Pres. Trump's Pick to Replace Sec. of State Tillerson "Is a Bigger Climate Denier"!

Guest commentary by David Middleton

From the “So What?” files and the Huffington Post…

POLITICS

03/13/2018

Trump’s Pick To Replace Former Exxon CEO As Secretary Of State Is A Bigger Climate Denier

Mike Pompeo, who was tapped to replace Rex Tillerson, could be the first secretary of state to reject climate science outright. Climate deniers have high hopes for him.

By Alexander C. Kaufman

Mike Pompeo, President Donald Trump’s pick to replace sacked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, threatens to bring a hard-line brand of climate change denialism to Foggy Bottom for the first time.

The current CIA director, named early Tuesday as the nominee to be the nation’s top diplomat, has long rejected the widely-accepted science behind man-made global warming, dashing hopes that the United States might reverse its decision to leave from the Paris climate accord before November 2020, when the deal allows the country to formally withdraw.

[…]

“It’s good news for us,” said Myron Ebell, a leading proponent of climate change denial and a director at the right wing Competitive Enterprise Institute. “I expect very good things from him at the State Department.”

Ebell, who led Trump’s transition at the Environmental Protection Agency, said he hopes Pompeo will convince the president to withdraw the U.S. from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, completely ending all U.S. participation in climate talks.

In January 2017, Pompeo skirted questions about his view on climate science during his Senate confirmation hearing to become CIA director.

“Frankly, as the director of CIA, I would prefer today not to get into the details of the climate debate and science,” he said. “It seems  —  my role is going to be so different and unique from that.”

[…]

“For President Obama to suggest that climate change is a bigger threat to the world than terrorism is ignorant, dangerous, and absolutely unbelievable,” he said at the time.

[…]

In December 2013, Pompeo rejected the consensus among 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate researchers that the planet is warming and burning fossil fuels, industrial farms and deforestation are the main causes.

[…]

“Donald Trump has now somehow picked someone even worse than Rex Tillerson to run the State Department,” Naomi Ages, Greenpeace USA’s climate director, said in a statement. “In addition to being a climate denier, like his predecessor, Pompeo is Koch brothers’ shill who will denigrate the United States’ reputation abroad and make us vulnerable to threats at home.”

HuffPost

There’s so much material here, I don’t know where to start (intentional sarcasm).

I’ll go out on a limb and state that neither Rex Tillerson nor Mike Pompeo have ever denied the climate.  I don’t even think that’s grammatically possible.

Last I checked, the State Department wasn’t a science agency… So WTF does this have to do with diplomatic matters?

Mike Pompeo…threatens to bring a hard-line brand of climate change denialism to Foggy Bottom for the first time.

So what?

If Pompeo threatened to bring a surrender monkey attitude to Foggy Bottom, there would be reason for concern… Nor would it be the first time a Secretary of State brought a surrender monkey attitude to Foggy Bottom.  Tillerson’s predecessor brought both a surrender monkey attitude and a mind boggling level of scientific illiteracy to Foggy Bottom.

This was one of the most lucid answers to a stupid question in the history of cabinet nomination hearings:

“Frankly, as the director of CIA, I would prefer today not to get into the details of the climate debate and science,” he said. “It seems  —  my role is going to be so different and unique from that.”

Views on climate change are wholly irrelevant to the constitutional duties of the CIA Director, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State or any other cabinet secretary apart from the EPA Administrator, where it’s only tangentially relevant.  Their views on climate change are even less relevant than their views on transgenderism or the holistic healing powers of magic crystals.

More lucidity from the next Secretary of State:

“For President Obama to suggest that climate change is a bigger threat to the world than terrorism is ignorant, dangerous, and absolutely unbelievable,” he said at the time.

Carly Fiorina aptly described Obama’s demented notion as delusional.

Speaking of delusional…

In December 2013, Pompeo rejected the consensus among 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate researchers that the planet is warming and burning fossil fuels, industrial farms and deforestation are the main causes.

WTF is a “peer-reviewed climate researcher”?  Maybe he’s referring to the 97% consensus cooked up by the SkepSciGuys.

Kerry_01_zpsgdfkz0oa

Did I mention delusional?

Naomi Ages, Greenpeace USA’s climate director, said in a statement. “In addition to being a climate denier, like his predecessor, Pompeo is Koch brothers’ shill who will denigrate the United States’ reputation abroad and make us vulnerable to threats at home.”

More vulnerable to what threats? How on Earth does American energy dominance and winning make us “vulnerable to threats at home”?

Furthermore, the Koch brothers are not even fans of President Trump.

While I thought Rex Tillerson was doing a good job, Mike Pompeo is a definite upgrade… as evidenced by the delusional rants from the Eco-looney Tunes crowd.

As usual, any and all sarcasm was strictly intentional.  I typed this on my phone, so I’m sure there are some typos… So, in advance:

D'oh

Advertisements

100 thoughts on “Pres. Trump's Pick to Replace Sec. of State Tillerson "Is a Bigger Climate Denier"!

  1. I am still waiting to see the Major Degan Expressway flooded, as predicted to happen ummm twenty years ago?

    • It was the West Side Highway, but the Hudson River has seen only one inch of rise since 1988 and has 10’11” to go before it is level with the Hudson.

      • I’m pretty sure the Hudson River is level with the Hudson right now. (Sorry, couldn’t resist. I know you meant West side Highway).

      • Start an investment fund and buy loads of NYC property from the Alarmists in NYC on a five or ten year short option.
        If they really believe their bulls*&t, they should be very willing to take that deal; if they’re just envirofascists, they’ll abort!

  2. “While I thought Rex Tillerson was doing a good job, Mike Pompeo is a definite upgrade… as evidenced by the delusional rants from the Eco-looney Tunes crowd.”
    Things seem to be getting better and better. I don’t usually think this but…… I hope a lot of people are feeling very insecure in their jobs.

    • The one that I think is more interesting is the possibility that McCabe gets fired for cause just weeks before he reaches full retirement. The difference in the benefit package would be enormous, and would cause many career Federal employees to think twice about political activism.

    • Like all jobs a person has to prove themselves to their employer, or they get the “You’re Fired!” in the words that Trump made famous. Just like in his show – that I never even watched a single episode – he put someone in a position to do a job and if they failed to give the results he needed to his satisfaction, they got fired. SoS Rex Tillerson was constantly going against what President Trump was asking him to do. He should have replaced him long ago. I am also surprised that DoJ Sessions has kept his job this long.

      • I think the test on Sessions will be whether he approves the firing of McCabe or lets him skate. If the latter, then Sessions should be fired immediately.

      • “I am also surprised that DoJ Sessions has kept his job this long.”
        It would be a lot more complicated for Trump to fire Sessions. Sessions seems to be inching in the right direction as far as enforcing the law and Trump will probably keep him if he keeps it up, since it is less trouble to keep him than to fire him at this time.
        Sessions does need to appoint a second Special Counsel to investigate the corruption and treasonous activities of the Obama administration and the Clinton Mafia. There are lots of people there who need to go to jail for crimes against the United States and its form of govenment.

      • Jeff is doing just fine. You need to upgrade your information source. Go to http://www.theconservativetreehouse.com to see what is really going on. Special Prosecutors are always out of control, so he is using a prosecutor added to the Justice Dept. just for these projects. He has a lot of help since about 1,300 sealed indictments have already been filed with the courts, and notice, NO leaks have been forthcoming. When the IG’s report comes out they will have a lot of the suspects “teed up” already, and the fun can commence. Get your popcorn ready, its’ going to be a loooong show, and very entertaining.

    • “While I thought Rex Tillerson was doing a good job”
      Tillerson’s leftist climate views are nearly the same as John Kerry or Obama. He didn’t fit the Trump administration. Good to see Trump realized his mistake.

  3. Well…..what’s not to reject?
    The “theory” of CO2 is over 100 years old…even by the past 30 years modern standards…..it has yet to be proven….their predictions have a better chance of going in the opposite direction…they blame everything on global warming…and constantly contradict themselves
    Who in their right mind would take any of it seriously at this point?

  4. Anyone using the “97%” theme is alerting everyone that they are ignorant, lying, or both.

    • I get irritated by the 97% theme, too. It’s ridiculous to try to quantify the consensus so precisely. But it’s a lot easier to say “97%” than “the vast majority.” Whatever the number, there’s is a solid consensus among climate scientists that no one has been able to disprove. Even the petitions of the contrarians are full of people who work in other fields (some not even in science) and do not publish research about climate.
      “The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to >>>six independent studies<<<< by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies."
      http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/meta

      • Even a claim of “vast majority” is completely unsupported by the facts.
        Unless you are one of those who believe that only those who have been properly initiated into the club have a right to an opinion on this subject.

      • Whatever the number, there’s is a solid consensus among climate scientists that no one has been able to disprove.

        You seem to miss the fact that that is a completely unsubstantiated, but widely repeated, assertion. It’s your responsibility to prove it DOES exist. It’s certainly not the responsibility of other people to disprove your false claim.

      • Krist, From the abstract” of Cook’s paper –
        “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
        So 97.1% of 32.6% of abstracts, not climate scientists.

      • Since when has the popular support for an idea (consensus) had anything to do with its validity?
        Try Phlogiston theory for example, or the assumed cause of stomach ulcers.
        If consensus was a valid tool in science, all we’d need to do is publish on Facebook and count the ‘likes’.
        No thanks.

      • lee, and many of those that were listed as supporting global warming take it as a starting position.
        IE, They say that IF temperatures increase, this is what will happen to this eco-system.

    • Kristi, the ‘consensus’ basically boils down to some version of ‘the climate is changing, and humans are contributing’ – a statement any reasonable, informed person – skeptics alike – would agree with.

      • And the definitions for “agreeing” with the consensus are so loose anyone not a “sky dragon slayer” could be counted as being in agreement. The original Cook study was something of a farce as far as research design.

      • Joel – are you kidding? Really?
        It in no way boils down to that and you must know that.
        If it were that simple – and honest, there wouldn’t be the divide between the sides – hell, there wouldn’t need to be a divide at all.
        We need to stand together – not apart, for there are REAL issues out there which impact u all.

        • As far as to the claim of near unanimity on climate change, it does. The statement also means nearly nothing, except as a deliberate deception. Dr Linzen would be counted as agreeing with the “consensus”, despite being a prominent skeptic.

      • “AYE – THERE’S THE RUB!”
        Global cooling occurred from ~1940 to 1977, even as fossil fuel consumption accelerated strongly. This observation DISPROVES the “runaway global warming” hypothesis. This ~37-year global cooling period was naturally-caused, and was NOT primarily driven by increasing atmospheric CO2, unless you believe (as many warmists do) that CO2 is the “demon molecule”, that can cause both global warming AND global cooling, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria…
        RICHARD FEYNMAN ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (1964)

        at 0:39/9:58: ”If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
        At 4:01/9:58: “You can always prove any definite theory wrong.”
        At 6:09/9:58: “By having a vague theory, it’s possible to get either result.”
        THIS IS THE “CLIMATE CHANGE” ALARMISTS’ KEY STRATEGY:
        “By having a vague theory, it’s possible to get either result.” – Richard Feynman
        “A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper.
        The “Climate Change” hypothesis is so vague, and changes so often, that it is not falsifiable and not scientific. It should be rejected as unscientific nonsense – the prattling of imbeciles.
        The “Runaway Global Warming” hypothesis is at least falsifiable, and IT HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY FALSIFIED:
        1. By the ~37-year global cooling period from ~1940 to 1977;
        2. By “the Pause”, when temperature have not increased significantly since the mid-1990’s, despite increasing atmospheric CO2;
        3. By the fact that sea surface temperatures have not increased significantly since ~1982, and corresponding air temperatures increased largely due to the dissipation of the cooling impact of two century-scale volcanoes in 1982 and 1991+;
        4. By the fact that CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record, and the future cannot cause the past (in this space-time continuum).
        Regards, Allan
        __________________________________________________________________________
        “EXTRAORDINARY POPULAR DELUSIONS AND THE MADNESS OF CROWDS”
        Charles Mackay (1841)
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
        Quotations
        “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
        “Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome.”
        ***************************************************************************************************************

      • D B H Yes, it is that simple. Going back to the original Doran paper the two salient questions were;
        (1) Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?
        (2) Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
        The vast majority of sceptics would answer “Yes” to (1). Anyone who didn’t doesn’t know enough about global temps to bother arguing with.
        Depending on the definition of “significant” most would answer “Yes” for (2). Even someone who thinks the warming is 90% natural might be thinking that the human caused 10% is “significant”.
        The failure of most warmists to understand these basic points is why they are constantly arguing points that others do not make. Their basic understanding of the sceptic argument is flawed, it’s a strawman.

      • In statistics, any factor that is larger than the error bars is often considered “significant”.

    • Tom, you beat me to the exact same comment.
      I was almost getting to the point where I could accept the title of being a denier with some grace ….but it is they that better suit that title, and I now think I will, not politely, fire back to them that accusation.

    • Anyone using the term ‘climate change denier’ likewise. And let us not forget ’twas
      the deniers that argued an inconvenient Medieval Warming Period btw other climate
      ups ‘n downs that Mann et al tried to deny with that long hockey-schtick shaft.

  5. “More vulnerable to what threats?”
    I know, it’s all those penguins who have been recently radicalized by not having to swim as far to find fish for their chicks.

  6. Read this article, from 2015: CIA Shuts Down Climate Research Program
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/cia-shuts-down-climate-research-program/452502/
    Here’s a part of it:
    The program was started in the 1990s, but was shut down in the early days of the George W. Bush administration. It was restarted in 2010 under the direction of Leon Panetta, backed by former Vice President Al Gore.
    The research effort, as with most environmental work, has drawn the ire of congressional Republicans. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming has particularly been critical of the intelligence agency’s environmental work, saying in 2010 that “should be focused on monitoring terrorists in caves, not polar bears on icebergs.”
    And generally, Republicans have been scornful of the defense community’s work on climate change, saying that the administration is ignoring the threat of terrorism and global instability in favor of environmental goals. Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma released a lengthy statement this week calling Obama’s Coast Guard Academy speech a “severe disconnect from reality,” and mentioning ISIS, North Korea, and Syria among the threats he said the military should be focused on.
    ____
    Please President Trump and Mr. Pompeo, kill the climate madness. For starters, get out of the UNFCCC.

  7. I agree w/Dave that it’s a “so-what” statement from the Huff & Puffington Post. Who really cares….

  8. “The consensus among 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate researchers” should read “97 percent of 79 peer-reviewed climate researchers carefully selected out of 3,146 respondents to a survey”. I like the juxtaposition of 97 and 79.

    • ….out of 10,000 questionnaires sent to Geoscientists.
      But AFTER RECEIVING RESPONSES they decided that the population of Geoscientists was not appropriate and limited the population to scientists with the TITLE of “Climate Scientist” (R), and then subsequently to those who had published in a “Climate Science Journal” (R) recently.
      So 10K to reduced to 79 (and then again to 76 if you didn’t answer the first question “correctly”.)
      As as noted below, the consensus consisted of agreeing that the temps today were above those of 1880 and in question 2 that “man” made a “significant” contribution to that warming. (UHI, deforestation anyone?)
      Who amongst us would not agree to those conclusions?!?

      • Is it really surprising, to find that those scientists who have been approved by the leaders of the guild, to join the guild, agree with the leaders of the guild?

  9. Wow, I didn’t even know that Greenpus had a “climate director”. Learn something new every day. And the fact that she’s upset just makes my day. It’s nice to be winning bigly.

  10. From this point on even more than before, virtually nothing that this POTUS does nor almost any appointment he will make will be accepted by the deep state and the establishment and their press as a good move. The more they yell the more I like it because it is the best evidence that Trump is on the right track.
    https://youtu.be/Oo9buo9Mtos

    • I agree with your sentiment, but using anything related to Ahhh-nold…. well, let’s just say, he ain’t no Conan.

      • ‘I agree. But he played him well.’
        I wouldn’t even go that far – he was a bodybuilder dressed up and put in different poses by a competent director. That’s why his entire acting career boiled down to three or four catch-phrases.

      • I did enjoy “True Lies” and some of “Kindergarten Cop.” The persona doesn’t change, but the scenery does, and he stays busy. His positions on weather and climate are irrelevant.

  11. Urban Dictionary: shill
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shill
    A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.

    I would like to know where her proof is that he is being paid by the Koch Brothers.
    If no proof then that is a clear case of defamation on her part.

  12. The greenpeacers don’t even know the proper usage of the word “denigrate”. It means a deliberate criticism or belittlement, not just something bad that just happens as a result of his words. If he wasn’t always patriotic in chosen word I’m sure Trump wouldn’t employ him.

  13. So good news all around then. Meanwhile it is snowing heavily again here in Calgary. Getting pretty much fed up with the congealed form of global warming that makes the roads unsafe and my muscle sore from all the shoveling. And before any climate change adherent feels the need to point out that a snow storm is weather and not climate, just reflect on the fact that climate change and other environmental doomsday prognosticators were the ones telling us to expect warmer milder winters and that our children were not going to know what snow is any more. Ski resorts would go out of business for lack of snow, seas would rise, islands sink, and the UK would cease to exist as a country.

    • …and the Winter Olympics would have to move to other venues because of lack of snow.
      And this was stated THIS YEAR at the same time it was being reported that skis were breaking because of low temperatures.

    • Andrew, it stopped snowing when I got home from work, so I shoveled the walks, but before I could finish it started snowing again. I too am fed up.
      (How many Albertans have been killed in winter weather related traffic accidents this winter?)

  14. From the article: “Mike Pompeo, President Donald Trump’s pick to replace sacked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, threatens to bring a hard-line brand of climate change denialism to Foggy Bottom for the first time.”
    That might be true. I think Tillerson was not on the same page as Trump on the Paris Peace Accords. I think Tillerson was the one who was giving the EU members and Greens hope that the U.S. would eventually stay in.
    Pompeo will be an improvement. He’s a very smart guy and he and Trump appear to be on the same page on CAGW and many other things, including North Korea.

    • I think you meant the Paris CLIMATE Accords. The Paris PEACE Accords were the surrender of Southeast Asia, not the entire planet.

      • Yeah, you are right. I was in the wrong decade. 🙂
        Btw, what is it you have to write backwards (from you post above)? Or was that just a demonstration of how to do it?

  15. From the article: “It’s good news for us,” said Myron Ebell, a leading proponent of climate change denial and a director at the right wing Competitive Enterprise Institute. “I expect very good things from him at the State Department.”
    Don’t you love the way they characterize the skeptics. How does someone go about denying the climate?
    I don’t mind them using the “right wing” characterization as long as they use “left wing” to characterize themselves and all the other lefty publications. That would be fair.

    • “Wing” means evil extremist. Since the Left is fighting evil, any action is justified and moral.

  16. “In December 2013, Pompeo rejected the consensus among 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate researchers that the planet is warming and burning fossil fuels, industrial farms and deforestation are the main causes.”
    I don’t recall anything but CO2 in that list. Who threw in industrial farms (like wind “farms” I guess) and deforestation.

    • Good catch Sheri.
      This is a great example of the Progressives trying to have it both ways.
      – on one hand, Doran and Zimmerman asked if MAN was a “significant” contributor to global warming since 1880. (We could have a separate post on whether “significant ” should have been read in the vernacular or statistical sense.)
      Of course any rational person (including Pompeo) would say YES and thus be included in the 97%.
      Obama et al then extrapolated in their rhetoric that the survey result meant that CO2 emissions were the single driver; that the result would be catastrophic, requiring immediate CO2 reduction (via regulation).
      – But now for the FIRST time they admit that in fact “man’s contribution” may be in deforestation, UHI and Industrial Wind Farms (oops) and expect us to believe that Pompeo ALSO denied those contributions when minimizing the impact of CO2.
      Rational people need a way to call out such duplicity. My letters to the editor seem to fall on deaf ears. (I am in a university community.)

    • “Industrial farms” I think means large-scale agriculture. As distinguished from “pre-industrial famines”.

  17. Interesting debates you folks have in the U.S. I would have thought a primary point of concern might have bee whether or not the new Secretary of State understands his/her responsibilities with regard to emails and national security. No big deal apparently.

    • not all democrats are progressives (thank god)….which are truly the ones that kneel to the CAGW alter.

      • True, but the Democrats have been conducting purges to get rid of any politician who can actually think for him/her self.

      • Your confusing progressive and socialist. By the way, a socialist is somebody that hasn’t gotten their gun yet.

    • The Secretary’s duties and responsibilities are to carry out the President’s foreign policies. When they do not they get canned.

      • It should not be surprising that a man like Tillerson who came from a position of near absolute power failed to understand that it was incumbent on him to faithfully follow the directives of his boss. Tillerson was given his marching orders concerning the Iran deal and his heart was not in it .
        From the Ace of Spades HQ blog:
        ace.mu.nu/
        Report: Tillerson Fired Because He Was Directly Undermining Trump’s Efforts to Get Europe to Agree to Tougher Positioning on Iran
        —Ace
        Trump’s position on the Iran Deal is apparently this: If the European states which used to join us in economic sanctions before Obama let them out of it agree to force Iran to agree to actual inspections, performed by people called “Not the Iranian Government itself,” of suspected nuclear sites, and agreed to limitations on ballistic missile technology, etc., then Trump would go along with the Iran Deal for a while.
        It was Rex Tillerson’s job to go out to the European states and sell them on this.
        Instead, of course, he walked back from what Trump was demanding and instead made softer offers he was never authorized to make — to appease Iran.
        You know — gross insubordination of the actual chief foreign policy officer of the United States. And also, appeasement of Iran, in a way that the TruCon Crying Eagle Brigade like to pretend they’re opposed to.
        The abrupt firing Tuesday of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson follows months of infighting between the State Department and White House over efforts by Tillerson to save the Iran nuclear deal and ignore President Donald Trump’s demands that the agreement be fixed or completely scrapped by the United States, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the situation who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.
        In the weeks leading up to Tillerson’s departure, he had been spearheading efforts to convince European allies to agree to a range of fixes to the nuclear deal that would address Iran’s ongoing ballistic missile program and continued nuclear research.
        While Trump had prescribed a range of fixes that he viewed as tightening the deal’s flaws, Tillerson recently caved to European pressure to walk back these demands and appease Tehran while preserving the deal, according to these sources. The Free Beacon first disclosed this tension last week in a wide-ranging report.
        White House allies warned Tillerson’s senior staff for weeks that efforts to save the nuclear deal and balk on Trump’s key demands regarding the deal could cost Tillerson his job, a warning that became reality Tuesday when Trump fired Tillerson by tweet.
        Yesterday, the conspiracy theorists all proposed their newest conspiracy theory (which apparently occurred to them all nearly spontaneously) that Trump had fired Tillerson because Tillerson had endorsed the UK’s conclusion that Russia had attempted to assassinate a defector living in Europe, and Trump couldn’t have anyone saying anything about Vlad.
        Apparently these geniuses did not know about the long-simmering tension about the Iran Deal (though the Free Beacon says they reported on just that last week).
        And look at that — they did report on it last week.
        Iran is undertaking a massive buildup of its ballistic missile program, sparking fears of a “second Holocaust” amid sensitive international negotiations that could see the Trump administration legitimize Iranian missiles capable of striking Israel, according to multiple sources familiar with ongoing diplomatic talks.
        As the Trump administration and European allies continue discussions aimed at fixing a range of flaws in the landmark Iran nuclear deal, sources familiar with the progression of these talks say the United States is caving to European demands limiting restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program.
        While the Trump administration went into the negotiations with a hardline stance on cutting off Iran’s ballistic missile program, it appears the United States [that is, Tillerson — ace] is moving closer in line with European positions that would only regulate a portion of the missiles.
        Multiple sources with knowledge of the ongoing talks told the Washington Free Beacon U.S. officials [Tillerson] have been backpedaling on key demands originally proposed by President Trump in order to preserve the agreement and appease European allies who are eager to continue doing business with Tehran.
        Senior Trump administration officials recently told the Free Beacon the United States is prepared to abandon the nuclear deal if European allies fail to address what it views as a range of flaws in the nuclear deal that have enabled Iran’s missile buildup and allowed it to continue critical nuclear research.
        However, it appears the United States is losing ground in the talks, moving closer to the European position, which includes what insiders described as only cosmetic changes to the nuclear deal that fail to adequately address Iran’s massive missile buildup.

      • Gotta love Trump! If you guys want to keep your jobs, you better get on board the Trump Train.
        Trump is the one that sees the Big Picture. He will fix the Iran deal or pull out. And then he will take other measures which will keep the Mad Mullahs of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the missiles to launch them, although they probably already have the North Korean nuclear bomb design in hand and may have already made some of their own. So time’s awastin’ on the U.S. fixing this problem.
        Trump’s aim is to get to the heart of the matter as soon as possible. Pretending the current Obama nuclear deal with the Mad Mullahs is a good thing is not going to happen with Trump. That’s what Rex Tillerson wanted us to do.
        Pompeo, the new Secretary of State, is on the same page as Trump. The Iranians are already complaining about Pompeo, which means he is the right man for the job. 🙂

    • John H,
      Not sure where you’re from, but if you’re in UK, your PM doesn’t seem to be doing such a great job with BREXIT.
      In the U.S., we can multitask. For clarification, that means we can generally focus on and address more than one issue at a time.

  18. The US Constitution is very simple, and was written in language to be understood by the common citizen of the time.
    The US for a decade was governed by the Articles of Confederation which was found to be severely lacking.
    While the Articles were clearly ineffective, the populence feared approving a more powerful central government.
    Thus the initial US Constitution was NOT ratified by the states for a decade, until a series of Amendments were included that limited very specifically what a Federal (vs state vs individual) could do.
    (The Bill of Rights did NOT grant rights to citizens but rather made very specific what the Federal government could NOT do.) (I wrote the preceding for non US citizens but unfortunately I realize that most US citizens today have not learned this.)
    Under this covenant the US prospered among nations for more than a hundred years.
    This is a long way of agreeing that the US SoS has to focus on relationships with other countries and has no business presenting opinions on Climate Change. Similarly we have to dig deep to find authority for any other US official or department to have global warming an issue for them to be legititimatly involved.

    • George,
      Absolutely. I will add that the one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation was a very weak chief executive who had no power to coordinate and lead the Country. That was addressed in Article II of the Constitution.
      I also cringe every time I hear the words “constitutional rights”. The default position is that we the People have ALL the rights to start with and the Constitution outlines the limited powers we the People grant to the government to organize a successful society. And, as you state, the Bill of Rights was added so that there could be no misunderstanding about what the government could NOT do. Since these rights were never granted by the government, the government could never take them away.

  19. Mike Pompeo is not about to be intimidated by “the earth has a fever ” con-men and the “clean energy ”
    corporate welfare line up .
    Hundreds of $$billions have been completely wasted to pretend humans were going to set the earths thermostat by a plant food trace gas adjustment .
    The global warming (climate change ) fraud is the single biggest heist in history . It should end and
    people should be in prison .

  20. Shucks it seems the NYT was blabbering fake news again about the new ‘Byron Identity’ (Byron Bay is full of them all full of themselves like Hollywood) but Tim suspects Canada perhaps-
    https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/the-byron-identity/news-story/6131ebef988dc1e74a89857f508d09a3
    as no doubt Matt wants to be away from terrible Trump and close to the true believer with cutting edge science-
    https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/when-you-are-a-baby-you-are-a-scientist/news-story/e2103184c6bf1060d97bb8fb82f3d516

  21. Naomi Ages, Greenpeace USA’s climate director

    All right, seriously. What is with all the Naomi’s among the Climate Faithful?

    • The parents heard their unborn child ask “What are you going to name me?” and, being progressives, simply parroted the last thing they heard.

  22. People really should stop denying that climate exists. It’s ridiculous. All the evidence points to the fact that we do in fact have a climate, and 97% of all the scientists in the world, including Kenji, agree. So they really do need to stop this nonsense, and Trump needs to stop appointing them. If everyone could just agree that there is a climate, then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion and argument.

  23. Those who resort to “climate denial”, “climate denier” etc immediately brand themselves as dimwits to be ignored.

Comments are closed.