” one bottle with CO2.
Why does it matter that those experiments are comparing at least 500,000 parts (50%) of atmospheric CO2 to 4 parts (0.04%) and only giving a 7F to 10F temperature difference?
400 parts. Not 4. Sorry!
400 ppm. You were right the first time.
You could simply tweet the title and link to:
@SarahHuckabee and @KellyannePolls for a response.
I’d also include @-mentions so it’s a private dialogue.
Of course the UN doctrine is anti-America!
I have copies of the UNESCO magazine that I pick-up from a junk shop, going back to the late 1950s to 1992. Better propaganda on behalf of the Soviet and Chinese state communist systems I have yet to read. The UN has always been a puppet for the communists, anti-national, anti-nationalistic, and pro large state, supra-government control, and global control.
Trump is quite correct in understanding that when dining with the UN devils — use a very long spoon.
The UN was not always anti-American. They did vote for the US to send our troops (and the US allies’s troops) into the Korean War. /sarc
I salute Lady Thatcher for this accurate and honest expression. Absolutely very sharply said.
What bugs me is that all Western countries have surrendered to this ideological block that consists of anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-Amercan forces, commonly known as the red-green block.
Sadly, when she was prime minister, she was deluded about climate change like most politicians. In one speech she went on about how we were harming our children and, no doubt, our children’s children. She was also influential in the forming of the IPCC.
It was probably only in her later years that she saw the light and realised what nonsense the whole thing is: hot air. Better late then never, I suppose….
Chris
I Thought Thatcher started the whole global warming monster to ‘scare’ people into supporting nuclear power. She wanted to break the stranglehold the coal unions had. Lord Monckton was her go to guy.
Shawn Marshall
I think Chris Monckton is not quite the Thatcher confidant he portrays. And I only say that because I can’t imagine two more opinionated people being in the same room without a massive bust up, and circumstances being as they were, Chris wouldn’t win.
I had also read back in the ’90’s that Margaret Thatcher was pushing the CO2-Global Warming theory in order to reduce the power of the coal-miners’ unions, and she may have opened a bigger Pandora’s box than she originally imagined. For the UK, trying to reduce CO2 emissions would also require using less North Sea oil, which was a major contributor to the UK economy in the ’80’s and ’90’s.
It’s possible that Thatcher may have realized later on (after her tenure as prime minister) that Global Warming theory was being used as an excuse for poor countries to demand subsidies from prosperous countries, and to limit energy development in resource-rich countries.
IMHO, Thatcher was the greatest British prime minister since Winston Churchill, but her initial support for Global Warming theory will go down in history as one of her few major mistakes.
Incidentally, Al Gore’s attempts to limit CO2 emissions made him the first Democrat presidential candidate to lose West Virginia (a heavy coal-mining state, which cost him the presidency) in 2000 since Reagan’s reelection, and Republicans have won it ever since. Perhaps Margaret Thatcher, in her 2002 memoir, might have realized that it is possible for conservatives to win coal-miners’ votes by supporting energy development, instead of trying to destroy them with global-warming theory.
@Steven Zell;
Your recollection matches mine with regard to the Iron Lady’s motives in pushing the global warming line. I do not think she believed it would grow into the beast it is today.
P.S. Did you happen to graduate from Stevens Institute of Technology in the ’70’s? I had a classmate with your name.
The Paris Accord stands for everything the United States of America is not. You made the right call Mr. President on Paris, while the USA leads the world in real economic growth while making the most substantial reductions in CO2 as a result of natural gas utilization at home. Not that reducing CO2 will have much effect on long term global warming, but it proves that natural gas, not renewables, provides the energy possible for the economy to grow to new levels never seen before. We will transition to a future energy source when that time arrives, but it most certainly is not low energy density wind and solar that will save that day.
Now your mission Mr. President is to crush this socialist Marxist global order that wants to bankrupt the world into misery and chaos. Your legacy will be one that ensures the forces of darkness to not take hold in the USA, and that you do your level best to show the world you will not be bullied into submission by acedemia and foreign agents intent on destabilizing the planet with energy poverty. Make your voice known like thunder on this issue, and I guarantee the majority will vote you in a second term. You are the last hope in this regard.
I do so hope he sees this. And if against all judgement, he does something worthwhile.
The entire Global warming / Climate Change – now renamed ‘climate chaos’ – intent is to eventually deliver a marxist-socialist, unelected and wholly unaccountable global government.
This has been made clear by various leading names in the IPCC, UNEP and UN.
Should have added that I have long believed that the EU is the test bed to show how democracy can be eroded and stripped from the voter to create an unaccountable, un-democratic although more properly described as anti-democratic, system of ‘government’.
It is this means of ending democracy that the UN seems to want for a global government.
Forget the left-wing media claims that the UK voted for Brexit out of a hatred of foreigners – that is simply fake news – the key reason was to restore our Sovereignty and with it representational democracy rather tha continued rule by the unelected and unaccountable in Brussels.
Small wonder then that committed left-wing socialist/marxists like Christina Figueres and Obama were so vociferous against the UK voting to leave the EU in the run up to the vote. Obama threatened the UK if we were to dare to vote to leave the EU – he said he would put the UK at the ‘end of the queue’ for a US trade deal if we left .
Obama was doing his best to interfere in and influence our very democratic politics and referendum to allow the people to vote and decide ….. and yet the same Democrats scream and shout that Russia may have tried to influence the US presidential elections. That’s the left-wing socialst-marxist for you.
“Should have added that I have long believed that the EU is the test bed to show how democracy can be eroded and stripped from the voter to create an unaccountable, un-democratic although more properly described as anti-democratic, system of ‘government’.”
With not only the unthinkable Brexit result but the Visegrad Four unshakeable in their visceral opposition to this, Austria flipped right and shaping up to join them plus anti-EU trouble brewing in the Balkans. With Italy threatening to do likewise in March and possibly Sweden in September and all in alignment with massive gains in Eurosceptic movements across the Netherlands, France and Germany all I would say to the EU is – Good luck with that! Truly funny watching the Globalists triumphantly herald the ignominious end of ‘Populism’ each time an establishment party manages to cling onto power by its fingernails while the Populists make quantum support leaps. The EU resembles the final moments of the Hindenburg more with each passing day.
Democracy only works if you have informed voters.
From an Irish perspective it’s amusing to listen to the UK claims about Brexit being about the UK wishing to “protect and restore it’s sovereignty” when history tells us that the UK historically cares little about anyone else’s sovereignty.
David V; Apart from Poland’s perhaps and we know how that ended with Dev expressing his condolences at the Nazi Embassy.
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/de-valera-hitler-the-visit-of-condolence-may-1945/
David V
Still true today.
What was once enough for seven kings.
It was climate change, THEN global warming, then cc.
The CC in the UN’s IPCC is climate change.
All moot of course given that at this stage the various Green politicians elected around the world under false pretences have kept their real New World order plans pretty well under wraps and out of their manifestos.
Old England & cephus0,
Well said, both of you. The UK is being overrun by socialism, particularly that of our gullible youth. Meanwhile, the socialist SNP are enjoying a well deserved, excruciating erosion of their simplistic, artificial political and monetary system, whilst the rest of the world embraces Capitalism, with some notable, cruel exceptions.
Capitalism is a natural human instinct, with all its flaws, it is a natural, self evolving political and fiscal system.
Socialism is an entirely artificial ideology which imposes an unnatural financial construct on humanity that has proven time and again to promote violence, corruption and inequality.
Capitalism may provide the means to wage war, but socialism provides the motivation.
“Capitalism may provide the means to wage war, but socialism provides the motivation.”
A golden observation that belongs on T-shirts worldwide!
Can I copywriter it, and make some money?
That seems pretty Capitalistic to me. 🤔
You might think about copy writing it before I do 🙂
Don’t forget the bumper stickers!
Bumper stickers, now that’s below the belt.
Good though. 😎
The beauty of Capitalism: it respects none, not even belts!
I am given to understand the President doesn’t actually read things put in front of him?
Better write to somebody else??
From what source…CNN? Or are you blabbering more bullshit as usual.
As a rule, I don’t watch cable news, but CNN is always on at an establishment I frequent for a bite to eat. I drop in at different times of the day, and 97% of the time CNN is ‘covering’ the latest ‘debacle’ of President Trump. Yesterday they needed 3 or 4 people to discuss the revelation that Trump doesn’t get to the Oval Office until 11:00 am! They were also questioning his mental fitness and suggesting that his arrival at the oval office was one more reason that he was not fit to be President. (I don’t even know why he needs to go the Oval Office at all, accept for photo ops.)
I was surprised that they went at least 2 minutes without mentioning Russia!
The whole network seems to have lost its mind and contracted a bad case of obsessive/compulsive disorder. The are now the 24/7 anti-Trump channel. Frankly, the more insane CNN becomes, the better the President looks!
Before Trump was elected, most places had CNN on in their waiting rooms, even the local Navy Pharmacy. After Trump was elected, almost everyone switched to HGTV.
“jclarke341 January 8, 2018 at 7:15 am”
We get almost the same coverage here, in Australia FFS! I wish Aussie MSM would just leave Trump the hell alone.
So you’ve never watched him read something while he’s at the podium…?
LIke Obama?
“I am given……”
Exactly correct. You are GIVEN the party and fake news line to regurgitate like a sick parrot.
Somebody wrote a book…? which is getting massive coverage in the UK media/press – and ‘he doesn’t read anything’ seems to come up pretty frequently. And not just in ‘that book’.
It’s getting massive coverage in the anti-Trump, anti-Brexit BBC (Biased Bullshit Corporation – amongst other definitions of the TWA).
If he did read Griff, how much more could he accomplish over and above what he already has than you have? Makes you look a bit pathetic in comparison don’t you think?
If not, why not?
There are quite a few writers with a limited vocabulary.
That ‘massive coverage’ ought to tell you something about how propaganda works.
Let me rephrase that – it ought to demonstrate to OTHERS how propaganda works.
Griff, if you knew the CV of that “Somebody wrote a book…?” you wouldn’t make a fool of yourself on a public forum like this.
Or if you’d compare the quotes in the book with the recollections of people who were (supposedly) quoted, you’d be embarrassed to even bring up the topic.
Furthermore, the Lame-Stream media has been acting like uninformed jackals (actually liars, but what’s the difference?) about the Russian Collusion meme for over a year–we’re now finding it was Clinton and the DNC that conspired with Russia. (Collusion isn’t a crime but conspiracy is.)
There are no less than 4 investigations ongoing regarding Clinton and the rest of the DNC cabal–and there’s tons of evidence to support allegations as opposed to the empty howling the Lame-Stream media has been doing for over a year (and what an embarrassing bunch of shills they’ve proven themselves to be).
So keep up the counterproductive yet enlightening expose` you’ve demonstrated here, Griff.
Your “side” has played Russian Roulette with a fully-loaded pistol, with predictable consequences. It can’t happen to a better bunch of liars and haters.
And don’t get me going or I’ll really rip you a new one. 🙂
Griff,
Somebody wrote a book called the Bible, and with apologies to believers, it’s a fairy story.
The left are rallying round the clarion call to a book, written by Trump haters. Yet so far in his life, Trump has not done anything meaningfully wrong, otherwise he would have been disqualified from running for the Presidency.
The man doesn’t drink, smoke, do drugs or philander. He has an obviously loyal and devoted family, he’s a successful businessman, and so far as POTUS he’s not actually done anything to disrupt international relations, damage the US Economy or do anything negative. He’s withdrawn from the Paris accord which has saved the US untold billions (and that’s his sworn duty) he’s manned up to a petty tyrant who has threatened his country with nuclear weapons, and he likes McDonalds burgers.
So please enlighten me as to what the man has done wrong other than tweet, which we are all entitled to do, so why not the POTUS?
Whilst Kim build rockets, the Donald tweets. Frankly, I can’t imagine a more peaceful activity than tweeting.
Hey Griff
‘THAT BOOK’ was penned by this half baked troll – a pale imitation of Hedda Hopper or Louella Parson. The book is pure Hollywood.
Have you apologised yet, you slanderous little twerp?
Trump writes books.
TA, I hate to inform you but a “book” is longer than 140 characters.
Poor Remy, Trump keeps his tweets to Dumbocrats short for a reason…. Even that is [past] your limit.
“HotScot January 8, 2018 at 12:46 pm
Somebody wrote a book called the Bible…”
Written by many people, 70 or so years after the man was killed.
Here you go, Remy.
Before you commented, you should have done an internet search on “Trump books”.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump+books&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
I am given to understand that Griff never actually reads the articles that he cites for support of his masters positions.
Griff,
We are given to understand you read everything that’s put in front of you, except anything of worth.
Actually no…..Griff has a bad habit of posting links..and only reading the titles…he’s constantly getting shot down when people read the links
I’m interested in the theory that the President doesn’t read. Isn’t he a real estate developer? Doesn’t such a business man take great care to read the small print on contracts ? Have you ever read a contract for buying a house or buying insurance . All the important detail is in the small print and you can’t leave that to anyone else.
It isn’t a “theory”, M E, it’s the bearing of false witness of stupid, moronic individuals who haven’t anything but ad hominem attacks to throw against their common enemy, i.e., someone who’s systematically tearing down everything they hold near and dear to their black little hearts.
Thank you Bob…
Did you get an answer yet ? just curious …
Unfortunately, if it’s going to read at all by anyone in the WH we can be sure it will most likely be Ivanka, and we all know where she stands on AGW.
BTW, Bob, when you pointed out our host’s blog to the POTUS I thought that it would have been courteous to have given him a name-check as well.
Hope Trump reads yr letter and visits yr blog with it’s great charts, BT.
The odd thing is however that without Thatcher’s endorsement and support, climate change would not have been given UK funding (previously it was largely funded from the US). Without that support CRU would not have expanded as it did to pervert the science. Thatcher may well have detested the politics of AGW, but was instrumental in providing support for the science that supposedly underpinned it.
Margaret Thatcher effectively invented the global warming meme in the late 1970’s as a result of her ongoing battle with the coalminers unions that had almost taken over the UK government under previous Labour (socialist) governments. Arthur Scargill, commonly known as King Arthur, the leader of the coalminers, had enormous political clout and had brought the country to its knees with a series of strikes. (Don’t forget, in the 1970’s most industrialized nations were heavily dependent on coal as a fuel.) The Iron Lady used the then, startlingly new, concept of global warming as a means to cut back on coal use and thus reduce the power of the unions. Unfortunately she wasn’t able at the time to see where it would lead.
Roger – Totally wrong -see comments below. You do need to some fact checking before posting.
Arthur Scargills strike was 1984/85 . During the 1974 strike (which defeated the Gov of Edward Heath) she was Minister for Education. The global warming meme was, by then, well developed.
Its evolution is the subject of the current thread at Climate Etc.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc/
She did share the common (and historic) memes;
Exponential population growth in the third world
The consequences of industrialisation of these masses in completion for resources and markets
Malthus and Jevons rules then ad still do.
* William Stanley Jevons who predicted in 1850 that Britain would run out of coal by 1880
“Peak Oil” is not a new concept.
Margaret Thatchers role has been commented on in more detail on the current thread at Judith Curry’s site.
[ David L. Hagen | January 3, 2018 at 6:34 pm | Reply
Thanks for reviewing Lewin. Another key player was:
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: From Alarmist to Skeptic
See: Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?
Climate Alarmist Thatcher
Mrs Thatcher was the first world leader to voice alarm over global warming, back in 1988, With her scientific background, she had fallen under the spell of Sir Crispin Tickell, then our man at the UN. In the 1970s, he had written a book warning that the world was cooling, but he had since become an ardent convert to the belief that it was warming, Under his influence, as she recorded in her memoirs, she made a series of speeches, in Britain and to world bodies, calling for urgent international action, and citing evidence given to the US Senate by the arch-alarmist Jim Hansen, head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
She found equally persuasive the views of a third prominent convert to the cause, Dr John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office. She backed him in the setting up of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, and promised the Met Office lavish funding for its Hadley Centre, which she opened in 1990, as a world authority on “human-induced climate change”.
Hadley then linked up with East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to become custodians of the most prestigious of the world’s surface temperature records (alongside another compiled by Dr Hansen). This became the central nexus of influence driving a worldwide scare over global warming; and so it remains to this day – not least thanks to the key role of Houghton (now Sir John) in shaping the first three mammoth reports which established the IPCC’s unequalled authority on the subject.
Climate Skeptic Thatcher
there was a dramatic twist to her story. In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed “Hot Air and Global Warming”, she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.
She mocked Al Gore and the futility of “costly and economically damaging” schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind. ]
She was attracted to the Global Warming Narrative bandwagon as, following her bruising encounters with the National Union of Mineworkers in 1974 and 1984, she wanted to move the UK electricity generation from Coal to Nuclear.
What is not widely known is that, unique amongst world leaders of that time, she was a qualified scientist with research experience – a graduate in chemistry for Oxford Uni. As such she was aware of how piss-poor the evidence for global warming actually was. She set up the Hadley Centre with the explicit mandate to FIND THE EVIDENCE!
within a year though (1990) she was thrown out of office by her own party and subsequently had no further role or influence on the UNFCCC treaty at Rio 1992.
In passing this treaty could never have emerged but for the powerful Political/ Environmental lobby in the USA pulling the strings of Congress.
If you look at the tail end of the 1980s and the early 1990s the UK’s Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) was introduced as a means of subsidising nuclear power to enable it to replace coal.
Lateral thinking on the part of civil servants subsequently led to this being interpreted and applied as a subsidy available to alternative power generation. As a result there were a plethora of schemes covering the burning of chicken litter, fuel pellets from waste, wood chip etc etc as well as anaerobic digestion and landfill gas capture for power generation. It was not until later that these were expanded to include wind and solar.
Being convinced of ‘global warming’ in those days and as chairman of the Environment Committee of the Council of the Rpyal County of Berkshire I had a renewable energy plan for the County produced in 1992.
If I had known then what I know today we would never have wasted the time on pandering to the greatest scam in history.
In her autobiography Thatcher set out that she was fully aware that global warming was false (a scam) but but by then she was at the end of her political life as prime minister and no longer had the power to rein this back within the EU or the UK.
That’s also my experience.
I suspect that the alarmists have created many skeptics. For many, climategate was big. For me, it was the bogusness of the hockey stick trying to erase recorded history. Judith Curry had a similar epiphany when she reached out to the skeptical community and realized they had a point.
With hindsight the UN charter should have only been for a forum for international cooperation, and agreement among those countries that were willing to agree on certain issues. It should never have been given the ability to form a world government, a mistake that simply attracted the wrong sort of people, and produced a ratchet effect in which each small step cannot be easily reversed.
My opinion, for what it is worth:
I’m not aware of any clause that allows the UN to form a world government. That is the reason why the climate and sustainable development ideas are so powerful, because it opens the door to EU type regulation of member states. (Who does not want to defend the earth from dangerous man made climate change? Lock those people up!) All the UN needs is two items, a mandate, and then money. It got the first item, (with Obama through circumvention of the Constitution) and it got some of the money.(Until Trump cut off further funds).
Who benefits? Probably the worlds super national companies such as Google would dearly love to do away from Congressional regulation. It is much easier to do business though a few UN elites, who you help to install and control. It is inevitable Putin type corruptions and a “deep state” worldwide would result.
It would be the end of democracy as we know it, and the likely outcome would be a violent revolution in many liberty loving countries. That is why the second amendment is the ultimate defender of liberty, and the progressives desperately want to get rid of it, or water it down.
I am in awe of Bob’s work, but I would suggest that “Anti American” is better described as “anti liberty”. The UN climate agenda is an attack on the US Constitution, as the Constitution was designed to protect American liberty. President Obama in my opinion was a traitor for deliberately circumventing the intent of the Constitution. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton appeared to be on board with that sell out, but we will never know because she lost to President Donald Trump. I am very thankful for his win.
“I’m not aware of any clause that allows the UN to form a world government. ” They don’t have to form a world government. All they need is to form a “body of un-elected” to make binding rules. Rule by Governance and an international court system to enforce the rules.
You need more work on big Corps like google in your analysis. They were made part of the plan by the Totaliens. Using the central objective of a corporation of enhancing profits, economic globalization came first to get big industry on board. You couldn’t succeed with your marxbrothers’ project without enlisting the support of huge industry. Globalize it and then control the globe, continuing to favour but ultimately milk the big cash cow! (trade rules, energy rules….). Industry was easily bought and similarly, old fashion cash, status, bo7ght political leaders.
The new ‘climate’ favoring global governance brought the long-ago lefty academics out of their closets where they could unabashedly corrupt education in service of the plan and advise gov on a massive left shift of policy. The term “progressives” is a classical cynical lefty misnomer, like such as the protesteth-too-much New Democratic Party (NDP in Canada), or The Peoples Democratic Party of (N) Korea, or DDR (Deutsche Demokratishe Republik). They aren’t very creative which is helpful for alerting dissidents.
The diabolical cleverness of the term Progressives, though, is it plays on a basic inferiority feeling in America vis a vis Europe among the educated class (big history, Monarchs, Oxford, Cambridge). They felt compelled to europeanize themselves and their thinking and this was the hook that the EU/UN used to inveigle them into the enterprise. This is why the “elites” differentiated themselves from the embarrassing Deplorables of “old” America.
The terrible joke is that the hundred million who bought into this “upgrade” are totally dupes and the Euro-elites still deplore them. They only want to destroy the economic might and the freedom that created the American miracle because it sits as an embarrassing contrast to their mouldy self immolating alternative. Bill Nye wears this joke “progressive” as a badge of superiority as do the 3ntire doomed Democrat party.
“I am in awe of Bob’s work, but I would suggest that “Anti American” is better described as “anti liberty”.”
Or anti-Western Civilization.
@CR
produced a ratchet effect in which each small step cannot be easily reversed.
Precisley how the EU morphed from being the EC into something which is now a European ‘government’ that wants to set itself up as the United States of Europe.
As I said somewhere above, I have long believed the EU has been the dry-run for ending democracy and democratic accountability as an expermient to find the best way to do this on a global scale using climate change as the ‘fear factor’ to achieve it. Precisely as Maurice Strong explained they were going to use global warming for in a speech to the Club of Rome.
I’ve seen that quote more than a few times over the years.
The UN objectives have been formed by various organizations and individuals in power with the specific task of world socialism. The Club of Rome has been a major participant in this process since the ’70s. This needs to be more widely recognized and fought since the destruction of our country (US) is one of the primary goals. Interesting:
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
climanrecon: The UN was a deliberate deception from the start and was created by international commerce with a view to controlling the industries, finances and food of the entire world. You know..control the finances and you control a nation, control the food and you control the people.
I’m not even American yet I thank the Good Lord every day for bringing him to us and still shake at how close the Hillary bullet was.
PS. I go out of my way to buy American whenever I can to try to do my bit.
Even if the letter would reach the desk of Mr Trump – it is not easy to extract something meaningful for an outsider of our discussion club…
Thatcher was very instrumental in setting up the IPCC. She wanted to demonise coal in order to weaken the Coal Miners Union.
Margaret Thatcher UK Prime Minister 1979-1990, Miners’ Strike 1984-5, IPCC 1988, Hadley Centre 1990, so your time line doesn’t really work. IPCC and Hadley Centre founded well after Thatcher had seen off Scargil and his ilk (and rescued UK from being the ‘sick man of Europe’ thank God). Thatcher saw what Scargill did to Heath and that was all she needed to know. Wilson and Labour closed far more pits of course.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817
“What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate—all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways.”
Like I said, she was a keen supporter pf the IPCC and was an alarmist.
UK miners’ strike 1974 = WW1
UK miners’ strike 1984 = WW2 = replay of WW1.
Scargill’s strike was the last attempt at a Bolshevik overthrow of the UK govt.
All of that may be true but Thatcher had dealt with Scargill 3 years before the IPCC was set up so it was not correct to say that the IPCC was set up to ‘demonise coal’. Part of the reason for Scargill’s defeat was the stockpiling of coal before the expected strike. Stockpiling is hard to relate to ‘demonizing’. The other relevant date in the time line is North Sea Oil production which started in 1975. UK coal production peaked in 1913.
Martin A, exactly, Thatcher saw what happened to Heath (“who governs Britain – the unions or the government?”) and had more balls (thank God). (Previous comment for MattS if that’s not clear!).
Wilson and the Labour Party enthusiastically endorsed The Beeching ‘Reforms’ and closed more of our railway network than the Tories . Fortunately, Thatcher stopped further closures and saved lines such as the Settle – Carlisle. It is often forgotten that all railway closures have to be agreed by Parliament.
Dunning Kruger effect bigly. They don’t even realize that Trump is a cretin.
The only cretin we are aware of is you.
According to the leftists, anyone who isn’t a leftist is a cretin, and probably a criminal to boot.
They think of themselves as educated and caring. Anyone who differs from them is therefore uneducated and uncaring. The problem is that their education leads them to be able to ignore the glaringly obvious.
It’s true … the apparent stupidity of some right wing politicians is gobsmacking. We can’t stop there though. The apparent stupidity of some left wing politicians is also beyond belief. Both groups have trouble seeing their own shortcomings.
Bob, thank you for this. Until now I had thought that Margaret Thatcher’s statement about obligations to honour a “full repairing lease” on the plannit was her final word. Her change of view was the mark of a first-rate mind, one always open to learning.
My views on Thatcher underwent a similar change, from considering her a heartless destroyer of traditional livelihoods (in my youth) to seeing her as a visionary miderniser (today).
It’s a pity that she took so long to identify the fifth columnists in Western society working against their host nations like vile microbial parasites.
The President might have an opinion on that. Here is one philosophy professor’s take on it:
The professor points out that nobody else seemed willing to deal with a problem that is much much more serious than CAGW would be, even if it were true.
Basically true.
People tired of voting for “the lesser of of two political evils” came out of the woodwork to vote for a candidate who was not a politician. Politicians tend to say around election time whatever their potential voters want to hear. Actions once elected?
Trump has tried to do everything he said he would do.
Next election, take a good look at who has voted against his proposals.
I hope you included a free copy of your short story.
But the rumour has it that your president has no curiosity and doesn’t read books, but I couldn’t possibly comment.
For one who neither is curious nor reads, it would appear that by any standard he’s accomplished exponentially more than you have?
Perhaps you could comment on that for us?
🙂
Sy. Are you refuting the rumour which I was most careful to label as such and not to comment upon? Perhaps you could comment? – oh you have!
):-o
“Are you refuting the rumour which I was most careful to label as such and not to comment upon?”
What an odd question to ask given my comment!
I suspect refusing to read is a skill you should leave to DJT. It would appear you lack the necessary to pull it off…
🙂
The book written to undermine Trump was written by a Leftwing hack who wants Trump removed from Office, so we see his bias right off the bat, and then he writes up a bunch of lies claiming Trump doesn’t read and doesn’t get to the Office until 11am and on and on, and then the author cites people who then deny they ever made such statements about the president.
The author himself said the book was “his version” of the truth. His version of the truth is a Leftwing nightmare version of Trump that he wrote up into a book and now all the other leftwing loons are singing his praises because his book confirms their biases against Trump, in their minds. No doubt, all the Lefties believe every word in the book and have a really bizarre view of Trump.
The Left and the Leftwing media have trashed Trump for two years straight, doing everything they can to bring him down, and he still finished the year with a 46 percent approval rating which compares favorably to Obama’s first year approval rating of 47 percent.
That must be really frustrating for the Trump haters. They have told every lie they can think of against Trump and Trump is polling as good as Obama, the darling of the Left and the Leftwing media.
Trump is going to keep on winning for us regardless of what the Left does. Get used to it.
TA: ” he still finished the year with a 46 percent approval rating”
…
Bovine excrement…
..
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
…
RPC average doesn’t exceed 40%
Sy. It’s called being able to write the Queen’s English whot I does perfect.
(;-@
You should make friends with internet search engines, Remy.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/360230-trump-touts-rasmussen-poll-showing-46-percent-approval-rating
Trump touts Rasmussen poll showing 46 percent approval rating
“President Trump on Tuesday touted a survey from a conservative-leaning polling company that shows his approval rating at 46 percent.
“One of the most accurate polls last time around. But #FakeNews likes to say we’re in the 30’s. They are wrong. Some people think numbers could be in the 50’s. Together, WE will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Trump wrote on Twitter, referring to the Rasmussen poll.”
end excerpt
I wonder if The Hill also refers to some polls as “socialist-leaning” polling companies? I doubt they do. Bias showing? Yes.
So you see, Remy, what I wrote was true. You are not required to accept the Rasmussen poll’s results but you can’t say they don’t exist, as you implied.
Of course it has, as were so many of the junk science assaults. The left has no use for the truth. They favor “the big lie” as a means to their ends. Joseph Goebbels invented a new approach to propaganda that has been widely adopted,and many in the so-called “news” media are his disciples, even if they are unaware of the origin of their approach.
Thank you, Bob, for addressing the core motives behind this farce. We can argue the minutiae forever, but IMHO more overview articles like yours would be a welcome development.
I don’t deny that less than 25,000 years ago northern Illinois was covered by more than mile of glacial ice. I don’t deny that less than 12,000 years ago mammoths were flash frozen in Siberia with fresh grasses still in their stomachs. I don’t deny that 1,000 years ago Vikings in Greenland were cropping barley so they could use the grain to make beer. I don’t deny that the Thames River froze solid to such an extent that during 26 separate winters from 1408 until 1814, Londoners were able to hold a Frost Fair on the ice.
The truth is that the climate is always changing. There would be something wrong it it did not. The real question for us today is to what extent is human activity harming our biosphere in a material manner, so that it endangers our food and ecosystem. Up until now, advocates of “climate change” demand solutions that converge far more on socialism than on anything else. This is a means to an ideological ends having nothing at all do do with protecting the biosphere. It is intended to advance the long awaited secular Utopia.
It seems with every passing day the one constant in the debate about this issue is far more about how socialistic the policy solutions must be than any other factor. That tells me that the “settled science” involved is far more Scientific Socialism than any real science.
Off topic, but is there any way to submit tips?
Ran across this article and could not believe it:
http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-sinking-ocean-rising-sea-levels-772862?utm_campaign=NewsweekTwitter&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
So the seas are refusing to rise as predicted because they are, um, sinking.
The Russiands did it, didn’t they?
See “Tips and Notes” at top of page.
@ DGP: At the top of the page there is a tab called “Tips and Notes”. This where your comment should have gone. However, more people are likely to see it if it is in the main body of the current post.
DGP, there’s nothing new to that story. The sinking ocean floors are a product of post glacial rebound. The satellite-based sea level altimetry data have been “adjusted” for that for years.
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
Here is the abstract:
“ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
The forecasts in Fig 12 of my paper are similar to those in Ludecke et al hose recent recent paper emphasizes the importance of the Millennial Cycle and supports my earlier forecasts of a coming long term cooling .
Harmonic Analysis of Worldwide Temperature Proxies for 2000 Years
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke1, *, Carl-Otto Weiss2
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
ISSN: 1874-2823 ― Volume 11, 2017
The Sun as climate driver is repeatedly discussed in the literature but proofs are often weak. In order to elucidate the solar influence, we have used a large number of temperature proxies worldwide to construct a global temperature mean G7 over the last 2000 years. The Fourier spectrum of G7 shows the strongest components as ~1000-, ~460-, and ~190 – year periods whereas other cycles of the individual proxies are considerably weaker. The G7 temperature extrema coincide with the Roman, medieval, and present optima as well as the well-known minimum of AD 1450 during the Little Ice Age…………….”
It is well past time for a paradigm shift in the forecasting methods used by establishment climate science. The whole dangerous global warming delusion is approaching collapse
The current movement to declare President Trump mentally unfit could have a negative impact on his reading this letter, in that any favor he might show towards the letter would easily be attributed to a mentally unfit president.
I believe that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun. Hence, I am mentally unfit.
I do not believe in the Christian God. Hence, I am mentally unfit.
I eat fried roaches. Hence, I am mentally unfit.
What a clever, backdoor way for alarmists to try to strengthen their position — redefining “mentally unfit” to mean “beliefs or practices not supported by a faction of people in the real-world”.
Not sure why Robert Kernodle felt compelled to include his disbelief in the Christian God as being related to one’s mental fitness. Pretty sure most of the leftist alarmists pushing AGW don’t believe in God. Some of them might, but not as much as they seem to believe in Gov.
Not sure why Dr. D could not see the analogy related to strong beliefs (no matter what) being associated with mental disorders by those who have DIFFERENT beliefs. … nor why Dr. D assumed that I was stating MY own position on the Christian deity. I was drawing primarily on a strong belief system, AS AN EXAMPLE, Dr.
I do NOT eat fried roaches, by the way, but I would not be opposed to trying them.
I DO, however, believe that the Earth is round, and, by some standards, many centuries ago, that might have qualified me for the loony bin. THAT was the point.
Roaches are better raw.
Thatcher was hated in England. Many British people boycotted her funeral. Not that Trump would care. The billionaires never care what the average person thinks or does.
The billionaires never care what the average person thinks or does.
That’s an odd claim. Were you a billionaire would you stop caring “what the average person thinks or does”?
If not, why are you the only one?
Ask the Koch family and they’ll tell you something jolly different.
Give me one reason why they give a $hit. A couple years ago Princeton did a survey about how often the laws that a majority of Americans want get passed and it was appallingly low. Conversely, the laws that corporations and the wealthy wanted passed got passed appallingly often. Don’t remember the exact numbers. But that is the take away.
So that tells me they really don’t give a $hit or we would be passing laws the majority of us want.
Now what makes you think they do? A few sales? Only if it lines the $hit out of their pockets.
“I am not the one envying billionaires. I give a $hit about them.”
“Give me one reason why they give a $hit.”
“So that tells me they really don’t give a $hit”
“Only if it lines the $hit out of their pockets.”
You seem consistently regular…enjoy it…one day you’ll be mature and you’ll likely have to work for it.
🙂
Sy. I am retired attorney. I probably have forgotten more about corporations, money and and economics than you will ever know.
It is a fairly basic concept. When money is horded by a few people, the economic system becomes very inefficient. How long would a poker game last if one player out of ten started with 95% of the chips, and the other nine split the remaining 5%?
Money supply is really no different.
I would never be a billionaire. I am not a sociopath.
” How long would a poker game last if one player out of ten started with 95% of the chips, and the other nine split the remaining 5%?”
Well I don’t know about you, but I’d do the rational thing, e.g., grab some cash and buy more chips! And if I didn’t have any cash on hand, well then I might borrow from a bank! And if I couldn’t borrow from a bank, then I might barter, e.g., a watch, that is if I wanted to stay in the game!
That’s just silly old know-nothing me I guess 🙂
“It is a fairly basic concept. When money is horded by a few people, the economic system becomes very inefficient.”
I would argue that is not the case. People don’t stick their money under the mattress, they put it to work in one form or another, and that stimulates economic activity. Just about anything you do with money, other than sticking it under a mattress, will stimulate economic activity.
Thatcher, as leader of the Conservative Party was elected to form a government by the British people in 1979, 1983 and 1987 – not a sign of being universally hated.
“Many British people boycotted her funeral” Well, the overwhelming majority of the 60+ million Brits did not attend (= “boycotted”) her funeral. So what?
so Davidg you dont know what happened in the pres8dential election or dont understand. Well, You aren’t alone. Hillary , who was his opponent even wrote a book entitled ” WTF Happened?”
Envy is never pretty.
I am not the one envying billionaires. I give a $hit about them.
What I don’t get is people who support them thinking their day to become a billionaire is right around the corner when it is less likely than a midget making the NBA. I can only conclude these people are delusional or they don’t think there is any problem with inequality and hate their fellow Americans who haven’t been able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
You might want to think about people’s ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when robots and computers can already do nearly all things better than humans. What jobs will there be for our kids?
So tell me, do you think vast inequality is a good thing?
One other point. If you just look at the money supply, is it a good thing for the economy for a few to horde so much of it? How does money circulate when the horders hold so much of it?
“How does money circulate when the horders hold so much of it?”
Does anyone else have any? If so then you’ve answered your own question. Economics 101.
Besides, how can it be true that the rich both hoard their money and then buy themselves all these lavishly expensive jewels, houses, cars, properties, vacations, i.e., all those worldly goods that it would appear have your blood running green, at the same time?
Don’t you contradict yourself?
If not, why not?
David, the best we can do to keep rich people from hording their money is encourage economic activity. We may be fortunate enough to see something new with the Trump economy. He has recently nominated someone to the chair of the federal reserve who is about as far left as anyone we’ve seen since the 1970s. If energy prices stay low (and hence inflation), we can expect the fed to allow the unemployment rate to go as low as it’s been since at least the 1960s. There will be plenty of jobs, good wages and hope for the less fortunate. Keep your eye on Powell (Trump’s fed pick) and what he does going forward. (he holds the keys for prosperity of those masses that you rightly lament for)…
“David, the best we can do to keep rich people from hording their money is encourage economic activity.”
Who cares if the rich (or anyone else) “hoards” their own money??? Individuals have been saving money for generations…in fact it used to be commonplace.
As if the U.S. economy is a zero-sum game with regard to supply. The poor outnumber the rich exponentially…shall we discourage them from saving their own money for a rainy day because the “supply” will suffer?
Do you have a savings account? What?! How dare you hypocrite…”Hoarder!!” Pull the beam from thine own eye before you point out the beam in someone else’s eye.
Or…rethink your belief system.
Sy, obviously… What i’m getting at is if we want to spread the wealth around, the best way to do it is by growing the economic pie. Sure, we all have savings. And even though the rich part with more of their money (while making more actually) during boom time, they will still be saving then, too. i was just addressing david’s narrow concern here. (not trying to make a blanket statement about hoarding)…
Sy your comments are infantile. All those yachts and palaces and still the billionaires have vast fortunes sitting in a bank. Billionaires do not circulate money. They horde it or the would not be billionaires. They have to have the capital to buy the things they acquire.
And where did they get the capital? From a corporation or several corporations. Corporations are creatures of the state. They take a state charter to exist. And the sole reason for incorporation is to avoid personal liability. To avoid personal liability for taxes, to avoid personal liability for corporate losses and to avoid personal liability from lawsuits. That is why corporations exist. The owners of corporations are the people in society who refuse to most accept personal responsibility, yet these same people love to claim that much less wealthy people are irresponsible. They know they have avoided responsibility in incorporating and yet they claim others who have never had a chance at financial security are the irresponsible ones.
When corporations were first issued in America, the charter life was 20 years and it took an act of the legislature to renew a corporation. If the corporation failed to do enough common good, the charter was not renewed and often times revoked prior to the expiration of 20 years.
Then the corporations got wise and bought of the legislatures and convinced the legislatures to issue charters in perpetuity. And so these corporate wealth factories, which could never be done personally, now control the country and have targeted the rest of the world.
You don’t even begin to understand the legal sham that allows these billionaires to accumulate huge wealth. They would never be able to acquire these vast sums without the corporate vehicle to protect them from personal liability. Corporations have basically screwed up capitalism.
Afonzerelli — At least you understand the problem. As I am sure you know, one of the things the Fed is charged with doing, is creating full employment. And I think that any Fed Chairman who understands this primary reason for the Fed’s existence and attempts to do something about it is on the right track.
But full employment will not be an adequate fix unless the jobs the rest of us have are jobs that produce a livable wage, including necessary benefits, especially good health care and pensions. I don’t see that happening this time around. These jobs don’t exist any longer for vast numbers of Americans. If all the Fed can do is give the people jobs flipping hamburgers, even full employment won’t be the answer.
” All those yachts and palaces and still the billionaires have vast fortunes sitting in a bank. Billionaires do not circulate money. They horde it or the would not be billionaires. They have to have the capital to buy the things they acquire.”
Congratulations on your retirement sir…you need it…get some rest!
All the best!
“But full employment will not be an adequate fix unless the jobs the rest of us have are jobs that produce a livable wage, including necessary benefits, especially good health care and pensions. I don’t see that happening this time around. These jobs don’t exist any longer for vast numbers of Americans. If all the Fed can do is give the people jobs flipping hamburgers, even full employment won’t be the answer.”
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2018/01/05/six-figure-construction-jobs-are-going-unfilled.html
Six-figure construction jobs are going unfilled
“The construction sector is ready to boom in 2018, but there’s just one problem: There aren’t enough qualified workers.
A new report released by the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), found that 75% of contractors want to increase their headcount in 2018, thanks to the newly-approved tax reform bill, the government’s push to rollback red tape, strong economic growth and a continuation of favorable sector trends.
However, 50% of companies reported having a difficult time filling both craft and salaried worker positions. Over the coming year, 53% of companies told the AGC that they expect to continue struggling to find qualified applicants. These challenges come despite the fact that 60% of firms reported increasing base pay to retain or recruit professionals and 36% provided incentives and bonuses toward the same end.”
end excerpt
Looks like Trump is doing a little more than just creating burger-flipping jobs.
The stock market has increased in value by $7 TRILLION since Trump was elected. And it’s going higher.
She was so “hated” she was elected?
“Thatcher was hated in England.”
Only by the traitorous Loony Left who were attempting to permanently destroy British industry, and came very close to succeeding.
The majority of the population thanked her for saving them from the Soviet-backed trade unionists who were responsible for the rolling blackouts, the three day week and massive industrial discontent culminating in the 1979 ‘Winter of Discontent.
She is now commonly regarded as the second best Prime Minister Great Britain ever had after Sir Winston Churchill.
@catweazle666. Utter nonsense. Britain is largely a gig economy today due to the policies put in place by Thatcher. But that is what conservatives want. A gig economy. A gig economy is actually much worse for workers than feudalism was for serfs. A least the feudal lord was expected to have some concern for his serfs and to provide them with shelter, clothing and food and healthcare. Under the gig economy, the employer is not required or expected to have any concern for the workers of the gig economy or provide anything that feudal lords were expected to provide.
Thank the gig economy on people like Thatcher and Reagan.
The heirs of Thatcher -the governing UK Conservative Party – have no problem with the science of climate change, renewable energy, the Paris agreement, etc, etc. and they are politically quite as ‘right wing’ as Thatcher.
e.g UK Prime Minister Theresa May had told Trump of her “disappointment” at his decision over Paris and stressed that Britain remained committed to the agreement.
I find it very hard to believe they have any political agenda for their views and policy on climate other than being driven by evidence of climate change and acting accordingly.
Griff, you appear to understand nothing about British politics so just leave it alone.
Mrs May’s comments were for UK fools to consider.
I judge them by their actions, not their rhetoric… just look at UK energy policy – this week the govt re-iterated that UK coal power will close by 2025, for example. Govt ministers attend the openings of major renewable energy projects. They repeatedly endorse the climate act and are not repealing it (it would certainly be possible to repeal it post brexit – none of them have suggested that)
You understand nothing, and just recite the rhetoric from the British government.
Their ACTIONS is only to repeat the rhetoric!
I should quit if I were you, or risk showing yourself to be an outright fool!
“I find it very hard to believe they have any political agenda for their views and policy on climate other than being driven by evidence of climate change and acting accordingly.”
Griff, in the UK NO political agendas or policy are driven by any evidence of anything. If you find this hard to believe you must be a democrat.
Griff, you are a complete idiot.
However to answer your ignorant point. May and the Conservatives are like every politician, they want to retain power. To do that they need to appeal to the ‘youth’ vote who are drifting towards Labour. Unfortunately the ‘youth’ are idealistic and easily malleable. So they actually love the idea of doing something that makes them feel good about themselves, and what better than saving the planet. As logical thinking including scientific methodology is in depressingly short supply in the education of the young in the UK, they are very easily swayed by the inane ramblings of TV personalities who constantly ram home the ‘green’ message on every UK TV channel. So May etc are advised not to oppose this, but to ‘appeal’ to this reality, hence the lip service to the green blob. Of course the Tories have their fair share of green nutters who do they level best to make the situation even worse.
Strangely, I thing a Labour govt who have dreams of renationalising the energy industries would probably be far more likely to ignore the very voices that seem to support their position. I could see Corbyn keeping coal plant on-line, that would be a turn-up for you, wouldn’t it Griff.
I’m sympathetic to the idea of raising the voting age to 25 or 30.
Me, too.
Excellent idea there MarkW, and when you raise the voting age to 25/30, make sure that 25/30 is also the minimum age for entry into the armed services. No sense in having non-voting 18 year old kids dying in a war without the right to vote.
Of course there’s every sense in the world! Any fool can be taught to point and shoot. It’s much more difficult to teach one how to think critically for themselves in order that their vote in ignorance not blow the hard-earned political gains of those wiser than they.
Corbyn is a n idiot – refighting the 1980s on the same failed policies. Nit voting for him!
“Excellent idea there MarkW, and when you raise the voting age to 25/30, make sure that 25/30 is also the minimum age for entry into the armed services. No sense in having non-voting 18 year old kids dying in a war without the right to vote.”
Well, I served in the Armed Forces at age 18, before I was eligible to vote, and I don’t see any detrimental effects on my life because of it.
The argument you make above (if you are old enough to fight, you are old enough to vote) is one that has been made for decades. At the end of World War II only 39 percent of Americans favored lowering the voting age to 18, even though President Roosevelt was in favor of it. President Eisenhower was in favor of lowering the age, but the idea had no support then. Lowering the voting age to 18 was passed in 1971.
Here’s a compromise: Restrict the voting age to 25 with the exception that any person who serves in the military is eligible to vote, without age restriction.
Military members are usually more mature than most, at any age, and I would feel comfortable with allowing them to vote at 18.
TA, how about another exception……..If a person is less than 25/30, but holds a full time job and is paying taxes, shouldn’t they be allowed to vote? Some of these taxpayers have even purchased real estate, and have to pay state and local taxes too. You remember the old “No taxation without representation?”
“TA, how about another exception……..If a person is less than 25/30, but holds a full time job and is paying taxes, shouldn’t they be allowed to vote?”
I was working full time at 17 years old, hence…no.
This is more “up is down” pronouncements.
“and they are politically quite as ‘right wing’ as Thatcher.”
Absolute, complete and utter drivel.
Why do you tell such blatant lies?
Depends where you are standing I suppose… past a certain point it is turtles all the way down
Griff,
If you know how to read, why don’t you answer the two questions I have asked you many times?
1. Show me an engineering quality study which MEASURES the amount of warming caused by CO2.
2. Show me an engineering quality study which determined that warming in excess of 2 Deg C will cause runaway warming?
Waiting…………
Griff is paid to disrupt blogs and sites that his ‘Green energy’ paymasters consider threatening to ‘The Cause’, including attempting to damage the professional reputation of scientists whose work contradicts the lies put out by the “Hockey Team” and their followers.
He has boasted of his prowess at “tweaking the tails of the den1ers” on the Guardian CIF blogs.
[? .mod]
Not paid, not in any political party, don’t work for any green etc organisation, just an ordinary working Brit with an interest in climate science. (Can’t afford a model train set!)
and there are dozens of pieces of peer reviewed science you’ve already ignored: not my job to point you at them.
Jimmy Carter’s energy policy was to tell people to “wear a sweater,” President Obama’s energy policy was to build Quixotic Wind and Solar farms and force everyone to buy extremely expensive, dangerous eco-unfriendly energy efficient light bulbs. President Trump’s energy policy doubles as a National Security Policy and will result in more abundant, greater diversity, and cheaper energy for America and the world. The secondary benefit is a bankrupt Iran, Russia and North Korea, and greater freedom, peace, and hope around the World. What will be the contribution of the AGW Liberals? To fight president Trump every opportunity they can get. Liberals are simply a Tyrant’s best friend.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/climate-change-and-the-iranian-protests/
co2, it actually triples as sound economic policy. Low inflation is key to the Trump economy going forward. We are already at full employment by historical standards. Should inflation of any kind kick in at this point, it’s bye-bye economy and hello recession (given current federal reserve monetary policy). If we can keep energy dirt cheap, it will go a long way toward making the Trump Boom a big (and lasting) success…
Boom for whom? I hear things may be booming on the coasts, but I don’t hear of or see much boom in flyover America. Tell me what is booming.
Yep, Helios approach just keeps getting better.
David, at 4.1% the unemployment rate is as low as it’s been since Clinton was president and before that Nixon. So business is booming. Let’s hope the economic expansion continues and is well managed so that it reaches every American (and peoples abroad, too). The big QUE: how long will the trump boom last?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/2018/01/07/retirement-tips-4-signs-youre-target-ponzi-scheme/1005690001/
Sounds a lot like COP 21 – a global Ponzi scheme.
Capitalism is at heart a Ponzi scheme. Ever increasing consumerism (demand) to support ever increasing production (supply). Note: I am not arguing for socialism, only indicating that the Capitalist system will eventually run down, especially in light of the drop in reproduction in first world economies. When Globalism spreads the wealth, economies will slow down.
You don’t understand it. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership that rewards the efficient generation of goods and services and their free exchange.
Free Enterprise.
R. Shearer and TA – the free enterprise/exchange you mention cannot work on a global scale, which is the current system we live in. It can only work on a local scale between people who know each other and live in the same community.
President Trump, please take the next logical step and withdraw the US from the UNFCCC and the IPCC. Make sure that the US ends all its contributions to those UN efforts completely. That includes disallowing all federal employees from participating in IPCC efforts when they’re on the clock, and from traveling to IPCC events as part of their work functions. Make it clear to the federal workforce that any participation in IPCC events will occur from private citizens using their free time and their own money.
The resulting squawking by aggrieved “scientists” will be offset by the lessening of the squawking about impending catastrophic climate change.
How about getting us out of the wars that we have been in since 2001?
Bob,
If your letter was really written with President Trump as the primary target audience,
you’ll need to use smaller words, shorter sentences, and make sure Fox news
quotes it in their morning programs.
As such, it just doesn’t have the punch to get through all the noise surrounding the
Oval Office.
For the WUWT audience, it was a fine letter.
Trump is president today because the left came to actually believe the lies they told about him.
@ R.S. Brown
Trump was smart enough to win the election. How smart were the Progressives heavily backed by the liberal MSM and a corrupt DOJ?
I didn’t vote in this past election, but you have to give Trump credit for what he has accomplished. He had the cards stacked against him and still came out on top.
You conflate liberals with progressives. Liberals supported Clinton and the establishment Democratic party. Progressives supported Sanders, and when he did not get the nomination, they either did not vote or voted for Stein. Some voted for Trump if their state was a swing state.
And that is why the Democratic Party is so pissed off at Sanders and Stein. Liberals are neo-liberals, meaning they don’t care much about rank and file workers. Most liberals are millionaires or multimillionares with a few billionaires thrown in the mix, plus the workers they duped in the last three elections. Liberals are corporatists, called third wayers, because the third way means getting corporate support.
Workers and not likely to be duped another time by the Democratic elites and will either have Sanders as the nominee or someone in the FDR mold. But few are likely to support liberal corporatist Democrats again. Most progressives are anti-corporate. Most of the progressives are also anti-war like the libertarians. In fact progressives and libertarians agree a lot on foreign policy. Think Kucinich and Paul as the people who most represent these two groups on foreign policy.
Clever, cute, funny. You smart man R.S. Brown.
Siamiam,
Long ago and far away, before the advent of blogs, I wrote numerous
letters to politicians,. business executives and print editors.
The ones that got read and/or published were the ones that followed the
principles of newspaper reporting: small words, terse writing, with
a beginning, a middle and an repetition of the main theme at the end.
My comment above was about the style, not the content of Bob’s
letter.
WOW!
Such an “elitist” comment!
“I know the definitions of bigger words than you do so I should control your life.”
Ego, meet Ignorance.
Your membership in the diatribe hasn’t expired yet.
/sarc
The UN hates We The People.
+10
We the People live in a failed system. The Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin of Liberalism. Both sides have the same ends, they disagree on means. Government control grows at the expense of human values. Note: I am not arguing for socialism, only suggesting that the combination of Capitalism and Democracy are not working out very well for most people.
I agree but would not call it liberalism. It is more neo-liberalism or neo-conservatism. Both parties agree on war and both seem to care only about the top ten percent of the people.
Capitalism is not working out very well for most people because we DON’T live in a capitalist system. So don’t blame capitalism. Since the introduction of the (not) Federal Reserve system power has been slowly taken away from We The People. We now live in a Big Brother world where you are a number and numbers have NO rights.
The Democrats and Republicans are both puppets in the hand of the NOT federal reserve system. That’s why nothing ever changes whatever party you vote for. They no longer need your vote and they no longer need your money. Just look what they have done with the value of the dollar in 100 years. They printed it into worthlessness. We the people have become slaves. Form 1040 tells you you are a slave. Every form of direct taxation tells you you are a slave. It is not snow but FREEDOM which is a thing of the past. If they have their way soon you can only pay with digital money. Welcome to the Big Brother society. Hope you like it.
davidmills and Robert – regardless of what you call the economic & government system that we live in, it is a failure.
South River Independent. No it is NOT a failure. Those who really pull the strings have completed their goal. Enslave humanity.
The next letter needs to highlight the concern of rank and file voters over the now obvious lack of representation in dispensing American debt dollars in unofficial international agreements.
Regarding the question stated at the top: ” Has the UN’s Human-Induced Global Warming/Climate Change Movement always been based on International “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American” Agendas?” – here’s a letter to the editor I submitted that was published a month ago in the Chronicle, an excellent weekly newspaper in the city of Glens Falls, NY:
Editor:
There’s not yet any evidence CO2 causes climate change, but alarmists continue to predict future catastrophes predicated on inept CO2-based computer models, despite IPCC and NASA famously saying that “climate is a non-linear chaotic system and prediction of future climate is not possible.” Yet alarmists keep doing it anyway. To learn why, we need only pay attention to their own words.
Christiana Figueres, head of the UN’s Climate Change section and its Paris Climate Summit, and prominent alarmist writers Naomi Oreskes and Naomi Klein openly state that alarmism isn’t about any real concern for climate, but it’s the best vehicle for destroying capitalism and achieving de-industrialization, simultaneously extracting from the West $100B annually for the UN to distribute.
“Stop worrying about the lousy science and show me the money already”- Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN’s IPCC (until sexual misconduct forced his resignation in 2015).
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy.”- IPCC lead author Ottmar Edenhofer.
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen”- Sir John Houghton, ex-IPCC chairman.
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”- Paul Watson, Greenpeace.
“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,”- David Brower, founder of Sierra Club.
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States”- John Holdren, Obama’s Science Advisor.
Google “Maurice Strong,” father of climatism and the most influential man you never heard of. Read about his rôle in the Global Governance Commission and Director of the UN’s Environmental Program, spawning the IPCC and global warming frenzy. He stated it’s “the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse” and that it’s “our responsibility to bring that about.” Fleeing investigations of UN corruption, Strong exiled himself to Beijing, dying 2 days before the Paris conference – his crowning achievement.
The above proponents are often called eco-Marxists or “warmunists.” Climate crisis is their weapon – propaganda for an extreme socialist agenda. Disagreement isn’t tolerated; debate is avoided by saying “the science is settled.” As the USSR disintegrated (1988-1991), climate crisis offered a way to continue “the cause” of ultra-socialist world government via the UN. It’s no coincidence the UN’s first IPCC climate report was published in 1990. Over half our population came of age after the USSR collapsed; they seem especially susceptible to the propaganda. “A lie told often enough becomes the truth” – V. Lenin.
Climate “science” now approaches Stalinist-era Lysenkoism – politically controlled for political goals. Researchers won’t get government funding if they don’t cooperate with the CO2 climate crisis meme. Leftists call for prosecution of climate skeptics. Eisenhower recognized the danger of political corruption of science. His 1961 farewell address warned that “…domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money…is gravely to be regarded,” and to beware the “danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
To weaken capitalist industrialized economies, climate alarmists (and the EPA) call CO2 a pollutant to justify hyper-regulation and make energy prices “skyrocket” (Obama’s phrase, 2009) by promoting costly, unreliable renewables. But satellites show increasing CO2, a crucial plant food, has greened the planet by 15% since 1980; agricultural production has improved dramatically. Triple CO2’s current level, as in greenhouses, would be better. It’s harmless to humans; submarines and the space station have ten times our atmospheric level. Solar and ocean cycles are the keys to understanding climate.
Brexit and the US withdrawal from the Paris Accord and TransPacific Partnership will help our economy and preserve national sovereignty and democracy in two countries with the longest, strongest democratic traditions.
I think Trump knows there have been too many Chamberlin’s and not enough Churchill’s.
I have written before of my association with John Maunder a New Zealander who was a member of the the World Meteorological Organization WMO and he told me and he has written about the first world meeting called to discuss the climate in Villach in Austria .
He said that looking back it was the beginning of the global warming scare .He also attended the second meeting in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil .
I first met him and he told me that he hat taught meteorology in universities Canada and other countries around the world .
The subject of global warming came up and I mentioned that Augie Auer who was an American and a meteorologist working in New Zealand did not believe in global warming and John said neither did he .
Later he and his wife came to stay with us and I arranged for him to speak at our Rotary club on why man made global warming had not been proven H
He then said that the alarmists could not explain away the inconvenient facts such as that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than present and that it was entirely natural .
The interesting thing that he told me was that at the first two climate conferences livestock methane emissions were never mentioned but at the Kyoto conference ( that he did not attend ) activists pushed for these emissions to be included in the green house gasses GHG to be counted against countries emission profile .
New Zealands government under Helen Clarke went to Kyoto to sign as they believed that as most of New Zealands electricity is generated by Hydro our emissions were very low .
With the addition of livestock methane emissions and because of our high livestock numbers compared with our population our so called emissions soared .’
We have established an Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and the scientists there state that livestock emissions account for 39 percent of New Zealands GHG emissions .
Dr Andy Reisinger of the Centre states that they have a simple climate model that proved that livestock emissions have contributed 19% of the warmth experienced in the world up to 2010 .
I have to take issue with this statement as livestock emissions make up 16% of all methane emissions and 97.3% of methane emitted is oxidized each year . That leaves 2.7% x 16% =.0423%
He then states ” that if all sectors continue to increase emissions unabated the world would warm by 4C ”
When you are farming you don’t need friends like Dr Andy Reisinger .
Lets just hope Trump puts leeches on NASA to draw out all of the NASA Climate bad blood 😀
NASA climate, if you read what they write on facebook, are unbelievable liars.
NASA needs to do space. But since we don’t do big science anymore, what we get out of NASA is climate garbage.
The big question is whether Donald Trump will get to read it. The key element is to get such a letter under the radar of media censorship.
As it is, mainstream media have been censoring news heavily for decades. Half truth if you are lucky is what we get. Lies by omission are just as frequent. We should be running them out of town for deliberately misinforming us for decades, perhaps asking for our money back on the newspapers we have bought over the decades that deliberately misinformed us. Perhaps a charter for media needs to be installed where deliberate omissions and half-truths lead to big fines or the media outlets closed down, never to spread their lies again.
Still, it is only 3 few weeks away till the State of the Union address. Will an announcement be made that the swamp is being drained-Clinton,Obama, Comey, Soros, Podestas and others having an extended vacation in Cuba? As it is, George Soros has not tweeted since late November-is he in Gauantanamo?
We will be waiting with baited breath. Even having a party at a patriot-friendly club in Redfern, Sydney that evening with recording of the speech to be played on a laptop. The actual speech itself is at 1pm Sydney time-not quite the time for a get together. How convenient, I have shuffled my lunch break on the day to neatly coincide with the address. 10s of millions of Americans will be watching the address-will MSM pull the plug?
I suspect Donald Trump already knows how treacherous the UN (United Nazis) are in the climate deception. The skill element is to wake people without making them go in to denial and burying their heads in the sand.
“It is easier to deceive the people than to convince them they are being deceived”- attributed to Mark Twain. Then again, if the bell ringeth truth, it is better the identity of the bell ringer remaineth obscure.
When Maggie and Ron signed off on the Montreal Protocol, they imposed a globalist protection racket designed to enrich DuPont. Saving the planet was just the casus belli.
According to true believer Carl Sagan:
In 1987 Britain, France and Italy participated in the 1st Montreal Conference only begrudgingly, since,
► “They feared DuPont had a substitute up its sleeve that it had been preparing all the time it had been stonewalling about CFCs. The United States was pushing a ban on CFCs, they worried, in order to increase the global competitiveness of one of its major corporations.”
The United States signed on to the very protocol it had been pushing…watch Sagan be amazed by that fact::
► “That this occurred during the antienvironmental spasm of the Late Reagan administration was truly unexpected (unless, of course, the fear of DuPont’s European competitors is true.)”
► “Substantial credit must be given to […] British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who trained in chemistry and understood the issue.”
► “DuPont has become a leader in cutting back on CFCs, and has committed itself to a faster phaseout than many nations have.”
► “A substitute–or better, a stopgap measure–has been found. CFCs are temporarily being replaced by HCFCs; […] they still cause some damage to the ozone layer, but much less. […] HCFCs were developed by DuPont, but–the company swears–only after the discoveries at Halley Bay.”
► “The Montreal Protocol and it’s amendments represent a triumph and a glory for the human species.”
all quotes from Sagan’s “Billions & Billions”
Thatcher was just another globalist traitor.
Thank Thatcher and Reagan for the gig economy. That is the end game of corporatism/crony capitalism. Corporatism/crony capitalism is worse for workers than feudalism. At least feudal lords were expected to shelter, feed, clothe an provide healthcare to serfs. Under this system, the employers are exempted from providing any of that in exchange for “freedom.” “Freedom” is just another name for debt slavery.
https://youtu.be/gfSJXCDDKqs
Hurry up with implementing that Red Team/Blue Team, President Trump.
The climate data manipulators at NASA and NOAA are still at it, bastardizing the data to promote CAGW, and it is time to deal with this problem.
Pres. Trump on global warming:
“This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice.”
“NBC News just called it the great freeze – coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?”
“Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!”
“Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee – I’m in Los Angeles and it’s freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!”
“Obama’s talking about all of this with the global warming and…a lot of it’s a hoax. It’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, OK? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.”
http://www.newsweek.com/what-has-trump-said-about-global-warming-quotes-climate-change-paris-agreement-618898