By Michael Bastasch
President Donald Trump has “fundamentally changed” the politics surrounding global warming and energy, according to author and energy policy expert Rupert Darwall. Video follows.
Darwall, author of the book “Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex,” recently sat down with The Daily Caller News Foundation to discuss his book, the Trump administration and climate change.
“Donald Trump has fundamentally changed the whole politics of climate and energy because of pulling out of the Paris agreement, but most of all talking about American energy dominance,” Darwall told TheDCNF.
WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW WITH DARWALL:
“There is no country in the world which has more to lose from decarbonization,” Darwall said. “The United States is the hydrocarbon superpower.”
“It’s got 500 years of reserves of coal, fracking has turned it into the world’s leading supplier of oil and gas, and that fundamental change means the U.S. can go on a different path and take some of the rest of the world with it, one hopes,” Darwall told TheDCNF.
Full story at The Daily Caller
Please ask Pres.TRUMP to visit Australia and tell it like it is, because here we are going downhill fast.
MJE
Wouldn’t going downhill in Australia mean you are going uphill?
The maps of the world are all shown the wrong way up. Australia and New Zealand are really at the top of the world.
I get vertigo every time I think about it!
nw sage: MeToo. Oh wait….
Of course. Fundamental anthropic principle.
Given relativity, where one happens to be is always the centre of the known universe.
PS. Anyone else think that if – say – the ‘alt-right’ has wanted to get to Obama and Clinton they would have done a better job?
OTOH it’s a PERFECT excuse for…..watch this space.
the list of recipients was spot on, whoever did it
every one corrupt and should be in court- then a cute orange onesie
Arctic is warmer than Antarctica. Heat rises so north is obviously up.
It’s all downhill from the Equator:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge
Except for a few lumpy bits here and there.
Given the axis of Earth’s rotation, IMO, if you want to be Southern Hemisphericocentric or Antipodean chauvinistic, then Antarctic is at the top of the world.
If the Antarctic was at the top, wouldn’t it be the Arctic?
As far as I can tell there’s nothing in the word “Arctic” to denote “top”, so no. Since Antarctic means opposite of Arctic, if Antarctic was the top, then the Arctic would be the bottom.
Wait until the Earth’s magnetic field reverses.
The unusual letter sequence “arct” comes from the Greek “arktos” or “arktikos” meaning “bear”. The Arctic is therefore the land of the bear (the Big Dipper is part of the constellation Ursa major = Big bear; the North Star, Polaris, is the brightest star in Ursa minor = Little bear).
So John Endicott is right that “arctic” does not mean “top” (or “bottom”).
You could have the luck of electing a Parliment that actually cares for their constituents.
A couple of friends of mine recently visited Australia and their take from the people they talked to there is that Australians laugh at President Trump and my friends don’t think he would be very welcome there.
because our media loved ohbummer n the killer queen
abc especially run antitrump daily
as do most msm media
i dont like him much but hes prob the most honest pres youve elected.
or started out that way…seems to be slipping a bit ie syria sauds etc
He would not be allowed entry. And quite frankly I don’t think he would lose too much sleep over it.
Just because I can…
No reason nuclear can’t put the rest to shame. Politics keep it from happening.
Trump’s smart enough to see they are all talking out of both sides of their mouth…
CO2 is a dangerous gas that’s going to kill us all…we have to cut emissions
…the vast majority of countries can increase CO2 emissions
Thereby guaranteeing CO2 levels will increase……
They don’t care about climate or co2, they just want our money. US dollars, please.
Politicizing carbon dioxide has created a situation similar to the Middle Ages when the Church was selling “indulgences” — essentially tickets to heaven, if you gave enough money to key authorities. In the Climate Theocracy, if you give enough tax money, lip service, and/or carbon credits to key authorities, they promise you that Mother Earth will be appeased. Better yet, if you harm your domestic economy at no benefit to the atmosphere, climate, or rest of the earth — as Australia is doing — you can claim higher virtue, and snub your Anglo-American allies.
Australia is 1/3rd of 1% of global population. Less than Shanghai metro, less than 1/4th of the most heavily industrialized metro surrounding the Pearl Delta in SE China, only a bit more than half of the State of California. China has been the big kid on the carbon block for 25 years. China has no intention of slowing their rate of development, or slowing their use of Australian coal and iron ore to do it. Nothing Australia does or doesn’t do can move the CO2 needle globally. But if China can pit Australia against the U.S., China can chisel both countries to greater trade advantages for China.
Getting sucker-punched and demonstrating superior virtue are becoming indistinguishable.
China has no intention of slowing their rate of development…
— but they’ll be willing to lend you money to give back to them in order to do the things that they were going to do anyway, which is to phase out some dirty coal plants and build new ones. But concerns over pollution are the driving factor.
Hit the nail on the head there, Tom G
good on ya mate!
Nice video. Excellent scoffing and scorn from Darwall. Telling it the way it should be told a lot more often.
He could be the Anti-BBC.
Good interview with Rupert Darwall. And a very good point that we basically measuring temps from an arbitrary starting point when the world was just ending a long term cooling trend with the LIA prior to any heavy industrialization making it look like a sharper increase in temps the last 100-200 years coincidental with industrialization. Most of it is natural variation, depending when you start counting, the same reason there was a LIA and medieval warming. We are beginning to understand all that now. And I don’t think we could have 7.4 billion people on the planet without causing some additional warming, even if it was only the UHI and land use change albedo. What CO2 is to climate sensitivity may take several more decades of accurate monitoring, but it appears it is low to climate warming and very beneficial to the life of the biosphere.
And even more poignant, that the gains the world has made with industrialization is because of fossil fuels. We certainly wouldn’t have 7.4 billion people on the planet with a relatively benign global climate that provides the dietary needs for so many people. Mostly again because of a FF economy. Why do we demonize the product that gave us such an advanced civilization? Pollution maybe, but not an invisible, odourless, trace GHG that is measured in parts per million of the atmosphere. Which we are close to running out of (CO2 at 180 ppmv for life) at the depths of ice ages, which is the normal the last 2.6 million years.
Thank goodness that Trump brought some sanity to this global debate. Maybe this will be his greatest legacy viewed from the distant future.
Earthling2
To the best of my knowledge, there is not one single, credible, scientific study, empirically derived, which demonstrates atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm one iota. Far less mans contribution which is miniscule compared to natural increases.
This renders every scientific study predicated on CO2 as a warming medium worthless.
You may be right HotScot, and would be fascinating if we could read a climate report from 2100 AD now that tells us definitively what happened between now and then. It is probably too early to say, although we don’t have a double blind study because we don’t have a 2nd Earth that remained the same as it would have had not been for humans and FF’s.
I think there is a small, net warming directly from CO2, but it is mostly greatly advantageous for life on the good Earth. The big swindle is that they are just assuming that water vapour is going to take over as an amplification for runaway warming. By that logic, it could also cause cooling. I very much doubt that is the case either way.
If we use the precautionary principal, then it is advantageous from a cooling perspective as an insurance policy for some small thermal warming inertia, and also on the same precautionary principal, it would be vastly detrimental and unfair to 7.4 billion people now who rely on FF’s to slow down the utilization of such.
The next dozen years will probably tells us definitely that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is low and no cause for alarm. They just said last week we only have 12 more years until we fry if we don’t ‘do something’. If that don’t come true, then it is game over for the CAGW crowd. Let’s just hope that we don’t get any severe cooling for any reason, which actually would be catastrophic, as we see throughout all of history it is cooling that is so destructive, and never warming.
To the best of my knowledge, there is not one single, credible, scientific study, empirically derived, which demonstrates ‘gravity’ causes objects to fall..
In the other hand there is not one single, credible, scientific study, empirically derived, which demonstrates that it does not…
If you want to attack climate change, at least do so on the correct grounds.
There are many, credible, scientific studies, empirically derived, which demonstrate atmospheric CO2 does not cause the planet to warm significantly.
Science is inductive propositions. Inductive propositions have no demonstrable truth content. They can only be disproved by failing to predict accurately.
Leo Smith
Agreed.
However, if one can’t demonstrate the single underlying tenet to one’s hypothesis in 40 years of trying, and I understand there have been numerous attempts, then there is something seriously flawed with the hypothesis, surely?
And it is far easier to illustrate the abject failure of those making a claim when one says “prove it” and they can’t.
It surely isn’t right that the IPCC is consigning the western world to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars on something they can’t demonstrate in the wild.
And I acknowledge Earthling2’s point that there is no spare earth with which to conduct a double blind comparison, in which case, why have scientist’s even bothered to attempt to empirically demonstrate CO2 is the problem?
You are of course absolutely correct and doubtless far better qualified than me to comment, but the moment someone says “science has proven CO2 is harmless in the atmosphere” they are consigned to the status of sceptic, denier, heretic etc.
I know it’s playing games but it’s what the alarmists do. Nor do they like it when challenged with it. Our latest alarmist contributor here Kristsi hates being asked it because she has no answer and goes into a real foot stamping little strop.
Has the fact that there are 7.4 billion people on the planet become the primary driver of the social and political turmoil that is erupting over much of the globe?
Trump’s election was worth it for that all by itself.
Let’s hope it keeps up.
I totally agree. If Trump didn’t do anything else, I’d be happy with his presidency for pulling us out of Paris.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I recall from only a few years ago my electricity and gas bills combined were around £80 per month, I guess 4 or 5 years ago. My combined gas and electricity bill this month, after a warm UK summer and incredibly mild autumn (fall) is £180. MAY God forbid we had a crappy autumn because my bills would probably have been £300+!
Our UK government cynically encouraged ‘switching’ web sites that consumers could almost conduct a Dutch auction for their bills, or so they thought, to distract from the very real dramatic increase in energy bills because of their irrisponsible invetment in renewable energy.
If it meant something I would be amongst the first to cough up extra cash but I damn well know Bill payers and taxpayers are being scammed to line the pockets of industry, which is where many retired politicians find themselves.
It was a couple of years ago – maybe 3 – when people got very pissed because car fuel reached £1 a litre. I am now paying £1.40
40% inflation in 3 years is real austerity.
“I am now paying £1.40” Wow. IF I did the math correctly, that’s ~$6.88 USD per gallon (US). Is most of that in taxes?
Absolutely. The wholesale pre-tax cost of gasoline in the US is about $2.15/gallon.
IF I did the math correctly, that’s ~$6.88 USD per gallon (US). Is most of that in taxes?
Undoubtedly. From an article in the telegraph from 2014 (I’d be very surprised if the percentages have declined since then):
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10668970/British-fuel-tax-highest-in-Europe.html
“For every litre of unleaded petrol bought in the UK, 61 per cent of the pump price goes to the government as fuel duty and VAT along with 59 per cent of every litre of diesel. “
No wonder I’m effing broke!
I’ll let my cynicism kick in here and speak for a bit: it would imagine that the next democrat president will pull the US straight back to hell and go even deeper. I admire (almost) all of Trump’s efforts but I imagine most of it will be undone in the future.
That’s the problem with using Executive Orders vs. Congress. What one President does another can undo just as fast. Obama is crying up a storm over the destruction of his legacy by Trump undoing his EO’s but yeah, the next Democratic president is likely to re-enact everything Obama did then pile on top of that.
Indeed. We’ve seen it before (on a smaller scale) with the Mexico City Policy aka the global gag rule. First implemented by Ronald Reagan, undone by Clinton, reinstituted by Bush, undone again by Obama, and brought back by Trump, and likely to be undone once again as soon as another Democrat gets into the white house. And on it goes.
As an antidote to cynical defeatism on this, wasn’t it an American President who said,
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
Here in Canada, I see plenty of signs of Abraham Lincoln’s stated principle of the truth eventually coming out, especially the truth about global warming being a “put on”. The anti “carbon tax” outcome of the latest Ontario election (almost forty percent of Canada’s population) may be the most obvious sign of this. At the same time, here in my own province, Saskatchewan, I have a sense that people have generally come to be skeptical, despite all prior trust in left wing media outlets endorsing the alarm.
Now, if you have any perspective that says the general perception here in North America is likely to apply in the Western democracies generally, what kind of world is the next Democratic President likely to be facing? Plus, I’m sure that all you “deplorables” in the U.S. are mostly proud to be a Deplorable?
It just seems to me that even a lot of “left of center” folks are going to be stricken with a deplorably persuasive brand of common sense, not able to be fooled all the time after all! Lots of reasons to think this is a permanent shift in perception — and Trump’s stolid rejection of authoritatively science-like B.S. has certainly been encouraging, helping the whole “trust us” machine to lose public credibility.
Drill baby drill!
About damned time!!!!!!! Leftarded f&cktards have had too much influence for far too long.
I think the US is largely, the best explored country in the world.
Socialism or being ruled by dictator [not a big difference] prevents exploration of a Nation’s minerals.
Like many political topics, “climate change” is one that I’m sure our government knows is a bunch of crap but had given “lip service” to as an appeasement to globalists at the U.N. President Trump reviewed the facts and called “BS.” I love his honesty and common sense about a ridiculous attempt by the U.N. to engage in these carbon scheme policies. It took true leadership to tell the rest of the world where to go. Long live Trump!
Yeah, it’s funny. The left complain that Trump isn’t leading the world on CAGW by buying into the scam. But it’s not leading when you are simply following the herd. Trump is leading by *not* joining in with the rest of the lemmings.