Make America Greater: Approve the PCCS!

America absolutely needs outside expert review of climate claims used to oppose fossil fuels

John Droz

Should the United States conduct a full, independent, expert scientific investigation into models and studies that say we face serious risks of manmade climate change and extreme weather disasters?

As incredible as it may seem, US government climate science has never been subjected to any such examination. Instead, it has been conducted by government agencies and assorted climate, environmental, history, psychology and other “experts” paid by the same government agencies – to the tune of literally billions of dollars per year.

Moreover, all that time, effort and money has been spent on studies that claim carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” are causing unprecedented climate and weather cataclysms, requiring the immediate and total elimination of fossil fuels that supply 82% of all US energy. Virtually none of it has been spent on studies of the powerful natural forces that have driven global warming and cooling, other climate changes and innumerable extreme weather events throughout Earth and human history.

Replacing all that energy – under the Green New Deal we hear so much about lately, or some similar schemes – would cost this country up to $93 trillion by 2030! That’s $65,000 per family per year!

Even worse, those same agencies and government contractors have actively prevented any independent review of their work. They have intimidated, silenced and vilified anyone who attempted to question or examine their data, computer models, assumptions, algorithms and conclusions.

They are adamantly opposed to any such review now. So are some 97% of all Democrats, environmentalists and “mainstream” news media.

You have to wonder: If their work is as solid, above-board and honest as they claim – wouldn’t they be delighted to defend it in public, and prove their detractors wrong?

Since they so totally opposed to any independent review – what are they trying to hide?

President Trump’s proposed investigation would be conducted by a brand new Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS), led by physicist and presidential advisor Dr. Will Happer. It would be carried out by climate scientists and experts who did not participate in the original (alarmist) studies.

A decision about launching the PCCS will be made very soon. Support for the PCCS is urgently needed.

Many who oppose the PCCS claim human responsibility for climate change and extreme weather has already been resolved scientifically. That is simply not so. A genuine scientific assessment has four necessary components. It must be comprehensive, objective, transparent and empirical.

There has never been a true scientific assessment of global warming claims, anywhere on the planet.

In fact, even repeatedly referenced reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have faced no such review – and would fail at least three of those four criteria! That is largely because the IPCC computer models and claims of climate disasters are supported by virtually no real-world evidence.

PCCS opponents also say President Trump is acting irrationally on global warming. In reality, he is taking a far more scientific position than his critics are. Skepticism is the primary pillar of Real Science. So being labeled a “skeptic” is high praise to real scientists.

If it’s Real Science, questions, skepticism and constant reexamination are essential. Consensus is out.

If it’s consensus – and questions and skepticism are prohibited – it’s not Real Science.

PCCS opponents are telling us we have to accept their “consensus science” without question. Eliminate the fossil fuels that make our factories, healthcare, jobs, heating, lighting, food, internet and living standards possible. And put the federal government in control of all future energy and personal choices.

Certainly, the “science” that supposedly supports those demands should be examined carefully and scientifically before we rush to judgment on 82% of our energy. PCCS opponents don’t think so. They want a rush to judgment.

The bottom line is very simple. President Trump should be applauded for proposing the PCCS, and for being open-minded enough to reconsider global warming claims – before he or we accept them as gospel.

Americans need to support him against the very vocal (and self-interested) people and organizations that oppose the PCCS.

We need to take immediate action to support President Trump on this vitally important initiative.

Use the above link. Send him a quick note. Real, evidence-based climate science demands that we have this PCCS review. So does the future of our country and our children.

John Droz, Jr. is a physicist and director of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED), which promotes energy policies and programs that are technically, economically and environmentally sound.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
March 16, 2019 6:12 am

Definitely a good idea that the Democrats will try to disrupt. Their most likely tactic will simply be to organize a boycott by the greens, and then proclaim that there is no valid science involved.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 16, 2019 9:58 am

True but since the object is to validate alarmist science their actions speak louder than their words. When they mount such a vocal and vehement opposition to the validation of their hypothesis, the CAGW skeptic needs only ask the bystander: “what do you suppose they are trying to hide”

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Bill Powers
March 17, 2019 9:29 am

bystander: “what do you suppose they are trying to hide” before us and themselves:

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 17, 2019 6:32 am

That’s their strategy. Oppose everything that Trump does, so voters will realise it useless to vote Trump in 2020. Because the Dems will oppose everything he does!

March 16, 2019 6:12 am

If the science is “settled” then an independent review would only make the settled science stronger.

That is precisely the strength of the scientific method.

The truth is pretty good at standing up to the truth.

March 16, 2019 6:13 am

Enforcing the Data Quality Act on a lot of these claims would also bring everyone to a similar conclusion and the PCCS would be a great place to test all these claims and supposed data that supports the alarmist conclusion.

March 16, 2019 6:34 am

So, after spending untold millions of dollars to investigate the science regarding what caused the climate to change and what part of that may be caused by humans, they will determine that our knowledge is uncertain.

However, in this climate (sorry), the money will be well spent.

A C Osborn
Reply to  JohnWho
March 16, 2019 8:02 am

Sorry, at no time have they “investigated the science regarding what caused the climate to change”, but they investigated what part of that may be caused by humans and when they didn’t find it they made it up.

Reply to  A C Osborn
March 16, 2019 2:17 pm

Sorry, what I meant was that the PCCS will find what we already know: our knowledge of what changes the climate and what part humans may play is uncertain.

It is the warmists/alarmists who constantly deny that so much uncertainty exists.

kent beuchert
March 16, 2019 6:47 am

Anyone who disregards molten salt nuclear reactors is an energy ignoramus. Do the simple calculations and you will see that cuikding enough molen salt power capacity that, when added to existing no carbon power generation (nuclear – 20%, hydroelectric 8%) , requires building approximately $800 billion worth of molten salt small nucler reactors. That’s well under one trillion dollars, as opposed to the $93 trillion of the Green New Deal.

Walter Horsting
Reply to  kent beuchert
March 16, 2019 7:31 am

Check out a 20′ 30-ton 250 MWs Thermal MSR that is shippable, no need for a pressure dome and perfect for microgrids which will offset a future Carrington Event and cities of 200,000. Small enough to co-gen water treatment facilities or heat Northern Cities without emissions.

The Case for the Good Reactor

Bentley Nixs
Reply to  kent beuchert
March 16, 2019 8:16 am

Stop trying to inject LOGIC into the conservation.Facts only confound them and makes them put their fingers in their ears and go la la la la .I personally think a bit of lighthearted humor goes a lot further than a bludgeon of facts .

Rich Davis
Reply to  kent beuchert
March 16, 2019 8:33 am

Fossil fuels are still the best choice. CO2 is not a problem, it’s a benefit. If we’re intent on wasting money, a rush to replace fossil fuels with molten salt reactors would be better than the Green Leap Forward, though.

CO2 is the source of life. Eventually we will need to mine limestone and convert it to lime in order to liberate CO2. Maybe at that point MSRs will do the job.

Bob Meyer
Reply to  kent beuchert
March 16, 2019 10:06 am

The only problem with the molten salt nuclear reactors will come when one of them releases some tiny amount of radioactive material. It won’t matter that the amount is so minute that its effects can’t even be measured. The event will be “radioactive” in both senses of the word.

Ignoring that for a moment, and assuming that your $800B number is correct, it still must be measured against the cost of maintaining the existing fossil fuel generation capacity. The MSNR must be economical and if it is, then excepting only fossil fuel lobbyists, no sane person will oppose it.

Reply to  kent beuchert
March 16, 2019 2:13 pm

When somebody gets an actual, working, commercial sized molten salt reactor up and running, please let me know.
Until then, it’s still vapor ware.

John Endicott
Reply to  kent beuchert
March 18, 2019 11:58 am

Anyone who disregards molten salt nuclear reactors is an energy ignoramus

How about you show those energy ignoramus’ what for by point them to one of these fantastic molten salt nuclear reactors in actual commercial operation (just one such reactor will do). even an energy ignoramus will have to bow to reality when it’s staring them in the face. Oh wait, what’s that? there are no molten salt nuclear reactors in commercial operation? never mind then.

Ian W
Reply to  John Endicott
March 24, 2019 3:55 am


You would have been a really good adviser for the Wright brothers and Henry Ford.

Robert of Texas
March 16, 2019 6:58 am

Unfortunately, such a commission will be immediately labeled as a fossil-fuel smear job, but I hope they proceed anyway.

If they are successful in producing solid evidence that AGW is exaggerated and full of scam-like politics, it will make it harder in the future to continue using the same tactics.

It would be nice to see money spent on “proving man caused climate is real and we are all going to die” going into real science.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 16, 2019 8:26 am

The most important thing is warmer proponents have to come out and argue their science, something that they have demonstrated they aren’t prepared to do. In debates up to a decade ago, the consensus’s best came off so badly, that the word is out, don’t debate sceptics. Marginalize and ridicule sceptics and push the “science is settled” meme.

They are crying foul because they already know they haven’t got game. I’m surprized a few smarter ones among the generally not-too-swift bunch didn’t cynically start to “discover” that they had the thing all wrong, that there has been a bit of welcome warming, most of it natural, and an unexpected galloping “Great Greening” in progress that promises, with peak population by mid century of 9-10B people to usher in a new era of prosperity, sbundance, and peace.

As soon as Trump cancelled the Paris Accord, and I mean cancelled for everyone – if the US isnt in, it’s a dud – every person with neurons surplus to bodily functions knew this. What can I say? No smart guys popped out! A mass extinction has already begun, but not the kind predicted by the Clime Syndicate.

March 16, 2019 7:07 am

Within 24 hours it will be a large drop in temperature in the Northeast US.
comment image

Pa Wi
March 16, 2019 7:25 am

They need to proceed with the commission at all costs. Scientific Consensus is not quantifiable proof of much in a complex system like weather..we do know that!

Tom in Florida
March 16, 2019 7:25 am

The same can be said for the current radon gas scare.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
March 16, 2019 9:26 am

You obviously don’t live in a Uranium rich zone.
That’s one of the most stupid comments I have seen on here.

Come and live in our area, – see how you like it, when people in your town die of lung cancer,and when your water is polluted with radium.

Topm in Florida
Reply to  pigs_in_space
March 16, 2019 9:46 am

The radon gas scare pertains to radon inside residences. There has never been any clinical proof that radon gas in houses has ever caused lung cancer. It is all based on bad science results put out by the EPA, hence my comment.

March 16, 2019 7:26 am

… and other “experts” …

Never mind the quote marks. The people you are talking about are actually fully credentialed experts.

What we need is the realization that there are two kinds of experts:
1 – Folks who can repeat highly practiced skills. Those are the engineers, surgeons, and airline pilots to whom we trust our lives. If they predict something will work, you can bet your life on it.
2 – People who have deeply studied a subject. Those are college professors, psychologists, and economists. In spite of their years of study and great intelligence, their predictions are mostly useless. Other than demonstrating their great knowledge and ability to communicate, they have no other demonstrable skills.

It would be much better if there were two separate words to describe the two kinds of experts. That way folks wouldn’t be confused by thinking that an expert might actually be able to do something.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  commieBob
March 16, 2019 11:32 am

We use to define expert as: ‘ex’ is a has-been and ‘spert’ is what a dog does to a tree. Those in category #2 above fit into the that definition. Their problem is 1) a total lack of field experience, where one has the possibility of learning from one’s mistakes, and 2) an almost total lack of accountability where position, reputation and income depend on every statement and every decision (e.g., your #1 above). I don’t care how deeply you have studied the subject. Until your ideas have been proven in the lab and/or in the field they are nothing other than speculation and carry no more weight that those of anyone else. Both junkyards and graveyards are full of unintended consequences.

Reply to  commieBob
March 16, 2019 4:11 pm

1) Practical experts, with practical skills.

2) Hypothetical experts, with hypothetical skills.

March 16, 2019 7:27 am

“Since they are so totally opposed to any independent review – what are they trying to hide?”

Spurious correlations for starters

And the hidden hand of activism maybe

March 16, 2019 7:35 am

That will be 65,000 dollars per year payable with COMMODITY MONEY only. Sorry, Federal Reserve magic fiat dollars that have been magically conjured out of a magic hole in air will not be usable for payment of this kind of debt even though they may say they can be used for payment of all debts. These will be debts that are owed to nature in accordance with the laws of nature. Payment will have to be for real.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  ThomasJK
March 16, 2019 8:47 am

Thomas, nor would any head of state above idi0t level actually consider paying it. Even pathologically climate-crazed Germans, French or British, ahh Belgians maybe. I’m surprized that there could be anyone unaware that when the US walks out of something like this, it’s terminal for the program. It’s easy to tell that the Green New Deal was the product of some sweet naive young thing when such a totally unrealistic proposal was rolled out after the Trump hammer closed the entire world silliness. The movement to put adults back in charge in Europe was a predictable development. We are already seeing the beginning of real D*Nile, of the classical psychological kind.

March 16, 2019 7:42 am

Prediction of future weather, as a result of “climate,” has only been proven to be possible in a very general sense and only hours in advance. Beyond that we can only guess at possibilities.
Good guesses save lives, and wealth. Bad guesses and panicked responses have the opposite effect of wasting lives and wealth.
It is really stupid to be in the middle of the lake in a canoe when a thunderstorm is imminent but if the storm is distant with only some chance of hitting your location you may as well enjoy your afternoon while moving leisurely to a safer distance from shore.
Now another approach is to stand up in your canoe, wave your arms wildly in an attempt to frighten everyone off the lake while chanting magic words to ward off the storm. Chances are you will sink your canoe and you will have frightened away any chance of rescue. Afterwards, if you survive, you will need to find someone or something to blame because your own stupidity is too appalling to contemplate.
Climate alarmists are in the middle of the lake waving their arms wildly at some future possibility of danger and putting a religious faith in the all powerful magic of CO2. Their canoe is already leaking but that threat goes unnoticed in the panic of the moment.
That leaking canoe is the slowly accumulating and untold damage to livelihoods, lifestyles, and wealth of middle class westerners and the resulting secondary damage to the poor and disadvantaged of the world. Not to mention the damage to the environment that is inevitable from a
drastic restructuring of our societies and economies.
The preceding is opinion only. Not supported by other than personal observation. Not meant to insult but feel free to perceive it as such. If you choose to sink your boat I personally do not give a (expression deleted in the interest of propriety.)

Robert Arnold Hains
March 16, 2019 7:46 am

Form filled out and message sent to the WH to support PCCS and to demand equitable distribution of grants for funding of any cause of climate change. Also asked that funding for the UN IPCC be stopped until it changes it’s mission statement and requires equitable funding for research into all possible causes for climate change.

Rich Davis
March 16, 2019 7:47 am

Let’s start a viral thread.

Here’s what I sent by clicking the link:

Dear Mr President,
Thank you for your position on human-caused climate change and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

I am writing to request that you please move forward with the creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science to be led by Dr. Will Happer. With so much politically-motivated propaganda about fossil fuels harming the climate, it is critical to have the unfounded, unscientific claims exposed by qualified scientists such as Dr. Happer.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.


March 16, 2019 7:49 am

It may not be widely known, but in a demonstration of how Personality and Politics affects *everything* these days. Scott Pruitt at the EPA was all set up to start this up not long after he was confirmed in 2017. Chief of Staff Kelly didn’t like it, thought it was “divisive” and killed it. He also didn’t think that Pruitt respected his “authority”, so Kelly (not the Dems, even though they hated Pruitt) organized the attacks that finally drove Pruitt out of office.

The reason this review idea finally has a chance is because Kelly has finally been “retired” from his job, and isn’t in position to kill it anymore. Personally speaking, I am overjoyed that he is gone!

March 16, 2019 7:53 am

The temperature above the 80th parallel has now fallen below the average of 1958-2002.
comment image
It is now such as in the middle of winter (-29 C).

March 16, 2019 8:04 am

I send my support for PCCS and appointment of Dr. Will Happer. DQA needs teeth.

March 16, 2019 8:34 am

“- what are they trying to hide?”

Collusion, corruption, ineptness, bias, lies, conflicts of interest and what history will will remember as the most obviously broken science of the modern era whose truth has been intransigently denied for decades in order to support the UNFCCC’s plan for implementing global socialism under the guise of climate reparations.

Alan Robertson
March 16, 2019 8:56 am

Political hot potatoes don’t get much bigger than the PCCS.
Fry it up in some clarified butter, add a little extra salt and pepper and serve up a heapin’ helpin’ of reality.

March 16, 2019 8:57 am

I expect the data tamperers are soiling themselves at the prospect of this. Can’t wait for the pitiful Phil Jones-style whining along the lines of “you only want the data to find something wrong with it” to commence.

Tom Abbott
March 16, 2019 9:24 am

The Democrats are going to push the CAGW narrative so If President Trump wants to debunk the CAGW hypothesis, then he will have to have Dr. Happer look into the current science on this subject in order to counter the “97 percent” settled climate science lie/meme.

This is going to be fun! I just love it that the Democrats are pushing this easily-refuted CAGW nonsense.

Now Trump just needs to refute CAGW officially by assigning Happer to update the science and shine a little reality on it.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 16, 2019 10:17 am

You’re kiddin’ yourself.

Reply to  pochas94
March 16, 2019 10:50 am

Well okay, it will deliver the left into full apesh*t mode just prior to the election, and Trump may think that is good strategy.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
March 16, 2019 12:06 pm

We should all be grateful Trump is prepared to stand up to the global scam on AGW. Sadly we have no politician in the U.K. with the knowledge and courage to stand up to the serial false claims of our eco-nutters and fake news BBC etc.

Now the minds of the nation’s children are being filled with anti-science green gibberish egged on by disreputable chancers and sainthood seekers.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
March 16, 2019 2:28 pm

Yes I truly despair for my homeland. We now have rubber-faced treacherous halfwit environment secretary Gove attempting to make the IC engine redundant by 2040. Yes folks, he is literally that physically stupid. A genius at treachery but otherwise an utter moron.

March 16, 2019 2:38 pm

Here are some of the things that, perhaps for starters, should be looked in to:
1. In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO2 level [3].
2. Over the Phanerozoic eon (last 542 million years) there is no correlation between CO2 level and AGT [3].
3. During the last and previous glaciations AGT trend changed directions before CO2 trend [2].
4. Since AGT has been directly and accurately measured world wide (about 1895), AGT has exhibited up and down trends while CO2 trend has been only up. [2]
5. Since 2001, average temperature uptrend calculated by Global Climate Models (GCMs, aka General Circulation Models) which assume CO2 causes AGW is about twice measured. [13]
6. Analysis of CO2 and Temperature data 2002-2008 shows a close correlation between dCO2/dT and lower tropospheric temperature. This demonstrates that CO2 level follows temperature and not the reverse. [30]
7. Average global water vapor had been increasing about twice as fast as it should be calculated on the basis of increased vapor pressure of water resulting from temperature increase of the water. (Section 8 here)
8. The data from all reporting agencies agree there has been little or no sustained change in average global temperature since about 2002 (Figure 0.2).

March 16, 2019 3:18 pm

Oh please let this be true and happen….so sick of the misleading lies and misrepresentation by people we should be able to trust.

March 16, 2019 3:41 pm

” The debate is dangerously one-sided.”

And they want to KEEP it one sided.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke

March 16, 2019 5:50 pm

As a UK born but now a Australian, I am puzzled by the way the USA
Democrats behave. Judging on what I read they seem to be intent on
destroying the USA economy.

FDR was a hero of mine in the 1940 tees, he and Harry Hopkins
seemed to have “Saved” America in the 1930 tees, although Roosevelt did
say that it was Dr. WAR rather than Dr . NEW DEAL which did it.

But were the USA Democrats different back then, and if so what caused them
to change ?


March 16, 2019 11:54 pm

See for comprehensive details on what controlsthe climate with graphs and facts that are irrefutable…

Reply to  Paul Litely
March 17, 2019 11:04 am

Good discription of what. Click my name for a discription of how CO2 has little, if any, effect on climate in spite of being a ghg.

March 17, 2019 2:31 am

World Central Banking -“Glad to lend you 93 Trillion Dollars.”
“Be sure to spend it on climate change initiatives.”
In 10 years time…
“Gosh, that 93 Trillion Dollars has just disappeared.”
“Well, glad to lend you 200 Trillion Dollars to rebuild your failed energy system.”
“Be sure to keep up the interest payments.”
“We do have a land for debt swap scheme…”

Jon Beard
March 17, 2019 6:13 am

Accepting the theory of Climate Change at face value is comparable to being charged with a crime and not being allowed to have a lawyer or defend yourself in any way. The ‘proof’ of dangerous Climate change is little more than proclamations in a modern day Inquisition that bears little similarity to science.

Reply to  Jon Beard
March 18, 2019 7:29 am

Good description of the situation.

It is an Inquisition, and all the normal protections from American Civilization’s Fundamental Institutions: Science, Academia, Media, Entertainment, Law, Government, and even a lot of Commerce and Religion… ARE IN ON IT!

Trump better put an effective Advocacy System into the public eye…and keep pounding. This is the most serious threat to our Constitutional Government ever executed by those amongst us who hate it. Fraud on a grand scale.

March 18, 2019 7:12 am

Happer needs to get an audit done on NOAA’s temperature data ASAP.

I’d like to know the truth, and it’s obvious that the upper echelons of NOAA are populated with activists…who cannot be trusted.

And once the truth is out I need to see heads roll. It sure looks like almost all of the NOAA-reported North American warming is from adjustments.

%d bloggers like this: