President Trump Has Broken the Spell of Climate Change Mania

By Charles Moore, at The Daily telegraph

Donald Trump imposed punitive tariffs on steel imports exactly a year after he announced that the US would withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement. The two decisions are unrelated, except that both reflect the character of his presidency.

President Trump looks at any international arrangement on any subject – Iran, North Korea, trade, climate – and asks himself whether it is a good deal for America. If he thinks it is not, he starts making trouble. He loves a deal but, unlike some politicians on this side of the water, he sees no point in a bad deal.

When President Trump starts the trouble, he does not necessarily know where it will end. He is, if you like, open-minded; or, if you don’t like, irresponsible. He just wants a result, and will pull back if he thinks he won’t get the right one. In the case of his trade war, he will succeed if his action exposes unfair practices by trade rivals and forces them to change. He will fail if all he does is put up everyone’s prices, including, of course, America’s.

In the case of the Paris process, he has succeeded almost without trying. The answer to the question, “Which major country in the world has most successfully reduced its CO2 emissions?” is, “The United States of America”. US emissions hit a 25-year low last year. This success has nothing to do with the UN caravan, which has rolled on for 30 years, or, indeed, with Mr Trump. It has everything to do with the shale revolution – the triumph of much cleaner fossil fuels. Energy prices are falling.

By contrast, the greenest of the great economic powers, Germany and Japan, have poured money into renewables. They are consuming more coal than before, however, with Japan planning 36 new coal-fired power stations over the next 10 years. Since renewables are not reliable (because of intermittency), Germany must have more coal or lie prostrate before Mr Putin and his gas. Both Germany and Japan are increasing their carbon footprint because they have run away from nuclear. Energy prices are rising. China, after a slowdown, is increasing its CO2 emissions fast once again.

As for “Paris”, this is failing, chiefly for the reason that poorer countries won’t decarbonise unless richer ones pay them stupendous sums. The amount supposedly required to do this, agreed at the Copenhagen conference in 2009, was $100 billion a year, every year, from 2020; but no mechanism could be devised to compel the poor countries to restrict their emissions. At yet another conference in the process, in Bonn last month, the parties broke up without agreement on handing the money across. It is almost impossible to imagine real agreement, because it would be unenforceable.

If you look back, you can see that Copenhagen was the first ebbing of climate panic. Gordon Brown, then prime minister, told us that we had “50 days” to avoid catastrophe. Prince Charles warned delegates that “our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control”. President Barack Obama, burnished by his freshly awarded Nobel Peace Prize, flew in. Yet all these great men failed to persuade the wretched of the earth to abandon their right to economic growth. “With your pens, you can write our future,” said HRH. The developing countries had the wit not to sign all the same.

Perhaps if Copenhagen had taken place before the global credit crunch of 2008, the world would have swallowed anything. The great paradox of greenery is that it is a boom phenomenon: only when a society is awash with dosh does it start believing it wouldn’t mind getting poorer. By December 2009, however, the dosh had evaporated.

The Paris conference of 2015 put a brave face on the failure of Copenhagen, by parading an agreement. But as the agreement was non-binding, and permitted countries to determine their progress on CO2 reductions unilaterally, it did not alter the reality. The whole UN process originated in the belief that global warming could be prevented only by a global solution. It never found that solution, and so, at Paris, was hoist with its own petard.

The Prince of Wales was proved wrong in 2016, when the “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse” that he had predicted did not show up. Yet he spoke truer than he knew when he made that warning about losing the levers of control. The global warmists lost those levers – if they ever had them – after Paris.

Mr Trump noticed this and felt free to walk away. US participation in the Paris arrangements formally ends the day after the next US presidential election. It will be a brave Democrat who campaigns for the White House on a “Let’s stay in” ticket. What’s in it, after all, for America?

Since Mr Trump walked out, it has been fascinating to watch the decline of media interest in “saving the planet”. There was the most tremendous rumpus when he made his announcement, but the End-Of-The-World-Is-Nigh-Unless feeling that made headlines before Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris, and numerous other gatherings, has gone. This feeling was essential to achieve the “Everybody’s doing it, so we must do it” effect the organisers sought.

The media barely noticed the recent Bonn meeting. I doubt if they will get apocalyptic about the next big show, “COP24” in Katowice, Poland, this December. The Poles are among the nations emerging as “climate realists” – people with their own coal and a very strong wish not to depend on the Russians. Climate-change zealotry is looking like CND after the installation of cruise and Pershing missiles in the 1980s – a bit beside the point.

None of this means that activism will disappear. There will be strong anti-American campaigns and moves to impose ESG (environmental, social and governance) investment principles to make the lives of fossil-fuel companies a misery. In Britain, energy bill levies to subsidise renewables will probably continue to ensure that Theresa May’s famous “just about managing” people are just about screwed simply because they want light and heat in their home.

There will also be plenty more pieces of green showmanship. Here we have Claire Perry, our Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, who wants us “Powering Past Coal” just when we shall probably have to run after the stuff to keep the lights on. In France, Nicolas Hulot, the funky and untranslatable “Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire”, has ordered an end to the internal combustion engine by 2040, despite possessing six cars, a motorboat and a BMW motorbike. But M Hulot’s holiday from reality will not much affect the course of events, and Ms Perry has a lot less power than Rick Perry, Mr Trump’s Energy Secretary.

The great guardians of this attempt at government by global conferencing will continue to make their speeches and write their reports, usually paid for out of public funds. The frameworks and panels, the COPs and ARs, the climate-change organisations that fill 168 pages of Wikipedia, all these will continue, though with diminished status. Priesthoods usually find ways to survive longer than the belief systems they represent. But the recognition is now dawning that, if the planet needs saving, it will not be achieved by these means.

Read more at The Daily Telegraph

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 2, 2018 9:27 pm

US participation in the Paris arrangements formally ends the day after the next US presidential election.

The US Senate never ratified the agreement therefore the US was never formally in the agreement. No part of the agreement applies to the US. Not even the withdrawal procedures.

Bryan A
Reply to  Chris4692
June 2, 2018 10:25 pm

US participation in the Paris arrangements formally ends the day after the next US presidential election.

The US Senate never ratified the agreement therefore the US was never formally in the agreement. No part of the agreement applies to the US. Not even the withdrawal procedures.

Absolutely Truer Words Were Never Spoken

Reply to  Bryan A
June 3, 2018 2:11 am

Treaties have to ratified the senate, “agreements” do not.

DC Cowboy
Reply to  Greg
June 3, 2018 4:09 am

The ‘sleight of hand’ used by President Obama in declaring it an ‘Executive Agreement’ rather than a ‘Treaty’ shows exactly why it should have been a treaty. What one ‘Executive’ can agree to, the next can simply ‘disagree’ and revoke, just like ‘executive order in place of legislation’. An ‘Executive Agreement’ doesn’t bind the country in the way a ratified Treaty does.

Reply to  DC Cowboy
June 3, 2018 7:04 am

But such a “treaty” would and could never have been ratified; hence Obama’s skullduggery in foisting yet another “executive agreement” on Americans. (It matches Obama’s nefarious and unauthorized payments to Iran on yet another “executive agreement”.) The guy was a one-pen president.

Reply to  Greg
June 3, 2018 4:35 am

It remains that the President has no power to obligate the Congress, the Courts, the States, or any future President to any “agreement”. If Mr Obama entered into the agreement, Mr Obama is the only one obligated to follow it and it remains that the US was never part of it.

Reply to  Chris4692
June 3, 2018 9:59 am

Chris, Obama believed Hillary was going to win and he certainly could not imagine someone like Trump would. Hillary would have, and the next Democrat President will ,put the USA back into the international governance game again.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Chris4692
June 3, 2018 10:54 pm


The problem you do not acknowledge is that other world leaders now understand the stupidity on their part for believing the lying Obama.

They are/were not ignorant rubes regarding US Senate ratification requirements regarding treaties. They walked into this mess because they trusted a serial liar sitting in the White House.I doubt they will make that mistake again.

Reply to  Chris4692
June 4, 2018 4:44 am

Joel said: “The problem you do not acknowledge is that other world leaders now understand the stupidity on their part for believing the lying Obama.”

Irrelevant comment. Foreign leaders, with the exception of Putin, believe that AGW is real and that action is needed. They are moving ahead with their Paris commitments regardless of the US. Fortunately, many US states and most American companies are not following the idiocy of Trump and Pruitt, so progress is still being made.

Reply to  Chris
June 4, 2018 4:03 pm

“Foreign leaders, with the exception of Putin, believe that AGW is real and that action is needed”

No. Almost nobody does. It’s easily established, as even a child would know: if you believe “carbon” is dangerous, you don’t praise those you emit the most, and
– you don’t encourage policies that allow countries that emit most to emit even more (China, India)
– decommission as early as possible plants that emit no “carbon” (the fission reactors)
– you don’t praise countries whose priority is to do just that (Germany) or have done that (Italy)
– you don’t establish as “transition fuel” natgas that emits a lot (though less than coal)
– you don’t worship “renewable energy” that’s intermittent, unpredictable, unreliable (like wind energy) and that can only reach high penetration on the grid when either other countries are taking the variability, or many natgas units are built, or both.

Children know that wind is highly variable, often uniform on large areas (when there isn’t much of it somewhere, there isn’t much either a few hundred km from there), unpredictable on the middle term…

Children intuitively know at some level that it’s a scam. “Adults” have a lot of “education” above that intuitive knowledge.

Any consistent belief that “carbon” is such a danger would at least prevent the early closure of nuclear plants – esp. if building new nuclear reactors is too costly. That’s the first obvious sign that someone may be serious about his CO2 claims: he campaigns against the closure of nuclear reactors. When few people do, it’s clear and obvious that few people are serious about CO2.

Reply to  Chris4692
June 4, 2018 7:19 am

So your position is that foreign leaders are telling the truth when they agree with you, but are lying when the disagree with you.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Chris4692
June 4, 2018 8:37 am

Chris. Germany is backing out of their devastating Energiwinde program, which has cost hundred of billions and not meaningfully reduced CO2. Many of Europe’s biggest “reductions” are reliant on biomass which is neither scalable nor significantly reducing in CO2.

China’s promised “reductions” are less than nothing, as their hands-off scenario with no incentives should sufficiently reduce CO2 to their Paris targets excluding potential technological improvements.

Then there’s the giant climate funds for third world countries that everyone promised to fund but whose coffers are sitting almost completely empty.

Sorry, but I have to say that looking at the world’s actions, not their words, but what they have actually done. No. A number of people do actually believe. Especially in Europe. However, they do not care enough to perform actual reductions, and the measures they have taken are simultaneously so expensive as to prohibit further reductions as well as so weak as to be practically pointless.

Bryan A
Reply to  Chris4692
June 4, 2018 10:13 am

Chris, you are correct…
MOST Foreign leaders believe that AGW is real and signed the Paris Accords. But then more than 97% of those that signed are required to do nothing but build infrastructure with money from the remaining 3%. Now that the USA (President Trump) has decided NOT to “But In” with $$Billions annually, their support will erode as the Cash Cow has left the building.

Reply to  Greg
June 3, 2018 5:36 am

Treaty – a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries (2018). Treaty – an agreement, league or contract between two or more nations or sovereigns, formally signed by commissioners properly authorized, etc. (1828)-American English Dictionary language which the United States Constitution is written.

Reply to  FredericM
June 3, 2018 8:39 am

Yes, and the agreement was not ‘properly authorized’ as a treaty, as dictated by the Constitution. So it is an agreement, not a treaty, and can not obligate the US should a President decide to end the agreement.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Greg
June 3, 2018 6:11 am

agreements have no force legally in America …

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Kaiser Derden
June 3, 2018 12:08 pm

Obama’s Plan was to use the ISDS tribunal process of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement to make the major points of the Paris agreement binding on the US and enforceable in the US judicial system.

Fortunately, for now the TPP is DOA with Trump.

Read up on the “official” ISDS process here:

But then after you do, also realize also that the FBI, the DOJ are supposed to deliver justice in a non-partisan manner. The IRS is supposed to be political view-point neutral when handling organizations applying for tax-exempt status.

These (and other agencies under Obama) were all weaponized by Democrats. They planned on doing the same with the ISDS.

Reply to  Kaiser Derden
June 3, 2018 2:00 pm

Obama’s Plan was to use the ISDS tribunal process of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement to make the major points of the Paris agreement binding on the US and enforceable in the US judicial system.

Ah, evil! This is exactly what I hate in big-government people. They say we have a democracy, but when I tell them I’ll vote someone who will turn over x, they’ll say ‘unfortunately to turn over x, you will need to turn over y, pay damages, renegotiate z, and climb back to trees.

The bastards know how to make un-undoable legislation. There should be a law prohibiting laws that can’t be overturned.

Reply to  Kaiser Derden
June 3, 2018 3:06 pm

All treaties have an exit clause. You can always exit if you are willing to, but there is usually no will.

Reply to  Greg
June 3, 2018 12:57 pm

Agreements aren’t binding. Period.

Reply to  Greg
June 3, 2018 7:23 pm


Executive agreements may not need Senate approval, but money (doled out specifically by the legislative branch under the US Constitution) does have to be approved by Congress. The President has very little discretion on changing what money is spent on. This transfer to the Green Climate Fund was, in my opinion, illegal. The only reason that this was not pursued by the di<khe@d Republicans in Congress was because they were afraid of being called racists by opposing el hefe Obama.

"Last week [March 8, 2016], the Obama administration transferred $500 million in U.S. funds to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund. Other countries will welcome the administration’s handover of American tax dollars to subsidize their own economies. The American people will reject it as another executive power grab that ignores their judgment and misuses their hard-earned money."

"On March 8, Deputy Secretary of State Heather Higginbottom testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Congress never authorized the Green Climate Fund."

"The State Department raided $500 million from the Economic Support Fund to pay for its Green Climate Fund contribution. This was more than 26 percent of the total $1.9 billion that Congress appropriated for the Economic Support Fund to “promote economic or political stability” in countries with “special economic, political, and security conditions.” Congress designated this money to do things such as to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon; to assist Ukraine with counteracting Russian aggression; to assist Egypt with educational, democratic, and economic reforms; to assist Africa with its public health crises; to combat human trafficking; to help exhume mass graves and identify victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity; and to empower women in conflict prevention, peace building, and reconstruction efforts."

Luke George
Reply to  Chris4692
June 3, 2018 6:43 am

Its ironic that the regions that supported Trump by the greatest margins will also suffer the most from climate change.

Reply to  Luke George
June 3, 2018 8:46 am

I’ll consider believing in climate change when Northerners stop moving to the South for the warm climate after retirment.
In the meanwhile, the red flyover-states are enjoying the huge crop yields, brought in part by the increased atmospheric CO2. Not only are incomes jumping, but our electric rates aren’t soaring like in some of the blue states. All is good.

michael hart
Reply to  Luke George
June 3, 2018 10:12 am

Luke, Science magazine abandoned their calling a long time ago. Remember that these people are constantly telling us that certain regions are allegedly going to suffer from climate change. It’s always the future tense because catastrophe is still showing no signs of happening in the present tense.

The last time I read something scientifically useful in Science magazine worth the money I paid for it was in the 1990’s. Coincidentally they actually influenced my choice of Ph.D. topic with an interesting article about HIV and CD4+ T-Cells. They did it by reporting on real science that had really happened, not someone’s computer model projections of what is going to happen a century into the future.

Despite them getting so many other predictions of impending disaster so hopelessly wrong, they still persist in telling us how bad things are supposedly going to be at some point in the future. Their infatuation with Donald Trump only shines a light on their obsession with matters political, not matters scientific.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Luke George
June 3, 2018 12:37 pm

Oh I beg to differ with you Luke.

The regions in the US most suffering from man-made Climate Change are the Blue States like California, and New England where energy prices are highest due to Green virtue signaling policies.
Of the 12 cheapest gas price state: 11 went for Trump, 1 went for Hillary (VA).
Of the 12 most expensive gas states: 8 went for Hillary, 4 went for Trump (ID, UT, AK, PA).
But in the highest 12 are NY, WA, IL, CA, OR, CT.

One can do the same thing with electricity prices and find a similar pattern.

The Blue States are paying most for Green virtue… and it is not even close in comparison.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 3, 2018 2:15 pm

Luke is one of the people who come here with “Sourced Facts” and expect awe. I’m bored.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Hugs
June 3, 2018 9:48 pm

whatever happened to Griff?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Hugs
June 3, 2018 11:00 pm

His web trolling contract from Soro’s Idiots-R-Us NGO apparently didn’t get renewed.

Reply to  Hugs
June 4, 2018 4:46 am

“His web trolling contract from Soro’s Idiots-R-Us NGO apparently didn’t get renewed.”

Hundreds of hours spent on WUWT, and this is the best insult you can come up with? Colossally boring.

Reply to  Hugs
June 4, 2018 7:22 am

Chris, if you want to pay for better, ask Soros and maybe he’ll increase your allowance.

Reply to  Luke George
June 3, 2018 12:59 pm

What climate change?

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Luke George
June 3, 2018 3:10 pm

So, Luke, I guess the spell isn’t broken for you, yet. In your Climate Scientology world, the Marcab invasion fleet is still inbound, but you remain a loyal officer who Cassandra-like, is still valiantly trying to warn people who can’t see the same catastrophic future that you do.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
June 4, 2018 1:21 am

Difference is, Cassandra was right. And so was Laocoon, who got killed in the process.
Luke belongs in the crowd that silenced Cassandra, blind to the watermelon invasion hidden in the Paris Agreement vessel.

Reply to  Chris4692
June 3, 2018 10:25 am

What agreement?

There is no enforcement mechanism,
so there is no punishment
if nations sign up and then
ignore the “agreement”.

It was a voluntary agreement.

But O’Bummer sacrificed $1 trillion
toward the ‘green slush fund’,
half thrown away just three days
before leaving office.

Homeless people all over the US
need help, and Obama throws away
$1 trillion.

Yet another reason Obama
was one of the worst Presidents
in US history, along with
Richard Nixon and G. W. Bush.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 3, 2018 12:54 pm

Is it possible to trace what happened to that money? There must be invoices or receipts or money transfer documents , presumably signed by the US chief Treasury officer. He or she must be able to explain where the money was sent , in what form or currency , and from what account the money was taken. Otherwise it is just anarchy.

Reply to  mikewaite
June 3, 2018 1:47 pm

I bet the Clintons got there share !

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Richard Greene
June 4, 2018 10:55 am

I understand your anger, Richard, but it was only 1 billion that he gave away, not one trillion.
Still too much, but those three zeroes make a world of difference.

June 2, 2018 9:34 pm

What the hell is HRH? Can’t you just spell it out?

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 2, 2018 9:40 pm

“With your pens, you can write our future,” said HRH.

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 2, 2018 9:45 pm

Hancock Regional Hospital (Indiana)
HRH Hand Receipt Holder (US Army)
HRH Hard Rock Hotel (various locations)
HRH Harry, Ron, and Hermione (Harry Potter series)
HRH Henrietta R Hippo (Simpsons cartoon)
HRH Hilb Rogal & Hobbs (insurance; various locations)
HRH Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. (Batesville, IN)
HRH Holdfast Rubber Highway
HRH Homeless & Reentry Helpers, Inc. (Indianapolis, IN)
HRH House Rabbit Handbook
HRH Human Resources for Health

Etc. Etc.—–

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 3, 2018 4:59 am

Heck’s Really Hot!

The President needs to go after Wind Turbine imports and parts.

R. Shearer
Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 3, 2018 7:24 am

Human Refuse and Hubris (Clinton Foundation)

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 3, 2018 7:43 am

Given the source and immediately preceding reference, I went with His Royal Highness.

Reply to  Dave Magill
June 3, 2018 9:31 am

Um, he’s a Saint now….When you go big, go all the way!

Now for that St. George move on Hillary.

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 3, 2018 9:13 am

Phil: Unless you are kidding, I can help: Her Royal Highness. You are welcome.

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 3, 2018 2:03 pm

“With your pens, you can write our future,” said HRH.

I don’t think you can write history in yellow on white snow. /snark

Roger Knights
Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 2, 2018 9:40 pm

HRH = His Royal Highness.
The article appeared in a UK newspaper, where readers are familiar with the meaning of the abbreviation.

Reply to  Roger Knights
June 2, 2018 9:49 pm

So why couldn’t the article have just said – “His Royal Highness” to make it clear???

Monna M
Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 2, 2018 10:21 pm

Because HRH saves print space and everyone in the UK knows what it means, so there’s no need to make it clear. Even in Canada we know what HRH means.

Bryan A
Reply to  Monna M
June 2, 2018 10:30 pm

HRH = :
His Royal Highness
Her Royal Highness

Like HMS =
His Majesty’s Ship
Her Majesty’s Ship

Depending on if the ruling monarch is the King or Queen

Reply to  Monna M
June 3, 2018 5:49 am

Even in the US we know what it means. CND, on the other hand?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Monna M
June 3, 2018 12:41 pm

HRH = His Royal Horses-arse.

Paul, Somerset
Reply to  Monna M
June 3, 2018 3:32 pm

Referring to Charles merely by his full, pompous title (‘His Royal Highness’), but abbreviating it at the same time, is subtly and pleasingly insulting. It’s impossible to explain to a non-British reader quite why that should be; but believe me, the effect is there.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 2, 2018 10:46 pm

We have a piece of artwork in the family signed “HRH LaMagwaza” which refers to Her Royal Highness.

HRH is gender neutral it seems.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
June 3, 2018 9:25 am

Cube June 3, 2018 at 5:49 am
Even in the US we know what it means. CND, on the other hand?

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
June 3, 2018 12:48 pm

By 2004, CND had devolved into a bunch of skanky, smelly Lesbians living full-time in squalid tent camps around RAF Greenham Common, just outside Newbury.

I was there. I saw them every day driving on and off base. I saw there paint throwing antics first hand when we drove ou missile launcher convoys off to Salisbury Plain Training Range for week long training exercises.
The MOD police and Berks constabulary kept them under close watch around the fence line an in the convoys. Many of those good blokes got spat upon and hit with paint by those KGB-inspired and partially funded idiots.

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 2, 2018 11:17 pm

Philip, where you been hiding, under a rock?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  craig
June 3, 2018 12:27 am

No I will defend him. His ancestors fought the Revolutionary war in 1775-1783 and won just so they wouldnt have to worry about such acronyms. Trump is the king now.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  craig
June 3, 2018 12:34 am

“Alan Tomalty June 3, 2018 at 12:27 am

No I will defend him. His ancestors fought the Revolutionary war in 1775-1783 and won just so they wouldnt have to worry about such acronyms. Trump is the king now.”

To worry? LOL Do American media fully qualify an abbreviation that may not be instantly recognised in other countries? No! POTUS for instance. What is POTUS? It should be in “P” OF TUS. President “of” The United States.

Roger Knights
Reply to  craig
June 3, 2018 2:57 am

“What is POTUS? It should be in “P” OF TUS. President “of” The United States.”

Since “the”, like “of”, isn’t capitalized in titles or heading, “PotUS” would be better.

BTW, IGPoCC is the acronym I prefer to IPCC.

Reply to  craig
June 3, 2018 1:31 pm

POTUS is not an acronym – it’s the spoken name as used by secret service agents. It is spoken “POTUS” and “FLOTUS” and that has entered broader usage.

Roger Knights
Reply to  craig
June 4, 2018 5:32 am

“POTUS is not an acronym.”

Sure it is. Here’s what Google says in response to my request to “define acronym”:

an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word (e.g., ASCII, NASA ).

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 3, 2018 8:09 am

It’s a culturally understood reference, similar to POTUS. Or, MAGA for that matter. IMHO. LOL! (SMH)

Reply to  Roger Knights
June 3, 2018 2:20 am

HRH- His Royal Highness?? How about HRL- His Royal Loopiness.

richard verney
Reply to  tim
June 3, 2018 3:04 am

Interestingly, Prince Charles (he is next in line to the throne) is a keen AGW supporter, whereas his father, Prince Philip is an AGW sceptic. Indeed, I believe that he has even ridiculed it. I not sure whether that is because he thinks that his son’s opinions on most things is loopy, or whether he has the common sense to see that the evidence and claims in support of AGW are weak

Reply to  richard verney
June 3, 2018 3:27 am

He did ‘worse’ than that
“Duke of Edinburgh has invited Britain’s best-known global warming heretic to give a lecture at Buckingham Palace.”

Roger Knights
Reply to  richard verney
June 3, 2018 5:10 am

That story about the Duke of Edinburgh is from 2013.

Reply to  richard verney
June 3, 2018 9:30 am

and he is 96 year old now, a man of undoubtedly green credentials:
“”If it doesn’t fart or eat hay then she isn’t interested” — speaking about his daughter, Princess Anne.
and author of many non-pc quotes

Reply to  richard verney
June 3, 2018 10:52 am

Plus he’s an AGW skeptic. How can you not like that guy?

Reply to  Roger Knights
June 3, 2018 9:14 am

Umm. Roger. The Queen is a she.

Reply to  texasjimbrock
June 3, 2018 9:51 am

Long ago she was
Her Royal Highness as Princess Elizabeth
and now she is
Her Majesty The Queen
(I should know since some decades ago as then non-Brit I swore allegiance to ‘Her Majesty The Queen’)

Reply to  Roger Knights
June 3, 2018 12:14 pm

“Horses can Ruin Harnesses”

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 2, 2018 11:50 pm

A quote by a person. In a British newspaper. “His Royal Highness.” Or “Her Royal Highness” if a female is the current heir to the throne (not the case today, you have to get down to #4 to find Princess Charlotte). So this is obviously “His Royal Highness Prince Charles,” particularly as he was referred to by name earlier in the article.

“His/Her Majesty” – abbreviated “HM” for the current reigning monarch. “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.”

Thus ends today’s lesson in Britishisms.

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 3, 2018 12:23 am

This HRH (nice convertible by the way).

“The Prince is not only a keen environmentalist but a collector of Aston Martins and other sports cars”.


Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Jones
June 3, 2018 3:56 am

How about ” His Royal Heretic” ?

Reply to  Jones
June 3, 2018 4:26 am

God shave the Prince.

Reply to  Jones
June 3, 2018 5:55 am

Aston Martin = eco friendly: NOT. That 12 cylinder motor, 4300 pound curb weight, and 13 mpg fuel economy makes it less eco friendly than a Chevy Suburban. HRH= His Royal Hypocrisy

Reply to  Cube
June 3, 2018 10:22 am

Commissars always get their Zil limos, because important people can’t be expected to travel with the plebs.

Reply to  Cube
June 3, 2018 1:32 pm

You are being unfair. I’m quite sure it’s 13mpg of UNLEADED E85 so still a wonderfully green proposition surely?.

And it is a green car too.

Reply to  Jones
June 3, 2018 11:43 pm

Not green, but British racing green!

Tony Banton
Reply to  Cube
June 4, 2018 7:10 am

“Aston Martin = eco friendly: NOT. That 12 cylinder motor, 4300 pound curb weight, and 13 mpg fuel economy makes it less eco friendly than a Chevy Suburban. HRH= His Royal Hypocrisy”

How about checking instead of answering the dog-whistle?

Reply to  Tony Banton
June 4, 2018 7:25 am

Using alcohol, the fuel economy is even lower, and there are still two problems.
1) It takes almost as much energy to make a gallon of alcohol as is in a gallon of alcohol.
2) Every drop the prince’s car consumes is a gallon that can’t be consumed by someone else, so it’s still ecologically unfriendly.

Reply to  Jones
June 3, 2018 6:49 am

This picture says it all: he drives a green Aston- he must think this whole flap is about the color! Ban red sports cars!

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 3, 2018 12:25 am

HRHH. His royal hilarious highness.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 3, 2018 1:02 am

he mentioned the HRH was there by name.

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 3, 2018 2:45 am

Yeah, I had to look it up too. I Googled “Who is HRH?” and it came right up. Comes right up on a “HRH acronym” search too. The other day there was a play on the Make America Great Again – MAGA slogan that defied an acronym search. You just had to figure it out. Some acronyms finally become words, scuba diving, for example but most times people that use them seem to do it because they think it makes them look smart and they piss me off.

Reply to  Steve Case
June 3, 2018 5:59 am

Case: ah, Steve, you need to spend more time in corporate America. In the firm where I work EVERYTHING is an acronym. Business lines, products, departments, committees, meetings, systems, and operational processes are all referred to by acronyms. It can take a newcomer years to learn the special, secret language.

George Daddis
Reply to  Steve Case
June 3, 2018 6:46 am

I can’t resist the “snarky” comment that if MAGA were a Progressive acronym Google would have pushed it to the top of its search results :).

Reply to  George Daddis
June 4, 2018 7:29 am

Google has it’s own political pages that summarize the positions of parties and politicians so that users can read up on these subjects without having to go to outside pages.
For parties they summarize the political philosophies with a list of adjectives, things like conservative for Republican and liberal for Democrats. For Republicans the first description was Nazism.
For many Republican politicians they labeled them as racial bigots.

Anyone who uses google is asking to be mis-informed.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 3, 2018 4:02 am

I tried to figure out HRH before Roger Knights came to the rescue, but I got stuck after “Rodham.” The other day, in another thread, MAGA got transformed into MNGA (“Make NASA Great Again”). Occurred to me maybe it ought to be “Make NASA Go Away,” but no, we wouldn’t want that to happen. : > )

Brian R
Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 3, 2018 9:03 am

Since the article is from The Guardian, a UK paper, it’s written primarily for people who know that HRH stands for “Her Royal Highness”.

Just like US media use EPA, IRS, FBI, etc.

M Courtney
Reply to  Brian R
June 3, 2018 9:27 am

It’s from the Telegraph.
A UK paper but very different.

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 3, 2018 9:38 am

HRH means His Royal Highness, in this case Prince Charles.

June 2, 2018 9:39 pm

In the 1700’s Florida was explored by Ponce de Leon to find the Fountain of Youth. The search for eternal life by controlling nature and running the planet as we see fit has been burned into our DNA for millions of years. Only the incantations and the names change over time. After all, when you run the climate, you have the ability to achieve immortality. The search continues for the Fountain.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Donald Kasper
June 3, 2018 5:29 am

And thus the basis for all religions.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 3, 2018 5:41 pm

ignorance is bliss !

Reply to  ME
June 4, 2018 7:30 am

I’ve always been amazed how those who know nothing about religion consider themselves experts in the subject.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
June 3, 2018 9:20 am

And the ancient Chinese emperor Qi (founder of the first China) also wanted immortality. Suspicions arise that he ingested mercury for that purpose. Uh oh.

Eric Simpson
June 2, 2018 9:47 pm

Trump on climate change:
“This very expensive global warming bullsh*t has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice.” -Donald Trump
“Surprise? 1970’s global cooling alarmists were pushing the same no-growth liberal agenda as today’s global warming.” -DT
“I call it weather. You know, the weather changes.” -DT
“Obama’s speech on climate change was scary. It will lower our standard of living and raise costs of fuel & food for everyone.” -DT
“Gore wants us to [take extreme actions because of ‘global warming’], when China and other countries couldn’t care less. It would make us totally non-competitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.” -DT
“With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore.” -DT
“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” -DT
“Remember Cap-and-Trade? Obama outright admitted that his plan to tax businesses on carbon emissions that exceeded his arbitrary cap would drive energy prices sky high.” -DT

Trump at NH rally utilizes the conservative crowd to dismiss a leftist questioner:

el gordo
Reply to  Eric Simpson
June 2, 2018 11:55 pm

I wish Donald could organise a Red Team. How hard could it be?

Reply to  Eric Simpson
June 3, 2018 3:18 am

Thanks for that Eric. Trump is a very good speaker in a crowd; he basically ignored her question when nobody in the crowd believed in her question…brilliant.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Eric Simpson
June 3, 2018 7:29 am

He certainly has a lot of dosh.

J Mac
Reply to  Eric Simpson
June 3, 2018 9:11 am

Unlike our previous ‘Dear Leader’ Obama, President Trump does not use teleprompters on most public speaking occasions. He is adept at thinking on his feet and responding to questions without a script, a skill his predecessor never learned.

Reply to  J Mac
June 3, 2018 12:36 pm

Uh,uh,uh,er,uh let me be perfectly clear ,uh,er,uh,uh,…

Reply to  J Mac
June 3, 2018 7:49 pm

When you need to follow ‘the agenda’, your handlers don’t want any truth or off the cuff common sense creeping in.

June 2, 2018 9:55 pm

Amazing what happens when reality steps in and blows the lid off of damn fool idealistic crusades. Yes, clean up the environment and protect it, but stop trying to use a man-made artificial crisis to force people to do it!

Reply to  Damon C. Poole
June 3, 2018 2:18 am

This is no longer ( never was ) about protecting the environment. It is about Agenda 21

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Greg
June 3, 2018 5:20 am

Just like the ozone hole wasn’t the crisis. The real crisis was the patent for CFCs was about to expire – and somebody was going lose a lot of money.
And now we have Amoral Global Warming.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
June 4, 2018 1:44 am

to be fair to Dupont, they never pushed the “ozone crisis” meme, and even tried to stop it (I think they balanced short term benefit for them, against long term harm to chemical reputation, their core business). They eventually rode it, as a business must.
and, to be fair to greenies, they DO fear this kind of global disruption and don’t do it what they do for the money; they even pay for it.

June 2, 2018 11:57 pm

The great paradox of greenery is that it is a boom phenomenon: only when a society is awash with dosh does it start believing it wouldn’t mind getting poorer.

So true, the green left wing gets elected in the boom and the right wing then gets elected to clean up the ensuing economic mess.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Jeff
June 3, 2018 12:49 am

Unfortunately, cleaning up the mess often takes considerably longer than making it. So we’d better put these ecofreaks in a sandbox where they can play and let the adults like DJT do the job.

Reply to  Non Nomen
June 3, 2018 12:57 am

‘Destroyed in seconds’

Non Nomen
Reply to  Leo Smith
June 3, 2018 1:13 am

They’ll sell the box and then p*ss in the sand. Or vice versa.

Reply to  Non Nomen
June 3, 2018 4:51 am

cleaning up the mess often takes considerably longer than making it

That’s what the “Progressives” count on. While one of their colossal eff-ups is being corrected, they’re busy concocting more.

June 3, 2018 12:17 am

“Nicolas Hulot, the funky and untranslatable “Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire”, has ordered an end to the internal combustion engine by 2040, despite possessing six cars, a motorboat and a BMW motorbike”

Aye, there it is.

I do so hope I live long enough to see “The Great Accounting” as historians will refer to it as in a century or so.

June 3, 2018 12:24 am

Nicolas Hulot is the hélicologiste (hélicoptère-écologiste): he got famous by filming from an helicopter, and loves travelling via helicopter.

His filming expeditions included many cars, trucks, boats and at least one helicopter. His footprint must have been equivalent to at least 100 ordinary French citizens.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  simple-touriste
June 3, 2018 1:07 am

Nasty little selle. I think his wife is greenpiss, not sure. He has banned fires in the open so we now have to drive to the nearest decheterie with a trailor load of trees and weeds.

Greens simply lack and form of critical thinking ability

Reply to  simple-touriste
June 3, 2018 1:00 pm

Hulot was accused of sexual harassment recently.

In the age of “me too”, the media obviously … sided with man accused and painted him as the victim.

“Là, on a touché là où ça me fait mal, j’ai vu mes enfants en pleurs, on a franchi la ligne, j’ai la rage”,

Hulot, accused of sexual harassment, says: “They touched me where it hurts”. How appropriate.

Now that Hulot has played the victim on all media, the story is officially over.

Stephen Richards
June 3, 2018 1:04 am

A born negotiator. If only Europe had and the UK had one. His method is simple enough even for the dickhead of the year Theresa May. but you need a bit of backbone.

Alan Tomalty
June 3, 2018 1:11 am

I recently had an alarmist try to argue with me about all the changes in earth’s orbit and the reduction in the sun’s strength were causing lots of cooling but we were lucky that CO2 was hiding those facts with global warming and thus his logical conclusion that when those factors reversed we would be in big trouble with global warming. So my response is.look at the long term trend from UAH satellite 0.13 per decade or 1.3C increase for next century. And dont forget that is starting from a cool period base of 1979. But even if the 1.3C is correct and if the alarmist is correct about the ability to have CO2 as a control knob on the temperature, then that would mean that we over corrected by 0.13C per decade. But this increase in temperature is nice. The plants of the world like the increase in CO2; 18% more greenery in 30 years and everyone in cold climates appreciates a little warming. However the other side to this is if the earth’s orbit and sun strength are the overiding factor then why worry about CO2 except that if it really is a control knob it is better to be too hot than to freeze to death. If however the earth’s orbit and sun strength arent that big a deal then why bring them up in the argument? The school systems need logic courses in elementary grades.

The main problem with the alarmist position is that in the 30 years since James Hansen went to Congress to argue terrifying things would happen; they havent happened. There are no more extreme weather events than there ever were , more people have died from freezing to death than people have died from heat stroke and none has drowned because of rising sea levels. As I have said many times, I have been looking for global warming for 30 years and havent found it yet. No one I know has found it either. Theonly thing they come up with is the icecaps are melting.

Well Antarctica is gaining ice and Greenland is losing only 1/1000 of its mass every year. Dont forget that Greenland in the 1930s had mass losses about the same as to today and that 8000 years ago to 5000 years ago Greenland lost 20% of its ice mass. However a 20% loss in 3000 years when temperatures were 3-5 C higher means that we would all burn up in a fire of heat before the whole Greenland ice mass disappeared. That would raise the sea level 6 metres. However 20% of 6 metres is 1.2 metres or less than 4 feet. BUT it took Greenland 3000 years to lose that 20%. If all the world’s 200000 glaciers melted the se level would rise only 400mm or less than 16 inches. If the Arctic ocean all melted the sea level would not rise because the ice is floating on the water. If the temperature would go 4 or 5 C higher which is on the high end of the IPCC disaster predictions then no one would die of heatstroke except on the hottest days which happens anyway right now. Even a 5C increase won’t flood us out and wont have us gasping from the heat. I see heat changes of 20 C changes in one day in Canada. And yet the alarmists are afraid very afraid……………………

The only thing I can conclude from this is they were taught to be afraid in schools and being a greenie is their new religion. An extremely sad commentary on the reality of how socialism has taken over our schools and education system. I always ask myself the question. Has there ever been an entrepreneur course in the public school system or any course in how to manage your money? The sad answer is NO. The socialists wont allow it. The other sad commentary is that true socialism which the greenies dream about is IMPOSSIBLE. Every time it has been tried it almost immediately turned to dictatorship.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 3, 2018 6:05 am

Alan you are entirely correct: they need to be afraid, and need to feel that they are part of a Great Cause. Thus they can be easily manipulated. At a recent neighborhood gathering in Philadelphia a sweet little old lady approached me with a petition to “ban carbon”. When I said to her “you do realize that carbon is the basis for all life as we know it” her response was “what are your qualifications, are you a scientist?”

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 3, 2018 7:23 am

Good post, thank you Alan. I posted the subject Telegraph article yesterday on wattsup and made this comment.

from today’s GWPF:

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he clearly has energy policy correct, and all the governing idiots in Europe, Canada and (until recently) Britain have it wrong, and are causing great suffering on their people.

In conclusion, those who advocate global warming alarmism and costly, intermittent “green energy” schemes are scoundrels or imbeciles (or both).

Regards, Allan

June 3, 2018 8:12 am

I’ve added a few points to my 2008 and 2015 papers.

Regards, allan

Observations and Conclusions:

1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record. The rate of change dCO2/dt vs. temperature plot follows:

2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.

3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.

6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.

7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.

8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.

9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.

10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015


By Allan MacRae, January 2008
Spreadsheet at

By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015




Observations and Conclusions:

I proved in 2008 that the rate-of-change dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with global atmospheric temperature, and its integral the atmospheric CO2 trend lags temperature by ~9 months. – See Figures 1 and 3

The integral of the sine curve (below) lags the sine curve by 90 degrees, which equals 1/4 of the 360 degree full cycle.

CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months, therefore this cycle time is about 36 months.

Hypothesis: This approx. 36 month cycle is the Equatorial Pacific Temperature Cycle and the Global Temperature cycle.



The Equatorial Pacific Ocean has a natural temperature cycle averaging about 36 months peak-to-peak.

Equatorial average air temperature and humidity follow Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature – about 3 months after the Nino34 SST Anomaly and about 5 months after the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly.

Global average air temperature follows Equatorial average air temperature and humidity about 1 month later – about 4 months after the Nino34 SST Anomaly and about 6 months after the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly.

[Notes: “Sato” is an adjustment for the Sato Global Mean Optical Depth Index – the volcanic atmospheric aerosol index.
Formula: UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom (four months earlier) + 0.15 – 8*SatoGlobalMeanOpticalDepthIndex
Data: Sato Global Mean Aerosol Optical Depth at 550 nm ]


– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
– Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
– Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”


I suggest that the global warming alarmists could not be more wrong. These are the true facts, which are opposite to their alarmist claims:

1. CO2 is plant food, and greater atmospheric CO2 is good for natural plants and also for agriculture.

2. Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2-deficient and the current increase in CO2 (whatever the causes) is net strongly beneficial.

3. Increased atmospheric CO2 does not cause significant global warming – regrettable because the world is too cold and about to get colder.

Regards to all, Allan
Allan MacRae, Calgary

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 4, 2018 6:15 am

Al Gore famously lied by hiding the fact that CO2 increased roughly 800 years AFTER the deepest (coldest) valleys in the proxy temperature record in the Antarctic ice cores. More importantly, he never ever ever mentions that when the proxy temperatures hit their peaks (when the inter-glacial period is at it’s warmest point), and temperatures begin to decline into the next period of glaciation, CO2 is at a high level and continues to climb for about 800 years as buffered ocean heat continues some out-gassing. That’s right. CO2 reaches its highest peak AFTER proxy temperatures have been falling for 800 years. This tells us that CO2 is not driving temperature, but rather is being driven by it. Natural cycles of glacial and inter-glacial periods tell us that CO2 is NOT the main climate driver. That hypothesis is falsified. It’s dead.

So Nick Stokes, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Luke, Kristi, Griff, and even Eric Holthaus – quit giving the patient CPR and sign the death certificate. Break the spell that binds you.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 4, 2018 7:38 am

I thought it was less than 1/10,000th per year, and it’s stopped anyway.

June 3, 2018 1:25 am

The UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” or 2030 Agenda in short, is a similar agreement in that nations are committed to do certain things but are not legally obliged to. Where the Paris agreement has its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the 2030 Agenda has its Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). Here are the goals:

GOAL 1: No Poverty

GOAL 2: Zero Hunger

GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-being

GOAL 4: Quality Education

GOAL 5: Gender Equality

GOAL 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

GOAL 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

GOAL 10: Reduced Inequality

GOAL 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

GOAL 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

GOAL 13: Climate Action*

GOAL 14: Life Below Water

GOAL 15: Life on Land

GOAL 16: Peace and Justice Strong Institutions

GOAL 17: Partnerships to achieve the Goals

*Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary
international,intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

Clearly political in nature, what has the 2030 Agenda to do with climate change, which we are told is not a political matter. Well, quite a lot it seems, as the UN has thrown it in there and plans to to integrate the two agreements.

The two agendas are interlinked and aligning their implementation provides a
great opportunity to accelerate progress across both agreements.

Reply to  Charlie
June 3, 2018 4:34 am

I would put Goal 3 first – well doing Beijing. That can only be a spelling mistake of the adjutant.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Charlie
June 3, 2018 5:34 am

That sounds like the script outline for Star Trek Next Generation.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 3, 2018 7:00 am

Y’know, I was actually thinking, John Lennon. Imagine that!

Reply to  Charlie
June 3, 2018 6:08 am

Those are nice goals. Let’s have a friendly, benevolent, centrally managed government & economy run by our comrades in the UN to make it so. What can go wrong?

Reply to  Cube
June 3, 2018 2:28 pm

Look at Venezuela. What would NOT go wrong?

R. Shearer
Reply to  Charlie
June 3, 2018 7:38 am

An international right to keep and bear arms would increase everyone’s freedom.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Charlie
June 3, 2018 9:20 am

Let us take these points 1 at a time
1) Impossible. There is about $100 trillion US equivalent of money in the world. A country cant simply double their supply or else their currency will drop 50% in value. Divide that total by 7.6 billion You have ~ $13000 for every man woman and child in the world. In the West, Do you consider that you are well off at $13000 total wealth? No that amount of money wont go far in retirement. People in the West are NOT going to keep working after the retirement age until they drop dead just so they give all their money to foreigners who are less well off than them. All the food aid concerts in the world wont bring the worlds poor out of poverty. We in the west will not stand for brownouts or blackouts. We wont give up our SUV’s even when they are all electric. You cant make the worlds poor richer by denying them fossil fuel plants. The world works by supply and demand whether you like it or not. If you make something illegal that everyone wants, you simply increase smuggling and drive the price up.

2) Zero Hunger is not possible either. Food Aid concerts dont grow the food. Wars are the main cause of hunger .We havent found a way to stop wars or to stop revolutionaries from overthrowing governments.

3) Good health and well being are personal goals. The UN cant do anything about this

4) Quality education is only possible without war in a country and without groups like ISIS and the Taliban who ban girls from getting educated. And it even in the West quality education seems to be elusive because our schools are teaching socialism which ultimately dooms our way of life.

5) Gender equality is impossible in those societies which are controlled by religions which prevent gender equality

6) Clean water and sanitation is only possible when a society has developed enough so that almost all of the people dont have to worry about where their next meal will come from

7) Affordable and Clean energy wont happen by getting rid of fossil fuels which fuel 80% of the worlds energy use.

8) Decent work and economic growth can only happen in societies that are not at war either internally or externally. Also many dull repetitive jobs just cant be eliminated by robots. A good thing too or else the job would no longer exist to feed the person that is doing the dull repetitive non decent work.

9) Industry and innovation . cannot be improved by government action. The only thing government can do in this regard is to provide the infrastructure.and the regulatory environment to foster industry and innovation.

10) Reduced inequality is also impossible because any attempt to distort the marketplace drives up prices for the poor or else reduces the number of entrepreneurs who will move elsewhere with their money.

11) Sustainable cities and communities is laughable. No one has developed an acceptable definition of sustainability. If you define it as using resources so that you wont run out of them; that is laughable as well. The reason is that every commodity is related to every other commodity. As soon as you start to run out of a commodity the price goes up so that people use less of it so it is impossible to run out of it. There are usually substitute commodities that can be used for a commodity that starts to get too expensive. All those who say we will run out of fossil fuels are just repeating the same alarmist view that the peak oil people had.

12) Responsible consumption and production. I will start believing in this when we can stop polluting our oceans with plastic and clean up the 5 trillion pieces of plastic that are already in the oceans. If you took a vote of the 7.6 billion people on the planet; very few would contribute to removing those 5 trillion pieces of plastic because a large % of people are still wondering where their next meal will come from. And most of the rest dont have any spare change to help.

13) Climate action is the biggest hoax in mankind’s history

14) See No.12

15) Can the world afford to put all the endangered species in huge game or water parks?

16) Peace is an impossible goal in the long run when groups like the Communist Party of China stated goal is to invade Taiwan and ultimately subvert and destroy all the world democracies.

17) Partherships to achieve the goals is the only possible successfulgoal that can be met of all 17 goals except that once you have the partnerships in place the other 16 goals are impossible to achieve anyway so why expend the money to create the partnerships when the goals are unachievable?. I suggest redoing the whole list to create achievable goals audited by an economist that will temper the fantasy dreaming of the UN people that want to change things.

Gerard O'Dowd
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 3, 2018 7:28 pm

The price mechanism for the relationship between supply and demand of commodities in free market economics is what assures “sustainability” of those commodities for the reasons you outline above. Without free market capitalism and its price mechanism, sustainability of goods is not possible. Venezuela is the most recent example of socialistic failure to sustain itself and its economy.

The wonder of free market capitalism is that the sustainability, availability and accessibility of goods for the average person are all inter related products of the labor and ingenuity of freemen and women. That this process of supply/demand governed by price mechanism occurs without the over sight of a controlling authority defies the imagination and comprehension of statists and central planners.

Of course the world is witnessing the rise of Red China, a one Party State dictatorship as a world power and a centrally planned economy. It does seem like Red China is a hybrid

The efficacy of the price mechanism to achieve sustainability is reflected in long term changes in prices of various commodities. Julian Simon in Ultimate Resource 2 documents the decline in prices of the trend lines of multiple commodities over many decades including farm land, waste disposal, air pollution, metals, oil, etc.

As commodity price trend lines have declined, life expectancies in the Western Democracies and in much of the world have increased with the exception of WM in the US in the most recent demographic surveys. Seems American WM are committing suicide. An allegory for the the West as a whole?

Reply to  Gerard O'Dowd
June 4, 2018 7:43 am

Back when China was a pure communist state, it’s people starved.
China’s current wealth started when they abandoned pure communism and started to allow elements of capitalism into their economy.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 4, 2018 7:41 am

Wealth comes from productivity. When those people learn the skills and have access to the equipment that will make them productive, they will become, if not wealthy, at least no longer poor.
Eliminating hunger is possible, we have enough food now to feed the hungry, we have to get governments out of the way first.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Charlie
June 3, 2018 1:00 pm

Funny how California,
the Greenest, most Climate virtuous state in the US has:

– the highest poverty rate.
– the highest taxes.
– the most un-affordable housing prices in the 48 lower states.
– the 2nd highest per capita rate of homelessness.

– The highest rates of homelessness among states are in Hawaii (465 per 100,000), followed by New York (399) and California (367). Those are also the least affordable housing states.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 4, 2018 7:44 am

They are also states that have been run by Democrats for a long time.

M Courtney
June 3, 2018 1:29 am

One of the bigger changes caused by Trump’s election and open attitude on dangerous Global Warming is that it forces the “scientists” to debate.

The argument was that the science could not be challenged in debate as the papers were unquestionable and thus any questioning would help the fringe but not the climatologists. That is no longer tenable.

With the US President openly scorning the “scientists”, all the world’s policies ignoring the predictions of the “scientists” and increasing lack of media interest in their jamborees… the party is over. They need to defend themselves.

They need to engage in debate. The debate that they’ve avoided for so long. The debate the “scientists” expect to lose.
And will lose.

June 3, 2018 1:34 am

I generally agree with Trump’s politics, but he is wrong about the issue of climate change. The only way out is to recognize this or compensate with the support of new technologies like geoengineering, fusion or LENR.

Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
June 3, 2018 2:22 am

Water vapor (WV) heats the atmosphere. CO2 can not – because WV already does it. The CO2 bands are already saturated with WV. Except for the 15um band (13um to 18um). Which has little energy.

Michael Keal
Reply to  M Simon
June 4, 2018 2:28 am

And even ‘the gap’ is covered to a significant degree by liquid water in clouds which being dispersed in droplets punches well above its weight.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
June 3, 2018 6:31 am

“The only way out” of what, exactly?

Reply to  Eustace Cranch
June 3, 2018 2:14 pm

The only way out – is up.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
June 3, 2018 1:57 pm

What rock did you climb out from under?

The inconvenient questions that the IPCC nor Michael Mann can’t answer.

1) Why did sea level rise faster in early 2Oth century than now and even now is not accelerating?
2) Why do only rural land temperature data sets show no warming?
3) Why did climate scientists in the climategate emails worry about no warming trends? They are supposed to be unbiased either way.
4) Why do some local temperature land based datasets show no warming Ex: Augusta Georgia for last 83 years? There must be 1000’s of other places like this.
5) Why do 10 of the 13 weather stations in Antarctica show no warming in last 60 years? The 3 that do are near undersea volcanic ridges.
6) Why does the lower troposphere satellite data of UAH show very little warming and in fact showed cooling from 1978 to 1997?
7) Why is there only a 21% increase in net atmosphere CO2 ppm since 1980 but yet mankind increased fossil fuel emissions CO2 by 75%?
8) Why did National Academy of Sciences in 1975 show warming in the 30’s and 40’s and NASA in 1998 and 2008 not show nearly as much warming for those time periods?
9) Why has no one been able to disprove Lord Monckton’s finding of the basic flaw in the climate sensitivity equations after doubling CO2?
10) Why has there never been even 1 accurate prediction by a climate model. Even if one climate model is less wrong than another one it is still wrong.
11) Why do most climate scientists not understand the difference between accuracy and precision?
12) Why have many scientists resigned from the IPCC in protest?
13) Why do many politicians, media and climate scientists continue to lie about CO2 causing extreme weather events? Every data set in the world shows there are no more extreme weather events than there ever were
14) Why do clmate scientists call skeptics deniers as if we were denying the holocaust?
!5) Why did Michael Mann refuse to hand over his data when he sued Tim Ball for defamation and why did Mann subsequently drop the suit?
16) Why have every climate scientist that has ever debated the science of global warming lost every debate that has ever occurred?
17) Why does every climate scientist now absolutely refuse to debate anymore?
18) Why do careers get ruined when scientists dare to doubt global warming in public?
19) Why do most of the scientists that retire come out against global warming?
20) Why is it next to impossible to obtain a PhD in Atmospheric science if one has doubts about global warming?
21) Why is it very very difficult to get funding for any study that casts doubt on global warming?
22) Why has the earth greened by 18% in the last 30 years?
23) Why do clmate scientists want to starve plants by limiting their access to CO2? Optimum levels are 1200 ppm not 410ppm.
24) Why do most climate scientists refuse to release their data to skeptics?
25) Why should the rest of the world ruin their economies when China and India have refused to stop increasing their emmissions of CO2 till 2030?
26) Why have the alarmist scientists like Michael Mann called Dr. Judith Curry an anti scientist?
27) Why does the IPCC not admit that under their own calculations a business as usual policy would have the CO2 levels hit 590ppm in 2100 which is exactly twice the CO2 level since 1850.?
28) Why do the climate modellers not admit that the error factor for clouds makes their models worthless?
29) Why did NASA show no increase in atmospheric water vapour for 20 years before James Hansen shut the project down in 2009?
30) Why did Ben Santer change the text to result in an opposite conclusion in the IPCC report of 1996 and did this without consulting the scientists that had made the original report?
31) Why does the IPCC say with 90% confidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming when they have no evidence to back this up except computer model predictions which are coded to produce results that CO2 causes warming?
32) How can we believe climate forecasts when 4 day weather forecasts are very iffy?.
33) Why do all climate models show the tropical troposhere hotspot when no hotspot has actually been found in nature?
34) Why does the extreme range of the climate models increase as the number of runs increases on the same simulation?
35) Why is the normal greenhouse effect not observed for SST?
36) Why is SST net warming increase close to 0?
37) Why is the ocean ph level steady over the lifetime of the measurements?
38) what results has anyone ever seen from global warming if it exists? I have been waiting for it for 40 years and havent seen it yet?
39) If there were times in the past when CO2 was 20 times higher than today why wasnt there runaway global warming then?
40) Why was there a pause in the satellite data warming in the early 2000’s?
41) Why did CO2 rise after WW2 and temperatures fall?
42) For the last 10000 years over half of those years showed more warming than today. Why?
43) Why does the IPCC refuse to put an exact % on the AGW and the natural GW?
44) Why do the alarmists still say that there is a 97% consensus when everyone knows that figure was madeup?
45) The latest polls show that 33% do not believe in global warming and that figure is increasing poll by poll ? why?
46) If CO2 is supposed to cause more evaporation how can there ever be more droughts with CO2 forcing?
47) Why are there 4 times the number of polar bears as in 1960?
48) Why did the oceans never become acidic even with CO2 levels 15-20 times higher than today?
49) Why does Antarctica sea ice extent show no decrease in 25 years?
50) Why do alarmists still insist that skeptics are getting funding from fossil fuel companies ( when alarmists get billions from the government and leftest think tanks) and skeptics get next to nothing from either fossil fuel companies nor governments for climate research?
51) If the Bloomberg carbon clock based on the Mauna Loa data, in the fall and winter increases at a rate of only 2ppm per year; then why do we have to worry about carbon increases?
52) Why arent the alarmists concerned with actual human lives. In England every winter there are old people who succumb to the cold because they cant afford the increased heating bills caused by green subsidies.
53) Why did Phil Jones a climategate conspirator, admit in 2010 that there was no statistically meaningful difference in 4 different period temperature data that used both atmospheric temperature and sea surface temperature?
54) Why does the IPCC still say that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is a 100 years when over 80 studies have concluded it is more like 5 years?
55) Why do all global climate alarmists say that corals are dying due to bleaching when Dr. Peter Ridd (who has published over 100 papers) has proven that coral bleaching is a defensive mechanism by corals in relation to temperature change in the water.
56) Why does the IPCC still release temperature and sea level data from NOAA and NASA when Tony Heller has proved that those agencies have faked data and made improper adjustments to the actual raw numbers ?
57) How does the IPCC explain that Professor Miskolczi showed that despite a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the period 1948 to 2008, the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere was found to be unchanged from its theoretical value of 1.87
58) Why has the Global Historical Climate Network temperature data set for ~ 1000 temperature stations in the United States shown no warming over the entire 124 year period when you just take the daily maximum and average it out for the 365 days of the year?
59) Why has the global average downward infrared radiation to the surface shown no increase ever since the CERES satellite started collecting data in the year 2000?
60) Why has the global average outgoing radiation to space shown an increase since 1974 according to the NOAA satellite info?
61) How would Antarctica ever melt if almost all of the land mass never even comes close to 0 C even in summer? Same for Greenland.

Clmate change is the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on mankind.

June 3, 2018 2:10 am

Bonn ? Katowice ?

The very choice of locations proves the warmists have no hope of success. Hardly anybody wants to go on a junket to Katowice, no matter how much the locals may like the place.

Reply to  Hivemind
June 3, 2018 7:33 am

They had Bonn to wail about Tuvalu “sinking”. In fact it is growing so they can safely go there next time…

Reply to  bonbon
June 3, 2018 11:57 pm

If the green freeloaders all flew into Tuvalu, wouldn’t that be great? They’d outnumber the inhabitants

“Over 4 decades, there had been a net increase in land area of the islets of 73.5 ha (2.9%), although the changes are not uniform, with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. The sea level at the Funafuti tide gauge has risen at 3.9 mm per year, which is approximately twice the global average. The rising sea levels are identified as creating an increased transfer of wave energy across reef surfaces, which shifts sand, resulting in accretion to island shorelines, although this process does not result in additional habitable land.” Wiki

June 3, 2018 2:17 am

Ask a believer-

What are the photon absorption bands of CO2?
What are the photon absorption bands of water vapor?
What is the overlap?
What does it mean?

As to what it means – if GW “science” is correct we need to get water vapor out of the atmosphere.

Reply to  M Simon
June 3, 2018 6:37 am

I think you are already way beyond the average ‘believer’. Most of them are scientifically illiterate.

Asking questions is a really good technique anyway.

Without letting on that you are a skeptic, ask the believer to explain how global warming works. Be interested. Don’t look like you’re trying to trap them. Act a bit confused. The shallowness of their understanding will become obvious to them. You will have planted the seed of niggling doubt.

Reply to  commieBob
June 3, 2018 9:09 am

You can shorten this by simply asking what level of atmospheric CO2 is acceptable. If they say zero, just walk away; there is no hope for them. If they say anything else, then ask them exactly what happens, and how, if it goes higher than their answer.

Reply to  Jtom
June 3, 2018 2:34 pm

More telling is what level of human population is acceptable.

I think 1 trillion people is better than 2 billion people – or there is not an over population problem.

And largest current problem is under population.
It is obvious with Russia.
And will appear to be a more obvious widespread problem in the future.

Reply to  Jtom
June 3, 2018 5:51 pm

I asked local radio interviewers to question politicians on their understanding of Carbon. What is it? Is it a gas? Nearly all politicians vow to reduce Carbon. Radio did not reply to the suggestion.

Reply to  M Simon
June 4, 2018 7:46 am

Just because there is overlap is not evidence that the band is saturated.
Regardless there are parts of the planet where water vapor in the atmosphere is very low.

Chris Wright
June 3, 2018 2:59 am

An excellent piece by Charles Moore.
He was previously the editor of the Daily Telegraph. These days the Telegraph’s coverage of climate change is biased, one-sided and unquestioning – like most of the media. I would love to see Charles Moore return to the editor’s seat!

June 3, 2018 3:02 am

Humanity may be heading for a bit of a shock.
For the last five thousand years proxies (if they are any good) tell us that temperatures have been oscillating within a narrow band with a clear downward trend. This is consistent with ending of current interglacial.

(link to the graph is here if the image doesn’t display)

Reply to  vukcevic
June 3, 2018 7:00 am

It seems that most, if not all, sediment core proxy records from around the world show cooling temperatures and increasing ice cover for at least 2000 years.
This one
shows ice cover is increasing for 5000 years but greatly accelerating in the last 2000.
There are slight blips along the way which includes our present warm period

Reply to  rockyredneck
June 4, 2018 7:47 am

And the current blip is not as warm as the previous blips.

Peta of Newark
June 3, 2018 4:25 am

Nice one Vuk – I see Ma Nature doing what farmers do (did in the absence of artificial fertilisers)

Explain: Take it that liquid water combined with geography controls ‘climate’, what your graph shows are cycles of ‘fallowing’
Plants grow, exert huge control over water but when soil fertility inevitably drops, so does their growth (subsequent death) activity and control over liquid water.
Less liquid water around to trap heat energy > desert-like conditions and ‘climate’ deteriorates

Continuing ‘natural’ erosion of hot /cold rain /snow freeze / thaw plus naturally acidic rain (CO2 plus anything out of volcanoes) slowly release fertility from barren rock and off high mountainsides esp
…. and…
The plants recover and with them, so does the ‘climate’
See the cycles?

Trouble is, the plants use the fertility faster than the erosion processes can produce it – just ask ANY farmer – and eventually Ma Nature is obliged to call in The Heavies.
These, to start with, manifest as Ice Ages – when plants have slowed their growth so much they are not retaining enough liquid water within the land-masses to maintain Nice Climate.
So we see huge slabs of ice and glaciers that bulldoze away the old infertile soil and expose some new.

But even that won’t work indefinably (just ask any Martian) so Ma Nature calls in the Super Heavies – the REALLY Big Boys (yes, even bigger than Michael Mann. scary eh?) in the shape of Plate Tectonics, total subduction of the old dirt and exposure of completely new dirt, to significant depth, via volcanoes and mountain building.
No fool is Ma nature so she makes doubly sure by re-arranging the continents while she’s at it. (That’s the geography part of climate)

We are fixated on time scales that are far too short, like out own ‘three score plus ten’

Therein is The Real Problem with ‘climate’ – selfishness. Fear for our own existence.
Doesn’t the very fact of our own existence prove that we are safe – *unless* – we do something extremely dumb to endanger ourselves….

Enter: sugar

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 3, 2018 11:09 pm

Nanny staters have already decided you shouldn’t have your Big Gulp.

Paul Johnson
June 3, 2018 4:45 am

On Climate and many other things, it is so gratifying to be here at the turning of the tide.

June 3, 2018 5:08 am

I will repost here the response I posted when Paul Homewood put this article up at his site:

“Trump is now, and has from the beginning, been portrayed as a loose cannon that is in over his head, and this article has a whiff of that same meme. This American is sick of that BS. The only damage he is causing is to the progressive socialists institutions and agenda and to the enemies and to countries which have been taking advantage of what was US trade policy. He is doing what he said he would do in the campaign and thus what he was elected to do and getting it done despite the massive forces of the establishment, the deeps state, and their press arrayed against him. He is keeping more promises to the those who voted for him than any POTUS anyone alive can remember. ”

If they don’t kill him and he runs he will win reelection because as far as scandals goes the left has shot their wad and it has proven ineffective. The rules of the game have changed and the left and their politicians just keep playing by the old rules and insulting anyone that likes the new rules.

The US economy is booming. Unemployment less than 4% and black unemployment at an all time low. The GDP growing and most people getting to hold on to more of what they earned due to the tax cuts. The US legacy media has lost the shreds of credibility it had and the number of voters that progressives and their press have insulted continues to grow. Here is what leads Breitbart as I write this:
This kind of thing only drives more people into the Trump camp.

Trump will be playing his trump card before the midterms. That card is a possible government shutdown over funding for the wall. The democrats and establishment republicans that are beholding to the US Chamber of Commerce and must fight to prevent the will of the US voters being implemented will once again have to expose themselves as defending their policy on illegal immigration that the majority of US voters abhor.

We won’t get another Trump after he is gone but his legacy is already ensured. Though I wasn’t sure what I was getting when I voted for Trump I KNEW what I would be getting if I and others like me didn’t. I voted for Trump figuring that no matter what he would put conservative justices that would rule based on the law in the Judiciary. He has done that and is doing that in spades! And THAT will be the legacy that is most enduring even if his successors over time inch back on everything else he has done.”

I will add that I believe the left has been busy digging their own political hole. They have moved ever more left and become ever more militant and nasty since Trump was elected and the Muller “investigation” began. They are only in the offensive mode in their ever more outrageous and nasty statements and acts. In every other realm, including the deep state campaign against the Trump administration, they are on the defensive. And as for the DC press and chattering class? They have replaced their “bubble” with armor plate further isolating themselves from the average US citizen.

J Mac
Reply to  RAH
June 3, 2018 9:50 am

That sums it up very nicely!
Making America Great Again.

Snarling Dolphin
June 3, 2018 5:09 am

The planet does not need saving. Full stop.

Steve T
June 3, 2018 5:17 am

PragerU must watch videos

ps. would you consider adding CC to your blogroll?

June 3, 2018 5:34 am

Climate Change Miracle…

After a week of grey and cold at last, some Sun.

Praise be to god

Reply to  fretslider
June 3, 2018 8:15 am

Gaia has rule in this neck of the woods. At least as far as the natural order is concerned.

June 3, 2018 5:34 am

I did add a but it disappeared

June 3, 2018 5:35 am

Fake sarc tags disappear here… doubleplusungood.

John Garrett
June 3, 2018 5:45 am

HRH was pretty easy but “CND” stumped me.

“…Climate-change zealotry is looking like CND after the installation of cruise and Pershing missiles in the 1980s – a bit beside the point…”

After a little research, I’ll hazard a guess:
Campaign for

Reply to  John Garrett
June 3, 2018 5:51 am

Well done.

You could have asked. Their latest idea…

Stop NATO 2018

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  John Garrett
June 3, 2018 6:24 am

John. Anyone who has lived in the UK at any time in the 5 decades after 1945 will know what CND stands for. The fact that you had to look it up shows what a parochial lot they were and how right it was that they were ignored by those in power. Of course only nukes from the West were bad, the Pershings, the cruise missiles, the neutron bomb. The SS20s in the east were so okay that they weren’t even mentioned. A right bunch of hardcore hypocrites.

Reply to  John Garrett
June 3, 2018 8:43 am

CND was and still is the Fabian’s and the Socialist’s cudgel against government policy on nuclear arms in the UK.
CND was the Fabian Society’s test-bed for modern, mass advocacy driven, protests (morphed from CND into the politically left ‘rent a mob’ in the UK). Many in the Fabians push the “exploration of public attitudes to fairness in the context of sustainable consumption and Climate change”.

see for more.

Reply to  tom0mason
June 3, 2018 10:50 am

Bertrand Russell’s CND, that “peacenik” who called to preemptively nuke the Soviet? The answer of the Czara Bomba was, well, it.
Russell’s Impact of Science on Society and Scientific Outlook are essential to understand how people are to be convinced snow is black, or indeed any shade of grey depending on cost, and never to know from whence come such beliefs.
Russell’s outlook has become pervasive : “I hate the world and almost all the people in it. . . . I hate the planet and the human race. I am ashamed to belong to such a species,” wrote Russell to Colette (Lady Constance Malleson) in 1916.

Kaiser Derden
June 3, 2018 6:17 am

I love how even in an article that on the surface is positive about Trump these virtue signaling authors manage to take a backhanded swipe at Trump …

“When President Trump starts the trouble, he does not necessarily know where it will end. He is, if you like, open-minded; or, if you don’t like, irresponsible. He just wants a result, and will pull back if he thinks he won’t get the right one. In the case of his trade war, he will succeed if his action exposes unfair practices by trade rivals and forces them to change. He will fail if all he does is put up everyone’s prices, including, of course, America’s.”

the one thing in common with all these quasi nevertrumper writers and pundits is that they all think he’s an idiot and has no plan (see above quote)… the second thing they all have in common is Trump is much smarter and craftier than they are and thus is always one or two moves ahead …

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Kaiser Derden
June 3, 2018 6:28 am

I didn’t read that as a swipe, rather as praise.

June 3, 2018 6:19 am

Climate news and climate change hysteria is still a huge news and political issue in Canada. Unfortunately.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  wildlifeperspectives
June 3, 2018 6:34 am

That will disappear once they vote out Justin, when they figured out whether Justin is a he, she or it.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
June 3, 2018 8:19 am


Alan Tomalty
Reply to  bonbon
June 3, 2018 9:46 am

In Canada we are living in the land Of OZ. Trudeau wants to spend $35 billion to reduce the world’s temperature increase by 0.005 C after 100 years from now.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 3, 2018 10:21 am

Maybe Trump’s repeal of NAFTA will break that spell? Without the USA the entire CO2 spell wears off. Joke is most will have no memory of the spell, genuinely not believing they actually were that crazy, wondering where all that money went.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 3, 2018 11:13 am

And he wants to increase the price of fossil fuels with his Carbon Tax, then spends Canadian taxpayers’ money buying an oil pipeline because the BC liberals are whining about high oil prices due to Alberta threatening to cut off the supply of oil to them if the pipeline doesn’t go through.

Since he likes dressing up so much, maybe he could start wearing a clown suit.

June 3, 2018 6:21 am

“The Great Accounting”

What a pleasant thought. 🙂

I want to hear James Hansen say, “I was wrong” and I want to hear Michael Mann and his co-conspirators say, “I cheated and lied about CAGW.”

Will any of us live that long?

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  TA
June 3, 2018 6:35 am

I don’t want to hear, I want to see. Them being locked up for conspiracy against the people.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
June 3, 2018 9:48 am

Hansen should be tried for treason.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 3, 2018 11:01 am

Bigger fish will be on the dock, Clapper, Comey, Wray, Halper, Steele, Dearlove … Trump was not supposed to win on either side of the pool. What goes around comes around.

Reply to  bonbon
June 3, 2018 12:52 pm

The members of top layer of the intelligence community are coming out of the closet, publicly advertising the fact that they are just political hacks, as much as Valerie Plame Wilson, formerly known as some CIA female “James Bond” who was betrayed by the Bush administration; Valerie Plame advertised her antisemitism by linking to this essay “America’s Jews Are Driving U.S. Wars”:

For those American Jews who lack any shred of integrity, the media should be required to label them at the bottom of the television screen whenever they pop up, e.g. Bill Kristol is “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” That would be kind-of-like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison — translating roughly as “ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol at your own peril.”

The piece takes Bill Kristol (who ALSO came out of the closet as a complete lunatic) as the typical American Jew and then establish an equivalence between “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” with “lacking any shred of integrity”. (The correct label for Bill Kristol is obviously “complete lunatic who gets pretty much everything wrong and had a meltdown follow Trump’s election”, not “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.”)

And when called out she gave these excuses on Twitter:

“OK folks, look, I messed up. I skimmed this piece, zeroed in on the neocon criticism, and shared it without seeing and considering the rest.”

“I missed gross undercurrents to this article & didn’t do my homework on the platform this piece came from. Now that I see it, it’s obvious.”

and then

“On a personal note, one should not tweet while moving, 8 workmen are in a small space, the dog is going nuts, and kids are texting one asking for things they forgot for school. Social media very unforgiving.

Linking “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.”, “who lack any shred of integrity” and “a bottle of rat poison”. The implication was too subtle. She was allowed to work for the CIA. Let that sink in.

That’s the kind of people the left thinks of as a hero.

So maybe Scooter Libby should get a CIA distinction for outing Valerie Plame…

Reply to  bonbon
June 3, 2018 3:32 pm

I guess in regards to the CIA, all the smart ones, can remain completely hidden.

Reply to  bonbon
June 3, 2018 3:43 pm

“So maybe Scooter Libby should get a CIA distinction for outing Valerie Plame…”

Scooter Libby did not out Valeria Plame, it was Richard Armitage and the Special Prosecutor knew it at the time, but went after Libby anyway in order to try to get something on Vice President Cheney.

Valerie Plame was not an active CIA agent at the time she was named, so no harm done..

G.W. Bush should have pardoned Libby but he didn’t want the Left criticizing him, so he passed. Trump doesn’t care what the Left says about him, or at least, he doesn’t let their opinions deter him from taking action.

I hope this posts. I’ve been having a lot of difficulty posting.

Reply to  bonbon
June 4, 2018 3:21 am

Treason, otherwise known as an attempted putsch, a coup, organized from London to bring down a duly elected US President.
How about a Regime Change Too Far?
Only because that boomeranged the whole swamp “community” is visible.
Climategate started also in Britain.
Regime Change and Climate Change are two sides of the same shilling.
Not to be sidetracked to South West Asia…

Luke George
Reply to  TA
June 3, 2018 2:57 pm

Not going to happen because they are right!

Bruce Cobb
June 3, 2018 6:33 am

The kicker, and the hilarious thing about all this hullaballoo, shenanigans, and bickering about “carbon” and about “climate change” is that it is all an idiotic farce. It is much ado about nothing, and total madness, because none of it matters in the slightest.

June 3, 2018 6:36 am

“The US legacy media has lost the shreds of credibility it had”

I heard yesterday that CNN has lost 25 percent of its viewers and 35 percent of the most important demographic, and did this during one of the most news-intensive periods in world history. Trump has successfully exposed the Leftwing Media for what they are: Partisan political propagandists.

M Courtney
Reply to  TA
June 3, 2018 9:24 am

The news market has switched to Facebook.
They are not supporters of Trump.

Reply to  M Courtney
June 3, 2018 3:52 pm

Facebook may be going the way of MySpace. I heard the other day that mellenials are starting to avoid Facebook for other platforms.

I never use Facebook, although I do have an account, and I don’t miss it a bit. Much too intrusive for my taste. And now they want to be the arbiters of the truth, which is another strike against them.

June 3, 2018 6:46 am

President Trump must demand transparency regarding climate science, and we need Red/Blue Teams to provide countering analysis so the public can make an informed decision. The one sided approach of the Climate Alarmists rob the public of the truth. The following link highlights how this could be done.

Climate Data Doesn’t Support CO2 Driving Climate Change and Global Temperatures

R. Shearer
Reply to  co2islife
June 3, 2018 7:51 am

Nice article.

Reply to  co2islife
June 3, 2018 7:54 am

EPA chief Scott Pruitt is doing the necessary.

June 3, 2018 7:51 am

The moment Trump said he was Brexit+ it was a done deal. The EU spell is broken, witness Italy’s Bagnai reply to Guy Verhofstadt’s (of Maidan fame) rant, a tweet of Belgian King Leopold II, the butcher of the Congo.
The next spell to go is the voodoo finance likely starting with Deutsche Bank, and that will shake the City of London! All the Skripal capers, Spygate, May not save it. Even Isaac Newton’s Green Lions won’t work anymore.

Reply to  bonbon
June 3, 2018 8:59 am

Unfortunately in the UK BREXIT is stuttering along now with such wonderful people as American/Hungarian George Soros is sticking his offensive snout into the trough.


Reply to  tom0mason
June 3, 2018 10:10 am

All the Queens men (including George),
all the Queens horses (don’t ask),
May not put Humpty together again.
When I heard of Stefan Halper, the Cambridge MI6/CIA “asset” of Spygate, nicknamed Walrus, I knew we live in Wonderland. I just wonder who the Carpenter is?

Reply to  tom0mason
June 3, 2018 11:16 am

If May manages to kill Brexit, it will destroy any last vestige of legitimacy the government claims to have.

Besides, it will be moot soon, since the EU is going to fall apart either way. Britain may find that it’s still in the EU but all the other countries have left.

Reply to  MarkG
June 4, 2018 3:24 am

exactly, with Quitaly simmering to a boil right now. A better Deal is urgently needed.

June 3, 2018 7:52 am

“Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, who wants us “Powering Past Coal”

And it is happening, big time: One of the UK’s eight remaining coal power stations is expected to cease generating electricity this year, the government has said as it laid out new rules that will force all the plants to close by 2025 because of “new pollution standards”, leading to increasing fuel poverty, where people cannot afford to heat their homes adequately.

Tell the pensioners to “Power Past Coal” as they freeze…

June 3, 2018 8:12 am

The last two presidents to actually be Democrats were Kennedy and Truman, in my lifetime. All subsequent Democrat presidents have actually been socialists/communists, at least in their policies. Not sure what Trump really is but I like what he is doing. And to those who think he is a little crazy/dangerous, they said that about Ronald Reagan as well. And what could be more crazy than running a blockade on the high seas against the soviets, an act of war, as JFK did in the Cuba missile crisis? And JFK was the last “good” Democrat president in my book. Pro gun, pro life, reduced taxes, and anti communist, better than half the Republicans today!

June 3, 2018 8:13 am

… of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Change, Disruption? Now, we’ve returned to cooling, warming, climate change, on a decadal order, with seasonal, daily, and sometimes hourly swings. In short, a return to normal.

June 3, 2018 8:16 am

I do believe the Author has hit the nail on the head!
A “Spell” refers to magic, mesmerism, hypnosis, today called the narrative. Susceptibility can be induced by drugs (Lennon’s Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds), wars, catastrophes, terrorism etc… All of this well studied and applied. The daylight murder of JFK, 9/11 being the two most damaging. Vietnam made a whole generation susceptible to plain magic. ISIL today. The author may have heard of the Tavistock Institute?
The dumbest thing is well educated scientists failing to identify magic climate concoctions. The reason for this willful blindness is the adoration of that wildly irrational alchemist Isaac Newton in the hallowed halls of Harvard, Yale, Cambridge… The occult action-at-a-distace and “hypotheses non fingo” touted as the scientific method?
Magic, and the sleep of reason, open doors to monsters – Goya.

Nigel Clarke
June 3, 2018 9:37 am

My god though, did you read the comments below the article in the Telegraph!

Ivor Ward
June 3, 2018 10:57 am

HRH….. His Royal Halfwit. Don’t forget his horse Camilla.

michael hart
June 3, 2018 10:59 am

The main point is that Moore, one of the big names at The Telegraph, the biggest ‘serious’ UK newspaper (right-of-center, politically) actually takes the trouble to say something slightly sensible about energy prices, global-warming and President Trump in the same breath.
In a sensible universe that certainly ought to seem obvious, and only a very small mercy. But The Telegraph, while not The Guardian, still has plenty of other contributors who have difficulty joining up the dots and who may well frequently and unthinkingly regurgitate the global warming spiel from the state-financed broadcasting company, the BBC.

Thus on the first of this month, on their Science page, the BBC spewed forth a typical article (no comments allowed yet) titled “Paris climate pullout: the worst is yet to come” together with a large photograph of a well-known US Citizen whose name begins with D- and ends with -onald Trump. Now, The Telegraph may well be the leading conservative newspaper in the UK, but a lot of their employees and readers still watch BBC TV, read the BBC website, and listen to the dominant BBC radio stations. It takes a conscious act of will to make yourself remember that the BBC has an agenda, and a dominant position in shaping UK political discussions. Worse still, the BBC gets to broadcast their political opinions about global warming around the world in more than 40 different languages. I can’t believe they are any more measured, accurate, and truthful about their global warming opinions in Afaan Oromoo, Turkish, or Vietnamese, than they are in English.

Reply to  michael hart
June 4, 2018 2:08 am

BBC failed, young people are NOT looking at BBC, they look at their tweeter feed with youtube video and links, very few of them coming for BBC or newspaper.
Which is a trouble, since [insert political side] people only connect with [same] point of view, not even knowing what other are really saying (except of course when someone cross a line, then they will eagerly bash him down). And BBC trying to herd cats into toeing the line just make them angry, making thing worse.

Joel O'Bryan
June 3, 2018 12:14 pm

“Energy prices are falling.”

then the next paragraph.:
“Energy prices are rising.”

Which is it?

Maybe he meant “in the US” in the former, and “in Germany and Japan” in the latter, but that is not well written. Just merely manipulative writing.

Keith R Jurena
June 3, 2018 12:35 pm

Both Fe and Al production from ore emit carbon dioxide. Al is further complicated as the energy must be electric and its low atomic weight and valence of three means a lot more energy..

Increasing tariff means less dumping and less carbon Charlie Sheen was want to say ” WINNING”.

Of course I doubt this will have any effect on third world emissions of carbon dioxide. Or that carbon dioxide is an issue. Plants have to eat.

June 3, 2018 1:20 pm

the funky and untranslatable “Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire”,

There is no translation to real French language (of real French people) either. It’s like “la mobilité inclusive(sic)“. (Although it might have to do with lots of subsidies for non viable projects and many gifts to useless parasitic associations “d’intérêt public”.)

Il considère que la réponse aux enjeux écologiques actuels, -climat, pollutions, épuisement des ressources-, ne sera apportée que par une société qui intègre le vivre ensemble et l’inclusion.

Ecological challenges (plural), climate, pollutions (plural), resources exhaustion, the living togetherness and inclusion.

Bingo challenge passed!

Reply to  simple-touriste
June 4, 2018 1:57 am

I find it easy to translate, actually
“transition” is “transition”, “change”(in german “wende”)
“ecologique” is “green”
“solidaire” is “socialist”
So he is minister for changing [France] into green socialism.

Alan Watt Climate Denialist, Level 7
June 3, 2018 5:42 pm

Note to Charles Moore & the Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Trump ceased being “Mr.” on January 20, 2017 when he took the oath of office and became “President Trump”. As much as I disliked President Obama’s policies, never for a minute did I think he should be called “Mr. Obama”. I understand many people don’t like President Trump’s policies and demeanor but that’s precisely the point: if he were just “Mr. Trump” they wouldn’t care. “President Trump”, on the other hand, cannot be ignored.

Reply to  Alan Watt Climate Denialist, Level 7
June 4, 2018 7:55 am

In Obama’s case, since he declared that he was only the president of “his people” (meaning people who agree with and support him, not color), he relieved me of the obligation of treating him like a president.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 4, 2018 2:04 am

Trump. One of the great presidents of the USA. USA=Australia’s closest ally. We need a strong USA, otherwise…it is too horrible to contemplate.

Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 4, 2018 8:07 am

Can you say hypersonic weapons?

June 4, 2018 3:52 am

The US Paris treaty exit is not the first time the USA has exited a bad treaty.
It happened after WW1 when the US did not ratify the Versailles treaty:

Though vilified at the time, with hindsight the US exit from Versailles proved to be as wise as Trump’s exit from the Paris climate treaty will also prove to be.

Both Paris climate and Versailles treaties show the capacity of world powers to get it wrong big time, and the US’s ability to – accidentally or otherwise – get it right.

Verified by MonsterInsights