CNN Notices Climate Change Policies Hurt Poor People

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Their prescription of course is more socialism.

Why President Macron’s U-turn is a warning for climate leaders

By Mark Lynas
Updated 0921 GMT (1721 HKT) December 31, 2018

(CNN) The humiliation of President Emanuel Macron should be a cautionary tale for any world statesman or woman considering taking on the mantle of climate leadership.

In October the French president was “auditioning to be leader of the free world” at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, with tackling global warming a centerpiece of his pitch.

Two months later an abashed and humbled Macron backtracked on French national television in the face of sustained violent protests by the “gilet jaunes” (yellow jackets) movement.

The immediate cause of the protests? The carbon taxes on petrol and diesel that Macron had only recently touted as evidence of French leadership on mitigating climate change. As cars and barricades burned on the streets of Paris, Macron’s climate policies also went up in smoke.

Professor Pielke’s “iron law” was first proposed in his 2010 book “The Climate Fix,” and it runs as follows: “When policies focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reduction, it is economic growth that will win out every time.

There is a way around the “iron law,” but it means coming up with climate policies that defend and enhance the jobs and livelihoods of working people rather than undermining them.

The buzz-phrase for this is “just transition” — an idea developed by the trade union movement which aims to make the transition to a low carbon economy fair on those who otherwise stand to lose out, especially workers in high carbon industries.

Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/31/opinions/macron-warning-climate-leaders/

I guess there are a few details to work out, like if expensive and economically damaging climate policies suck all the money out of the economy, where will the cash come from to fund the “just transition”?

Perhaps we should be encouraged that CNN have finally noticed the ordinary people they have been trampling all these years, all those voters who didn’t show up in defective CNN election polls which predicted a Clinton win.

Advertisements

171 thoughts on “CNN Notices Climate Change Policies Hurt Poor People

  1. “Green subsidies”are the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich since the Sheriff of Nottingham rode for Prince John.

    • But it is not theft, nor could ever be, as long as those in power bother to make the laws that legitimize it all. We should be eternally grateful for such beneficent care.

    • Well put, Peter!

      The fundamental problem of “putting a social price on Carbon” [in view of its ostensible negative externalities] is that these ‘geniuses’ forgot to take into account the far greater social benefit derived from exploiting Carbon in today’s society!

      The acknowledgment that Carbon-based fuels indeed account for 4/5 of human beings’ energy needs underlines the undeniable importance of fossil fuels! Until a viable (dispatchable, affordable, plentiful) alternative is discovered or developed, Coal, Oil and Gas will continue to rule.

      • They are also estimating so called “social cost” on unscientific extrapolation way outside the data on the basis of faulty models.

        Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out the REAL social cost of wasting these massive amounts of money on the “carbon” crusade.

        • The social cost of carbon pollution mitigation strategies, as they are euphemistically called, is so high that the society will be destroyed long before the problem is “mitigated”.

          There are two sets of vultures waiting to take control of the entire planet in that event: political parties intent on grabbing all the power with a slim majority of the votes, and finance houses intending to make themselves an essential part of every transaction between humans, taxing the exchange of value.

      • “Until a viable (dispatchable, affordable, plentiful) alternative is discovered or developed, Coal, Oil and Gas will continue to rule.”

        The anti-carbon stupor is only happening because of the daft anti-science lies that we permit to be spread in society about ‘carbon’.

        And that’s certainly not going to stop until ‘teachers’ who impart this anti-carbon brainlessness are told by Govt and especially the community, to shut it, or get a pay-cut of $5,000 per year for two years each time, or mandatory sacking on the third offense.

        Then there’s the problem of Universities and Colleges who are teaching these ‘teachers’ to do it – Sacked outright. And abolish all seats of protected ‘tenure’. It’s become a vehicle for intellectual, professional and societal corruption. And if it’s a public university doing it then remove 5% of their staff budget for 2 years with every instance. If it’s a private University increase their taxation liability 5% with each instance.

        And then there’s the media who mouth these lies as though that’s all they were ever set up to do. In which case, shut them down for a month, off air completely, each time they permit lies to go to air. They will clean up their act over night. It’s the owners who let them do it. So hold them to financial account for it, for breach of the conditions of their broadcast license and responsibilities.

        Hitting the hip-pocket nerve would sort them all out quickly. And the means to do so probably already exists, it just isn’t being used.

        They would suddenly realize (once more) that being a paid professional means you earn a living and have a boss or client who expects a certain minimum level of mandatory behaviors and performance or you’re not going to get any more work or money. And that which you have will go away until you perform. Everyone else has to meet professional KPIs and standards, but not the people causing this whole anti-carbon nonsense to fester and spiral? It’s only occurring because we didn’t quash their nonsense at the beginning.

        Same applies to the IPCC, the people of states much insist that Govts cut the UN budget unless they shut it. If they insist on their right or role to continue to lie to the world about it, then never pay the UN again.

        I see zero reason for society to let such people dictate terms of what lies they can spread to the population who feeds them, and to which they think they have no professional responsibility, or can define and oversee their own actions.

        Politicians are no different, fail to perform you lose your term ‘tenure’, and you lose the job and salary for a month. On the third offense you are auto-dismissed from office and money paid to you to-date recovered from your private assets forfeit, if necessary. They would clean up their acts overnight and begin to actually perform in the pubic interest.

        How else are they ever going to be directed to focus on doing their job, instead of grandstanding and doing something else entirely and creating disastrous policies?

        The liberal ideology that’s endlessly worshiped by such has led us into serious structural errors in the way we conduct the processes of education, media and politics, and we are not catching the blow-back of letting it go on for much too long. Doing nothing won’t make the anti-carbon stupidity go away, and the system to function as opposed to dysfunction.

        It’s ultimately the actually unregulated self-defining and re-defining of roles and responsibilities by usurping self-centered extremist ideological liberalism which has to be hit in the hip pocket nerve, before their incentives to amp mass-hysteria moderates within our currently excessively radical-liberalism-tolerant society.

        Combine that with the obvious need for a separation of both Media and State, and Science and State, and you might actually get a society you can be proud of once more. Radical-liberalism without discipline or the hip-pocket stick leads to this on-going absurdity. Radical-liberalism doesn’t have a capacity to self-regulate its own spiral-craziness, so they must be limited more clearly and bounds set to prevent them from freely spreading harm and dysfunction within our society.

        2c

        • A simple rule to live by is whenever you hear anyone say “carbon pollution”, you know you are in the presence of a moron, especially a scientific moron. At that point you can simply ignore anything they say about anything. Not only climate. They’re imbeciles.

          • Go and live next to a coal-fired power station then if you think this. Then let’s see if you think there is no carbon pollution. You’re the one who is the imbecile in my opinion – you obviously are a true fossil fuels believer/advocate who is in the ssme league as AGW ideologists i.e. no different in your ‘religious’ fervour.

    • The poor being in the west, 1st world, and the rich being in the east, second world. Like Pachurri etc.

      • Some may be in the developing nations, but just as many are wealthy first worlders that are deep into the trough. Renewables owners, ‘Climate Communicators’, Green NGO’s, the list of those in on the scam is long.

        ~¿~

    • “Green subsidies”are the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich since the Sheriff of Nottingham rode for Prince John.

      Actually, it’s lotteries and casinos doing that, buT they’re slightly better gambles than green subsidies.

      • But lotteries and casino gambling are CHOICES people make, not mandatory expenses decreed by the government.

      • While I won’t dispute the economics of the lottery and gambling, how does the lottery transfer wealth to the rich. Yes, I understand the poor spend a higher percentage of their incomes on the lottery, but the winnings and the income don’t go to the rich.

        • Also why should green subsidies be a transfer from the poor to the rich? How can this completely generalised, unsubstantiated and subject statement be supported? Who exactly are the rich benefitting from these subsidies? It is a complete load of B.S. frankly. The guy just has a grudge against renewables and comes out with drivel like this.

          • Who owns the wind farms, Ivan? Might you not think they are deriving some benefit from their investments in green prayer wheels and unctious politicians?

          • Why is it transfer from poor people to rich people? Explain this in detail please. Give me an exact concrete example.

          • In the US, utility ratepayers to Warren Buffett, a major investor in wind farms. And you already knew that, Ivan, so don’t play ignorant.

          • I realize that economics is not a very exciting science, but you can’t understand the human condition without it. Mr. Kinsman doesn’t really grasp most Americans spend all or nearly all of their income, SAVING almost nothing. Subsidies to green energy producers (mostly owned by rich people) are usually indirect. Non-green energy producers are forced to buy green energy at inflated prices and pass the costs on to the consumer. Direct payments are little trickier. Borrowing just pushes the day of reckoning down the street.

            Who will sit and freeze in the cold when they can’t pay their heating bills? The billionaires? Or the poor, the elderly and the poor living on fixed incomes? Have a heart, Mr. Kinsman. The policies you advocate are cruel in their effect. And they’re all due to the hysterical whining of the climate alarmists and former Communists. Got to do something right now or the climate will go crazy, boiling all of us to death. Power to the coming world government.

    • The BBC World Service describes the protests as being against austerity, the exact opposite of the truth.

      • Sadly, I’m afraid that you’re probably mistaken about that climanrecon.

        I think that you will find that only a minority of gilets jaunes are climate change skeptics. Most of them just want the rich to pay the “necessary costs of saving the planet”, just as they expect the rich to pay for all of their social benefits as part of the “social contract”

        (BTW, the rich are those who make 1 EUR/yr more than they do). The French are not so different in this from the Brits or for that matter the Occasional-Cortex Green New Dealers in the US.

        • The BBC is generally pretty objective, except when it comes to illegal economic immigration where it is completely biased in favour of the immigrants. It is also way too politically correct.
          However, in terms of climate change issues it is unbiased, as well as its coverage of Trump – which, as you would expect, is generally negative because they see him for the incompetent moron that he truly is 🙂

          • Ivan, your statement that the BBC is unbiased in its coverage of climate change issues is probably the stupidest thing that I have ever read on WUWT and that is saying something.

  2. The answer to this “transition” problem is quite simple: simply banish all state aid to the Power Generation industry in all forms such as subsidies, tax breaks and guaranteed minimum prices as well as prioritizing renewables over all other power systems. Then let the market sort out the problem in the open, competitive, and free market provided. Suppliers would then have to spend massively on R&D for new innovative base load renewable power generation systems that can provide power on demand and up to their plate rated capacity in the cost leadership commodity market that power generation should be, simply to maintain market share or even survive.

    • macawber…your first sentence seems contradictory. How does one “banish all state aid to the Power Generation industry” and then ‘prioritize’ renewables? Doesn’t the word ‘prioritize’ imply some kind of state aid to renewables creating an unlevel playing field?

      If the market was truly free of government interference, the keystone pipeline would be complete and the only windmills you would see would be the small versions on private farms pumping water out of the ground. In a free market, renewables would quickly be ‘prioritized’ to a novelty act.

      • You misunderstand what I intended, possibly because I missed a comma after “prices”. It should have read, banish all state aid………………………. …………as well as prioritising renewables!

        • Macawber, how does the government “prioritise renewables” other than the tax code or policy doing the same thing indirectly through utility regulations?
          It is still subsidy mining or rent seeking by the wind and solar promoters and investors.

          • It dictates that the UK National Grid uses all renewable energy currently available in preference to available cheaper fossil fuelled power, regardless of cost.

          • Regardless of cost!!!! I can think of no greater subsidy than that. Under that policy, I will move to England, build a windmill out of 2X4’s and wax paper, generate a few watts of electricity, (which the grid must purchase from me because there is not enough renewable electricity to go around) and charge the grid an exorbitant price that lets me live like a king!

            The reality is that you cannot prioritize renewable energy AND have a free market. The concepts are quite contradictory.

      • Well, I didn’t read it as “using the normal depreciation schedules to write down equipment values”, but rather stop paying a $0.60 per kWh premium for using “renewables” generation and get back to the $0.07-$0.14 or so that the market sans taxes seems to support. Of course we still need to have some basic clean technology enforcement, but CO2 isn’t even on my list of concerns.

  3. it means coming up with climate policies that defend and enhance the jobs and livelihoods of working people rather than undermining them

    At this point invoke the cartoon: And then a miracle happens.

  4. Who hates Macron?
    His masters now hate him more than the protesters.
    UN + fund managers + merchant bankers + academics + board members of Siemens and GE & Co are huddled together working plan B (it doesn’t include Macron).
    The boiling frog fable will underpin their next assault on taxpayers.
    France first was a strategic blunder.
    Will it be Denmark or Sweden next, or perhaps the gullible UK?

    • Don’t be fooled by claims Macron backed down or did a U-turn. Diesel is still the same price a petrol ( gasoline ) here. And the tax on gross fortunes ( 4bn euro present for the super rich ) had still not been reinstated.

      The rise in minimum wage was already due over next 3 years, he just advaced it a bit.

      The bankers are very happy with how he defused the situation with minimal ground really being given.

      • True, but don’t let that fool you into think no ground was given. Marcon did back down (at least for now) on the new carbon tax that sparked the protests in the first place. While it’s a small victory, it’s still a victory non-the-less.

        • Canada is the new carbon tax crash test dummy. It was invoked arbitrarily yesterday throughout the nation and the result will be painful at the ballot box: it will be $50/ton in a few years.

    • Yes, Jamal!

      There is a fundamental “disconnect” amongst NGOs and other so-called “climate policy” wonks on the very crass fact that “combating climate change” inexorably means making fossil fuel based energy more expensive, which in turn is horribly regressive (hurts the poorest the hardest). Thus, climate policy and anti-poverty efforts are diametrically opposed to one another. Arguing that they go “hand in hand” is the quintessence of sophomoric hubris.

      This can only change when viable, affordable, plentiful and dispatchable energy sources are discovered / developed.

        • Alas,

          Nuclear power is a dispatchable, reliable and near-universally deployable electricity source. Unfortunately, Greens have been largely successful in making it politically impossible if not overly expensive in most of the W. World.

          But it does not replace fossil fuels as a source for industrial heat or transportation.

          • Terrestrial Energy’s’molten salt reactor produces heat at 650C. Their reactor is six times more fuel efficient than light water reactors, 1/6th the cost, has no fuel rods to melt, has no phase changes in coolant, requires 1/3 the amount of uranium to run as a light water reactor, and so on.

            The Terrestrial Reactor can be mass produced. It produces heat cheaper than coal.

            That is more than adequate for industrial heat.

            The light water pressure reactors produces heat at 315C which requires special cost turbines to handle the wet steam.

            The pressure water reactors are old and dangerous. Anyway, subject for another thread.

          • Notice a pattern?
            They desire to eliminate stable energy sources that can store fuel and be more tolerant to interruptions.

            They wanted to get rid of the most stable energy first: nuclear.
            Then they went on an insane scheme to stop hydro.
            Then when successful, went for the third most: coal.
            So naturally heating oil must follow, then natural gas which can stop as fast as the pipe is breached or otherwise stopped.

            And they will only replace these things that can be stopped as soon as the sun sets.

            They don’t want resilience in the system. Make the paranoid wonder why.

      • There is no separation of climate policies and anti-poverty efforts. The UNEP “green fund” for all but first world Western nations is the per capita pittance given back to those less developed. It is meant to increase by hundreds of billions per year once instituted. Sure this will hurt the “poor” in Western nations, but it will be given the “very poor” in other nations. The transfer of wealth throughout the world, administered by a global government, is the goal. That world government, of course, will be controlled by the elite bankers, hedge funders, insurance magnates etc. The gap between the very wealthy and powerful and the peons continues to widen. Single individuals or small groups are already capable of destroying currencies, industries and currently sovereign nations. Much more attention should be given to what happens behind the scene at Davos and the Bilderberg meetings, than at the national government levels. Macron, Obama, Merkel and others are pawns of the “families” that control the wealth. There is a much bigger game here than what hits the headlines daily.

  5. With the chance of the UK leaving the EU without a deal in their favour being high, then the financial situation in the UK, at last in the short term will be poor.

    Therefore there will be more pressure from the voters against supporting a expensive Green based energy system. So if people can no longer afford to pay for electricity, that should finish off any support that the Greens may have had.

    MJE

      • LdB true. A brief visit to UK showed that the largest hit on the EU from a no deal ‘hard’ BREXIT will be to its automakers who will lose a huge market overnight if the petulance of the EU ‘negotiators’ is instantiated.

    • Michael

      Leaving the EU with no deal was always the default position and leaving should have been negotiated as such. We’re in the mess we are because Theresa May went to to the EU begging for a deal and on that basis, she got what she deserved, a crap deal.

      There is no deal other than no deal that will benefit the UK now. Indeed, I doubt there could ever have been a deal favourable to the UK, no deal was always the best deal.

      There is no evidence whatsoever that the financial outlook for the UK will be poor other than ‘models’ (and don’t we just love those on WUWT). Remainers made all these scare claims when we voted Brexit and precisely the opposite happened.

      I’m not going to make any claims as to the UK’s future prosperity but I’m damn sure nothing will make any difference to green policies other than us working with Trump. By way of example, look at Scotland, taxes have been raised under the socialist SNP and the country is awash with useless wind turbines. Itis the archetypal boiling frog. Everyone distracted by firstly, their run for independence then Brexit and now the squealing for the question of independence to be revisited. Meanwhile, socialism becomes ever more intrusive cloaked by caring, sharing and green PC values.

      Despite being amongst the poorest country in the UK, the SNP are successfully robbing the population blind, to progress renewable energy. Tragically, most are oblivious to it. There is even an emerging crisis with useless, expensive, heavily subsidised domestic rooftop solar panels, where subsidies are being withdrawn and householders are stuck with an expensive liability on their roof’s reducing the value of their properties. Yet still they are oblivious to what’s going on.

      A successful, or otherwise, Brexit will make no difference whatsoever to the green zealots.

      • “I’m not going to make any claims as to the UK’s future prosperity but I’m damn sure nothing will make any difference to green policies other than us working with Trump.”

        Trump is eager to make a big, beautiful trade deal with the UK. Currently, the EU elites stand in the way of a deal.

        The EU elites stand in the way of a lot of things, don’t they.

      • What about Shetland, Rockall, south of England?
        There’s masses more oil, gas and coal there.

        If the British dropped all this stupid enviro nonsense, expanded its own refining operations again it could easily be energy self sufficient.

        It strikes me, this is the very last thing the EU commission want to see,- a wealthy country not having to beg for every last permission to act, from an unelected bunch of Brussels bureaucrats.
        If the climate gets significantly colder, & they bankrupt the EU under “energy transitions” they will be begging on the hands and knees within less than 3-5yrs.

  6. Luna’s is horribly condescending – he, the wise one, “knows” that anti-Carbon policy is the ‘right’ one, the fossil fuel workers have been duped:

    “…the demands of working people who — while they may accept the science of climate change — still feel that being forced to pay more for their fuel threatens their jobs and livelihoods in the immediate term.”

    “…imagine being a coal miner — or an oil refinery worker, or anyone that works in the fossil fuels that still account for 80% of the world’s energy — and being told that your job is killing the planet and destroying the lives of your grandchildren.

    Of course you will vote for the populist who tells you that you are still a good person and that the job you are doing is worthwhile.”

    Justin Gillis of the NYT did a similar Op-Ed the other day, concluding that the Carbon Tax, while important, was not the tool to be used first. Better to start with something seemingly more benign, then spring on the Carbon Tax once the Climate Redemption Party is in Power and it’s too late to return to a fossil-fuel economy.

    Print edition of Sat. 29 Dec.
    https://www.google.ch/url?sa=i&source=undefined&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwi-74-bnsjfAhVrMOwKHUS0C6EQzPwBCAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2018%2F12%2F27%2Fopinion%2Fcarbon-tax-climate-change.html&psig=AOvVaw2p7nqQoHrn5G3Y2DmpV0Al&ust=1546282736595525

  7. The reality is that based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change that we have been experienced is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. This is all a matter of science.

    The carbon tax will not serve to lower CO2 emissions by cutting the use of fossil fuels because those paying the tax have no viable alternatives. So for many reasons, carbon taxes will have no effect on climate change and will not return any value to those paying the taxes. An alternative to the use of fossil fuels will be used as long it is both viable and cheaper. Carbon taxes are not needed. Positive reinforcement always works better than negative reinforcement.

    • There is extremely clear correlation between carbon emissions and warming climate. Of course it can be just a huge, extremely unlikely, coincidence that these 2 phenomena overlap almost perfectly, there is no denying that. It goes without saying that correlation does not prove causation. However fact is that with such a strong correlation between emissions and warming it would be outright idiotic to claim these 2 are not connected in any manner. And I stress once again, it’s possible climate scientists have made a mistake, yes.
      The ultimate bottom line is if we fail to take action and the proverbial **** hits the fan in next 100-200 years with runaway global warming, it’s a little late for you and other climate change deniers to be say “Sorry, we were wrong”, while on the other outcome the todays climate scientists would be laughed at for spectacular failure, but their failure will not make millions to starve while crops fail and societies collapse with runaway global warming.
      You can all sleep well in your hubris thinking we are living in some society of extraordinary unprecedented stability, end-of-history as some say, but reality is that 2-3 years of consecutive crops failures on 2 major continents will cause millions of deaths, societal collapses and probable implosion of global economy. There are no huge buffers of food to fallback on, and if everyone starts hunting or fishing humans can easily collapse typical game animal populations in 1 year.

      • Statist: wow! That sounds scary. I’m scrapping my fossil fuel powered car, burning the furniture to keep warm and going green right now! Mr. Trudeau, please raise my carbon tax immediately just in case you’re right about global warming.

      • Statist,
        So because sometime in the future bad things COULD happen, we should make even worse things happen NOW. Got it. Thanks for your clearly reasoned assessment.
        Mike

      • “but reality is that 2-3 years of consecutive crops failures on 2 major continents will cause millions of deaths, societal collapses and probable implosion of global economy. :

        The only way that will happen is if it gets colder.

      • Sadist, what about all the times when temperatures went up while CO2 levels went down?
        What about all the times when temperatures went down while CO2 levels went up?

        Even in the last 100 years, temperatures went up, down, and stayed steady, all while CO2 levels were going up.

        This alleged correlation that has your panties in a wad doesn’t exist and never has.

        If that’s all you got, then give up and find another excuse.

        PS: More CO2 and warmer weather is good for crops. Always has been.

      • Stadist I disagree. Show me any correlation between CO2 rising causing the temp increase, I see the exact opposite. Looking at the ice cores from the law dome shows temp rising 800 to 1000 years before the CO2 increased. So it would seem to me that the temperature change caused the CO2 to rise. Not the other way around. Also since the CO2 level has been as high as 7000 ppm I feel it is unlikely that we will experience runaway global warming at a paltry 400 ppm. The onus is on you to prove not on me to disprove.

        • 100 years ago, temperatures were lower.
          100 years ago, CO2 levels were lower.

          That’s the limit of Stadist’s ability to calculate “correlation”. The fact that temperatures wiggled all over the chart during that time period is conveniently left out.

          Basically, it’s lying via statistics.

      • Stadist: There is extremely clear correlation between carbon emissions and warming climate.

        the only extremely clear correlation between the two is that there is no correlation between the two. In the past century alone, we’ve had periods of co2 up with temps up, co2 up with temps down and co2 up with temps steady.

        Stadist: Of course it can be just a huge, extremely unlikely, coincidence that these 2 phenomena overlap almost perfectly, there is no denying that.

        well, you are certainly denying the reality that they don’t overlap perfectly (see: In the past century alone, we’ve had periods of co2 up with temps up, co2 up with temps down and co2 up with temps steady)

        Stadist: It goes without saying that correlation does not prove causation.

        true, but no correlation pretty much disproves causation.

        Stadist: However fact is that with such a strong correlation between emissions and warming it would be outright idiotic to claim these 2 are not connected in any manner.

        it might be if there was a strong correlation, but there isn’t so the point is moot (again see: In the past century alone, we’ve had periods of co2 up with temps up, co2 up with temps down and co2 up with temps steady)

        Stadist: And I stress once again, it’s possible climate scientists have made a mistake, yes.

        how generous of you to admit that.

        Stadist: The ultimate bottom line is if we fail to take action and the proverbial **** hits the fan in next 100-200 years with runaway global warming, it’s a little late for you and other climate change deniers to be say “Sorry, we were wrong”,

        And if we take expensive unneeded action that ruins economies and lives and it turns out to be a non-issue, its a little late for you and the other climate change totalitarians to be saying “Sorry, we were wrong”. See, the “precautionary principle” works in both directions. The difference is, it’s easier for a prosperous energy rich society to mitigate any “dangers” that a warmer world might bring than it is for a destitute, energy poor society to survive let alone thrive even in a climate that isn’t all that dangerous.

        Stadist: while on the other outcome the todays climate scientists would be laughed at for spectacular failure, but their failure will not make millions to starve while crops fail and societies collapse with runaway global warming.

        no their failure will have made million starve due to fuel poverty, ruined economies, and the collapse of society that their socialist policies would bring (See: Venezuela)

        Stadist: You can all sleep well in your hubris thinking we are living in some society of extraordinary unprecedented stability, end-of-history as some say,

        ?????
        The only hubris is from those on your side who believe man controls the weather.

        Stadist: but reality is that 2-3 years of consecutive crops failures on 2 major continents will cause millions of deaths, societal collapses and probable implosion of global economy.

        Only going to happen if it gets significantly colder (crops actually like the warm over the cold), plants are starved of food (they eat up CO2 and grow better with more of it) and if the economies of the world committed the economic suicide of following your side’s proposed policies (a prosperous, energy rich society can afford to mitigate whatever nature has to throw out way. a destitute, energy poor society not so much).

        Stadist: There are no huge buffers of food to fallback on, and if everyone starts hunting or fishing humans can easily collapse typical game animal populations in 1 year.

        So why support policies that would more likely lead to such a scenario? Prosperous, energy rich societies don’t need to all go out hunting and fishing to survive. destitute, energy poor societies on the other hand do.

        • Two comments
          1) I love how Stadist goes from a rough correlation between CO2 rising and temperatures rising, to a belief that temperatures are about to run away. Who needs science when you’re on a rant.

          2) Stadist dumps and runs, how typical

          • But what if he comes back in 10 years with an argument so effective that it makes us all weep and bow down for his forgiveness at our foolishness. You had better start on an apology post just in case.

          • Even then, it’s easier to dash off a quick apology then (IE mitigate the problem when it happens) than it is to spend the next 10 years agonizing over what to say in that highly unlikely scenario

      • Oh look, a driveby troll spouting Precautionary Principle nonsense and using Appeals to Emotion. And here I thought they had gone extinct.

      • “There is extremely clear correlation between carbon emissions and warming climate.”

        That clear correlation is a fiction. Ever hear of Climategate? The surface temperature records have been modified by CAGW zealots to make it appear that temperatures and CO2 correlate. They did this in order to fool you and millions of other people into believing the temperatures were getting hotter and hotter. They have been very effective at promoting this lie. But the surface temperature record is still a lie. Believe it at your peril.

      • Stadist

        Judging by your confidence in the CO2/global warming correlation there will, of course, be innumerable credible empirical studies done that demonstrate CO2 causes the planet to warm.

        But there aren’t any……….

        You even said it yourself “correlation does not prove causation” so what your belief system says is, fu*k science, we’ll go with what we like to think is causing the problem, not what has been observed.

        When I see a Dog having sex with a Monkey, I’m not going to call the progeny a Donkey until I have scientific proof two dissociated species can interbreed.

        • of course you wouldn’t call it a donkey as there’s already an animal called a donkey and it’s not a dog/monkey hybrid. Mog, on the other hand, is a name that hasn’t been taken yet AFAIK. But other than that small nitpick, you were spot on HotScot

  8. Regardless of any attempt at a “just transition”, us regular folk also notice that the rich and elites are not sacrificing anything in their lifestyles as they demand for us.

    Climate change policies are just another form of socialism. And socialism fails because it fails to understand hardwired innate human psychology of self interest.

    • Joel:

      There is no justice in denying affordable energy to the population.
      The term “just transition” should be rewritten as “ unjust transition “.
      True you say and socialists are just as hard wired as the rest of us, if not more so.
      At least, we capitalists arranged for people to go bust if they get it wrong.

  9. Perhaps we should be encouraged that CNN have finally noticed the ordinary people they have been trampling all these years, all those voters who didn’t show up in defective CNN election polls which predicted a Clinton win.

    The Democrats threw working Americans under the bus. They weren’t worried. Their mantra was “They have nowhere else to go.” When working people voted Republican, the Democrats howled, “But they’re voting against their own interests.”

    Here’s a quote from Adam Smith:

    No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. link

    One class of Americans who are poor and miserable is the middle aged white demographic. They are committing fast suicide or slow suicide by drinking and smoking and risky behavior and substance abuse. They are the only demographic in America whose health has gotten worse. They are desperate and they really don’t care if they bring the whole of society crashing down around their own ears. link Take note of Figure 1 in the link. Holy s***!

    The liberal elite is showing little evidence that they understand what’s going on. They are showing even less evidence that they even want to know what’s going on. As long as the economy doesn’t tank, my guess is that President Trump will be re-elected.

    • My guess is that the reelection of president Trump hinges quite tightly to whether he spends the next 2 years “working the list” of to-do points that underpinned his first election. The Wall, the Economy, taking to task trade with foreign powers that have long taken advantage of us, the Drug Crisis, “draining the swamp” and strengthening the military.

      Whether he busses (old word meaning “kisses lightly on cheek”) the babies, whether he tweets like a bird or not hardly matters. Fulfilling the original almost-outrageously important campaign promises, well … that’s what it will be about.

      To that end though, he definitely has his “ship of state” facing some mighty strong and determined headwinds. The Republicans themselves see competition in reelection from the stewing Democrats, quick to publicly call incumbents out for failing to accomplish (a), (b), (c) or (zed). Coöpting their (Repüblıcan) lack of solidarity. And in that, is the nutshell “of the problem” for Trump: the critters of the Swamp are in both parties, both sides of the aisle.

      As I have weathered “the News” day after day, week after week, month and year after each in turn, I have found myself wish the President, the very best of Luck, the very strongest of Determination to take the entire “elephant in the living room”, and cut it up, pull out the bones, grind it down, and make pölïtical sausage out of it. The Swamp’s Critters need to be taken to task. Repüblıcan, Démocrát and Other.

      Were he (hopefully) to hold out in this 2019 new year, for the Wall up front, then as the year evolves, using similar executive branch presidential powers to cause The House and The Senate to draft meaningful status-quo changing laws, addressing DACA, immigration, racial discord, opiates, imbalanced foreign power trade situations and so on, we might actually see some change, some real beneficial change in the next 2 years.

      In other words, perhaps the only real route to reelection is to Be A Bear: to attend to matters as if it were his 2nd and last term, and by being a “lame duck”, having far more power than any first-term politician otherwise has. Act like a bearish one term president. Push, pull, shove, shout. Let the electorate know exactly how the swamp critters — on both sides — are making a mockery of governance. Let the electorate know, in no uncertain terms, how important our relationship with the world is, trade-wise, economy-wise, environmentally and academically. Remind the electorate that a very, VERY strong military is among the most potent socio-economic international weapons we have, and that we need (and are) keeping our swords sharp, guns clean, manpower trained, aerial, land and sea ‘vehicles’ polished and ready at a moment’s notice.

      That’d be enough.
      Playing it as his last term, with the squinty eyed determination therein, would get him reëlected.
      That’s my feeling, at least.

      Just saying,
      GoatGuy

      • Thank god the Dems now control the House. They will be checking every move Trump makes now and calling him and his yes men to task. There are now 5 Dems who are chairmen of very important House committees starting tomorrow so Trump is boxed in.
        The man is a proven liar who has abused the Presidential office for his own interests. He has overriden experienced personnel like John Kelly and James Mattis and they have had enough. His admnistration is beset by graft and corruption led by the grifter son-in-law Kushner. He lives in his iwn fantasy bubble spending his time tweeting and wstching Fox News all day. He is a complete walking disaster.

        • He reminds me of link.

          A lady was asked how she could possibly support Trump. Her reply was that she didn’t listen to what he was saying, she only paid attention to what he does.

          “Yes we can” was a big disappointment. MAGA looks like it could actually happen.

          Trump does a lot of overtly crazy stuff. The Republican and Democrat establishments were a lot more subtle but it was they who betrayed the American working people. Viewed through that lens, Trump is a breath of fresh air.

        • “He lives in his own fantasy bubble”

          I think you are describing yourself, Ivan. Your analysis of Trump is completely off base. it seems to parrot the standard Leftwing propaganda against Trump.

        • The man is a proven liar who has abused the Presidential office for his own interests. He has overriden experienced personnel …His admnistration is beset by graft and corruption … He lives in his iwn fantasy bubble … He is a complete walking disaster.

          Yeah, but thank god that Obama is no longer president (It was Obama you were describing, right?)

        • Trump has saved the USA, Almost certainly his election prevented civil war. If you liberal dem bloodsucking parasites continue to do what you are doing you will get civil war, when itis over there will be no liberals

          • Now Trump is doing nothing hah, hah, hah. He is prepared to see 800,000 federal employees suffer just to satisfy his damned base. The Dems are now controlling the agenda and all the GOP can do is look on twiddling their fingers.
            Trump is also being held to account by Pelosi who will , and already is, running circles round him because she doesn’t simply tweet and watch Fox News to set her political agenda.
            Never has there been such a useless, incompetent, self-preening, fatuous president in the history of the United States.

          • You are a true baser my friend if that is all you csn come back with. It really does seem that the sun shines out of his arse.

          • The Republicans had their chance to push back against the “Climate Change” folly but they have done nothing. We will now have stalemate on this issue for a couple of years, which I think is a good thing.
            Many of the responders on this list seem to believe that the climate change debate is just a proxy in the left-right wars. It should not be that. It is really about the integrity of science. The warmers love to hurl insults at any who challenge their dogma. Fox news does the same n the right. The real issue of truth vs fake news has never been properly engaged. When will the oil companies get some backbone to fight back against the Al Gore nonsense?

          • Oil companies, like most other businesses, tend to avoid discussing political issues that don’t directly affect their short- to medium-term profit/loss, Ronald. Since none of the possibly implementable political CO2 reduction schemes will materially affect worldwide oil consumption, they have no dog in the fight.

      • “In other words, perhaps the only real route to reelection is to Be A Bear”

        I think Trump doing what he campaigned on is what will get him reelected. His base will stay with him even if he holds out for the next two years. They will desert him if he doesn’t hold firm. And he knows this. Trump said this morning he would hold out for Wall funding for as long as it takes. That’s exactly what he should be doing. Trump is trying to defend the nation. The Democrats are trying to leave the nation at risk. The American people are going to make the distintion in time, despite the anti-Trump propaganda put out by the Leftwing Media, and the Democrats are going to cave when the polls go against them.

        • No, Trump will cave first. Thr Dems have their own finance package and a compromise will be made. Trumo had everything his own way with sychophantic Republicans. Now he is in for a rough ride with the highly savvy Nancy Pelosi at the helm. And she is no snowflake like Hillary as Trump has already learned.

          • Once again, Ivanski mistakes the US for the tyrannies he is so fond of.
            He actually believes that a president can force through any policy he wants.

          • “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it” is pretty savvy if you are a good for nothing politician.

          • The Dems package has to get past the Senate first. Mitch has already said he won’t bring any House-passed bill to the floor that doesn’t include funding for the wall. Mitch would have to cave, then the Senate would have to cave (60 votes needed to bust a filibuster) before Trump can cave. While I wouldn’t put it past either to cave (they’ve done it before) it’ll be a while before we come to that point.

          • Now real politik is the name of the game. Trump now needs to change his modus operandi as Schummer and Pelosi are the new sheriffs in town.

            Personally the way he has attacked them and refused to cooperate, I wouldn’t give the schmuck $1. My sdvice to Nancy – stick the knife in as hard and deep as you can, as this is what he has done to you for yhe last two years. That’s democracy – hah, hah, hah!

          • As for Trump being in “for a rough ride”, the fact is the Dems in the Senate (with the help of a couple of RINOs) were very effective at blocking legislation, so the fact that the house will be blocking legislation is only marginally worse for Trump. No savviness needed on Nancy’s part. No the biggest problem the Dem House presents is the endless legal hassels they’ll be bringing with their political investigations of every thing and anything that can think of to investigate and their attempts at politically-driven impeachment (if Nancy proves to be unsavvy enough to allow it).

          • Schummer and Pelosi are the new sheriffs in town.

            Senator Schummer is actually less powerful than he was last year. His party lost seats in the Senate (as well as having lost some of the RINOs, like Flake and McCain, that helped him hinder Trump’s agenda. Maybe Mitt will step up to the plate to be his go-to RINO). The Filibuster is all he has going for him, only now he’s got to keep more of his side onboard for it to work as his margin for defections has shrunk. He should be thankful that Mitch isn’t likely to go all Harry Reid and nuke the Filibuster completely.

          • Who gives a crap about the senate. The major dynamic now is that Trump has hit a brick walk with any legisilative initiative in the House. Now the Dems just wait it out until 2020, unless Trunp really wants to come begging to them on his knees – like he is doing over the wall funding. For the last 2 years he has had everything his own way – now payback time. Happy times are here again 🙂

          • Ivan, you have no understanding of the American political system. This is the last time I will read any of your tripe.

          • Who gives a crap about the senate. The major dynamic now is that Trump has hit a brick walk with any legisilative initiative in the House.

            It takes both the House and the Senate to get legislation to the President’s desk, The Dems in the senate were already successfully blocking legislation (it’s called a filibuster, look it up), the house blocking is merely redundant as far as legislation goes. so, legislatively who gives a crap about the house? (remember the Senate can block any House legislation it wants by simply not taking it to the floor. remember when the republicans controlled the house under Obama, they sent bill after bill only to see them die in Harry Reid’s Senate without ever getting a floor vote. Trump will just follow the Obama game plan and use the power of the executive order to get things moving where he can)

            Where the two halves of congress are important is: judicial appointments (Senate) which Trump should have an slightly easier time of now that the Republicans picked up a few seats while shedding a few obstructionist RINOs and subpoena power(House).

            And it’s the power of the subpoena, not any legislation, that will be where House Dems will cause trump problems. Legislatively it’s a non-starter. The Dems will block Republican bills (but the Senate Dems would have filibustered them anyway, so no change there) and Dem bills (like the new green deal nonsense) won’t ever get to the Senate floor (so again, no change there).

          • That’s fine with me. I would prefer to see Trump blocked vs. new legislation emerging from the Dems. Plus, expect the Dems to do to Trump what the GOP did to Obama. The only difference here is that Trump is open to investigation on numerous fronts so he will be too tied up in legal affairs to be effectively running the country. Nancy Pelosi knows exactly how to work the House so he has a formidable and experienced foe to contend with – she is no pushover and he knows it – she was around during the Presidency of JFK.
            Also, any executive orders issued by Trump are simply going to be overturned by the next Democrat President – again, just as Trump has done to Obama’s.

          • Who gives a crap about the senate.

            apparently *you* did, as you said “Schummer and Pelosi are the new sheriffs in town”. Either that or you did not know Schummer was a Senator.

            Now the Dems just wait it out until 2020

            Dems are going to want some accomplishments of their own to tout to the voters come 2020 (they made a lot of promises that they have no hope of accomplishing with a Republican Senate and Trump in the White House). Having your only accomplishment being “the party of No” has historically not been a very strong hand at election time. So they’re going to have to learn to compromise with the republicans if they want to get things done, and I don’t mean the Democrat definition of compromise (where Republicans cave and do everything the democrats want) but actual compromise where both side give something to get something.

          • That’s OK with me. A divided Congress is very good for getting cross-party legislation through.

          • Pelosi is a greedy, corrupt politician, also suffering from dementia with her crazy fixation on AGW alarmism.

          • Trump is a greedy corrupt politician suffering from dementia and verbosity. He’s an old man now who cannot change his ways.

  10. “Perhaps we should be encouraged that CNN have finally noticed the ordinary people they have been trampling all these years, all those voters who didn’t show up in defective CNN election polls which predicted a Clinton win.”

    i.e. the Deplorables from the Rust Belt.

      • And don’t forget “… antipathy towards those not like them.” The latter reads just like a leftist playbook. The Resist movement and MSM are hate machines.

  11. “Their“ logic is:

    -We are rich, we have more of all, therefore, goes without saying, we’re more intelligent than those stupid enough to be poor, so who cares ?

    Therefore the consequences, climate management inclusive.

    • No, I think it’s best that Canadians pay for global warming remediation with funds for California’s high speed rail construction, NYC’s subway system rebuild, business tax cuts in France, and a host of demonstration projects in India, Africa, and tourist projects in island nations.

      Thank you, and oh we also need funds for annual conferences with lots of parties.

  12. Leftist policies always end up hurting the poor the most in the long run, and then conservative Aleutian have to clean up their mess.

    This is the beginning of the end for CAGW— the biggest and most expensive Leftist hoax in human history.

    The US is out of the meaningless Paris Agreement, and China and India are exempt from it until 2030, but this is moot because the CAGW scam will be laughed onto the trash heap of history long before then.

    The Left will continue to cry wolf for as long as possible, but their dreams of stealing $122 trillion for global taxpayers is now a complete deluded fantasy.

    I wonder what Leftists next scam will be? Manmade Global Cooling?

    • They have quite a choice…
      -Just whatever can be found in a dictionnary
      -Gun control
      -Weather variability
      -Anything else

  13. “There is a way around the “iron law,” but it means coming up with climate policies that defend and enhance the jobs and livelihoods of working people rather than undermining them.”

    — That’s a very French thing to say. The reality is that what “enhances then jobs and livelihoods of working people” is economic efficiency, and “climate policies” are all about instituting economic inefficiency. Supposedly the economic inefficiency is justified, but that’s not what’s being said here.

  14. Mark Lynas: Involved in the production of, writing of and also starring in the 2009 documentary film, “The Age of Stupid”.

    “The film begins in the year 2055, in a world ravaged by catastrophic climate change; London is flooded, Sydney is burning, Las Vegas has been swallowed up by desert, the Amazon rainforest has burnt up, snow has vanished from the Alps, and nuclear war has laid waste to India.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Stupid

    What age was Mark Lynas when he became stupid?

    • What age was Mark Lynas when he became stupid?
      The better question is: was there ever an age we Mark Lynas was not stupid?

  15. Haha. ‘Just transition’. If you shuffle the letters around you can create a whole raft of new terms which are equally devoid of any meaning.

  16. Of course CNN focuses on the small, violent portion of yellow vests and only mentions Paris. Typical

  17. Opposition to “Climate Change” driven policies is a winner winner chicken dinner issue for those concerned with expanding liberty and prosperity.

    1) The science is roached lacking Kung Fu grip leaving it’s adherents vulnerable to the application of the peoples common sense.

    2) Those proposing climate policies based on weak science are ideological zealots which we should never fail to point out.

    3) The climate issue becomes more important as it’s economic failures become manifest. We waited out totalitarian socialism.

    Unfortunately the path to a semblance societal sobriety will be a long hard fought battle as was the last one. On the bright side this intrepid band will win again .

  18. Remember how Hillary back tracked when it became public that coal miners would be SOL once her/Obama’s climate policies began to fully kick in? She quickly promised that they would be taken care of by welfare (yeah) and new job training. Nobody believed her and nobody should believe Macron or any green pundits either. Ever.

    BTW, remember when Hillary recommended new job training for the thousands of cattle guards in Colorado ( pipes over a mote or lines painted across entry to roads to stop cattle from getting on roads in place of a gate) LOL!

  19. I think the cautionary tale here for all politicians is the 18 amendment to the US constitution (prohibition)

  20. “Carbon Neutral” won’t hurt the poor a bit. On the contrary, the same way Ted Kennedy’s “Earned Income Tax Credit” provides thousands per child at tax time at the expense of the ever-shrinking middle class so too will the “Green Rebate on Energy Expended by Low Income Residents Act” provide more tax time largesse from The One True Party.

    • the same way Ted Kennedy’s “Earned Income Tax Credit” provides thousands per child at tax time at the expense of the ever-shrinking middle class

      pedantic note: it’s only thousands per child up to 3 children. nothing for the 4th or greater children.

  21. politician run economies (actual existing socialism) have always resulted in massive mis-investment beggaring most of society. Even economists know that. The same occurs in capitalism but it is largely self-correcting if left alone. Clinton would say or propose whatever a particular audience might find pleasing. Even members of her political party knew that.

    The above is the answer to the question what policies did China implement to achieve economic growth benefiting 100’s of millions of it’s people. The ChiComs released capitalism to create the wealth necessary to fund the bloated inefficient public sector. For the moment that is working.

    Whats really interesting is the adoption of socialist demagoguery by the far-right parties including the Trump wing of the Republican party. Those policy prescriptions won’t work either for long but they steal working and middle class folks away from the Left.

    Climate Change policies are often sold as jobs programs which they are decidedly not. As we make it clear to the public that these policies are all pain with no gain this path will be abandoned.

  22. Nobody should be surprised by Fake Polls that predicted Hillary for POTUS. They were all pay to play, only a few properly corrected near the end to retain credibility. All were skewed by oversampling of pro democrat demographics. The concept is put out fake polls showing your opponent doesn’t stand a chance and his supporters will get fooled into giving up. It’s a tactic as old as the hills, as phony as the pundits who act surprised on election night.

    • Red herring, non sequiteur, and ad hominem – wow, three illogical arguments in one! You take the cake.

      • Indeed, that was impressive, Bruce. Good eye.

        The only thing missing was, “Scientists say…” to top it off with an argumentum ab auctoritate.

    • Ivanski only uses two sources, The Granuidad and his own propaganda site.
      Regardless, it really doesn’t take much to trigger it.

    • Why stop eating meat? Cattle eats grass that we can’t eat and converts it into protein. We then eat the cattle. If the grass isn’t eaten, it grows too long and then dies, it needs to be grazed to survive. A win/win/win.

      • More than that, if you take the cattle/bison/elephant off the land, you end up with useless scrub that benefits nothing. Grazing herbivores, as long as you don’t pen them in to a too-small area, allowed to roam about the landscape have as effects improved grassland.

        Ivan depends on partial/incomplete analyses, mostly because he thinks they make him look smart.

          • Ivan, you clearly do non know much about cow-calf operations for beef cattle in the US. The give you the short version, the young beastie grazes for a period, until large enough, and then is sent to the feedlot for finishing before slaughter. Most of the growth of the steer comes from the grazing period.

          • I have been doing sime work for a European meat association promoting European beef and pork to the US and Canada. It’s main selling points are antibiotic free, no growth hormones and good animal welfare. If you’re goona eat meat 1) eat a lot less red meat – too much causes cancer, stoke, heart attacks and type-2 diabetes and 2) if you do eat it, eat good quality European!

          • So your beef is blessed by the green blob? It comes across as being as cynical a marketing tactic as “organic”.

  23. Went and had a look at the CNN 2008 election coverage. Came across “… once all the states have certified their vote counts, the losing candidate has an obligation to accept the results and concede to the winner.”
    Al Gore in 2000??? How soon they forget – or just ignore – if it doesn’t fit the agenda.

  24. Stadist clearly expresses the dominant view among intellectuals, scientists, and policy makers, left, right, and center, in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. That giant wall of “informed” opinion is what we are up against, even though the scientific data in no way supports their alarmist views. I agree with the critiques of Stadist with little reservation. What he or she says is utterly wrong from a scientific point of view. It must be struggled against. However, to pin our hopes on the crazy, self-absorbed criminal in the White House, is pure folly.
    Furthermore, to cast this issue as left vs right is a wrong-headed way to look at it and deal with it. It is first and foremost a matter of truth versus ideology, a matter of science and fact-based truth against an entrenched ideology with strong religious overtones.

    • That “… crazy, self-absorbed criminal …” is our only hope of defeating the ongoing train wreck in Washington, DC.

      • “is our only hope”

        Yes, Trump is our only hope, and we need him in there for six more years.

        Trump is the only guy in a postion of power in the US who has a clue.

        We just had a demonstration of how clueless some Republicans can be with Mitt Romney starting out right off the bat undermining Trump in an editorial yesterday, before he is even sworn in as a new Senator, and even though Trump endorsed his senate run!

        Romney is everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. Instead of coming together to fight the existential threat of Democrats retaking presidential power, Romney is out there positioning himself for a regular slot on CNN and MSNBC as a commentator, or he is trying to establish himself as the leader of the anti-Trump Republican swamp, or both. Ironically, Romney’s niece is head of the Republican National Committee and is one of the sharpest political operators they have and she wholeheartedly supports Trump. Mitt could learn a few lessons from her.

        The Republican Party is its own worst enemy, or more specifically, the RINO’s (Republicans in Name Only) are the Republican Party’s worst enemy, whcih means they are Freedoms Worst Enemy because they enable the radical Democrats with their anti-Trump, anti-American actions which will take all our freedoms if not stopped.

        Trump’s supporters better do all they can to show their support because there are formidable forces arrayed against Trump both in the Democrat Party and the Republcian Party. The selfish political interests of these people are detrimental to our personal freedoms. The one good thing about it is Trump has at least 63 million Americans solidly in his corner.

        Trump is the only one trying to give us more freedom. The other politicians are trying to take our freedoms away, bit by bit. Let’s stick with Trump.

        • Romney is actualky everything right with the Republican party. He represents its trsditional values.

          There is a new breath of fresh air in Washington with the Dems now in control of the House. They and more moderste Republicans can noe get some deals done. Don is goung to have to adapt to the new reality: https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2019/01/03/source-trump-tells-schumer-he-cant-accept-dems-offer-because-hed-look-foolish-cnnpolitics/

          • “Romney is actualky everything right with the Republican party. He represents its traditional values.”

            Well, I would expect you to see it that way. Leftists will love Romney or anyone else who will criticize Trump and his agenda. They will clamor for the critic to be a frequent guest on CNN so he can bash the president on a regular basis.

            You say Romney represents traditional Republican values, but from my point of view, Romney is harming those values because Trump is in the process of implementing traditional Republican values and those who oppose him like Romney are in effect opposing traditional Republican vlaues, which include requiring the lowest taxes and smallest government possible to get the job done; a military second to none; freedom of religion; defending the U.S. Constitution; and the belief that babies in the womb are human beings too, with all the rights of born human beings.

            Trump promotes all these things, although there is not much he can do about reducing the size of government right now, other than this government shutdown might highlight how non-essential some federal government jobs are.

            Trump is undoing the damage done by many years of failed policies from both the Left and the Right, and he is undoing the socialist agenda of Barack Obama, and that is what has the Left up in arms about Trump, because he is effective even in the face of the blizzard of attacks and lies from the political opposition and the opposition in the Republican Party. Despite all this, Trump is winning and his poll numbers keep climbing.

            Dividing the Republican party like Mitt Romney is doing only helps the forces of evil, the radical leftwing socialist agenda that the Democrats are trying to impose on the United States. Trump is standing up there and taking on all comers, for us. And thank God he is. Maybe we can still save our form of government and preserve our personal freedoms.

            The last Democrat in the White House illegally tried to rig the American election process to favor his fellow socialists and their agenda. They almost accomplished their goal. This was and is an existential threat to the personal freedoms of all of us and before Trump leaves Office, we must get to the bottom of all the election corruption and criminality that took place during the Obama administration.

            Trump needs to declasify ALL documents requested by Congress from the Executive Branch for the last ten years. That’s another thing that has the radical Left exercised. They are well aware of what Trump can expose about them if he decides to do so.

            One positive about Mitt Romney: He does favor building a southern border wall. I hope the CNN hosts ask him about that.

          • Wow you really areca fervent Trump baser – warts and all.

            Trump’s legislative agenda has cone to a grinding halt, my friend, with a split Congress so forget about any more progress.

            A liar, a charlatan, a hughly dodgy businessman, a serial sexual philanderer – Obama, in contrast, knew how to handle himself ethically and morally and was not involved in any personal scandals. He could also speak a lot more eloquently than Trump who can hardly string more than two words together. Obama vs. Trump? Obama any day.

          • Ivan, did you ever hear Obama when he was ad libbing? Without a teleprompter, he is much less articulate than Trump, and even with a script, such gaffes as “Navy corpseman” are notorious.

          • Head him plenty of times. He used to give end-of-year media interviews (something Trump is too scared to take on as he knows he’ll get a lot of difficult questions) and used to handle the media with aplomb. Great speaker and a great thinker who knew how to express his presidential vision – and not just to a small group of his own supporters in a small-town rally setting.

          • Obama, is ummm a great ummmm speaker ummmm except when ummm he’s not reading ummmm off a telepromper ummm. then he ummm is ummmm speaking like ummmm this.

          • and even with a script, such gaffes as “Navy corpseman” are notorious.

            Indeed, when one is reading off a script without having the basic underlying understanding, such gaffes are inevitable.

          • Happens to the Don every time he has to talk on foreign policy. The guy is clueless … utterly.

          • Trump’s legislative agenda has cone to a grinding halt, my friend, with a split Congress so forget about any more progress.

            which is pretty much where it was before congress was split thanks to the filibuster in the Senate. The only bills that got through were ones with bi-partisan support. That will still be the case. Dems can’t get their bills through the Senate (Mitch is under no obligation to give any bill a floor vote, just as Harry Reid ignored hundreds of Republican house bills during the Obama years) and the Republicans won’t be getting theirs through the House (but theirs weren’t getting through the Senate either thanks to the filibuster, so effectively no real change there).

            Trumps “progress” will continue to be what it was – signing what few bi-partisan bills come his way, making executive orders and appointing his people to the judiciary and to the agencies in charge of making the regulations (and he has Harry Reid to thank for making that one possible). Dems controlling the house make practically no difference to any of that.

            The only exception to the above during his first two years in office was the tax cut bill, the Republicans managed to keep their RINOs in check on that one and use some legislative maneuvers to get around the filibuster. But that’s the only bill they managed to do that for, so while there won’t be any more exceptions like that one, there likely wasn’t going to be any anyway or we’d have seen more such bills make it to his desk instead of that single one.

  25. Constantly rising prices due to increasing and new taxes affects the ones with the least amount of money more than those with more money? Who would have thought? Apparently not our fearless leaders who generally don’t have a clue about anything, especially monetary matters.

  26. It’s difficult being one of the extreme Left. You have to learn everyday the new pyramid of victimology.

    • Too bad the extreme left can never learn that one should spend less than one makes. This is especially problematic for lefty politicians.

Comments are closed.