Guest essay by Eric Worrall
President Trump has criticised other countries for pursuing technology which doesn’t work.
Trump rejects need for climate action at G-20: US has ‘cleanest’ water and air ‘we’ve ever had’
BY ARIS FOLLEY – 06/29/19 04:08 PM EDTPresident Trump broke with the Group of 20 (G-20) nations on the need for climate change action on Saturday, saying the United States has the “cleanest water we have ever had.”
…
Speaking to reporters on Saturday, Trump said, “I’m not sure that I agree with certain countries with what they are doing. They are losing a lot of power. I am talking about the powering of a plant.”
“It doesn’t always work with a windmill. When the wind goes off, the plant isn’t working. It doesn’t always work with solar because solar [is] just not strong enough, and a lot of them want to go to wind, which has caused a lot of problems,” he continued, according to The Washington Post.
“Wind doesn’t work for the most part without subsidy. The United States is paying tremendous amounts of subsidies for wind. I don’t like it. I don’t like it,” he added.
…
Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/451021-trump-rejects-need-for-climate-action-at-g-20-us-has-the-cleanest
Well said Mr. President – clear headed observations which should be obvious to anyone with a brain.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That is why the GreenSlime is throwing everything they have to defeat Trump.
The GreenSlime’s very financial lifeblood depends on being the Green Vampire Squid on the face of the middle class with higher electricity rates and crony-capitalism subsidies from taxpayers.
And that is why we must do everything to see that Trump wins. Not because we agree with everything he says and does, but because the alternative, the other side, is bonkers gone total insanity and each day they promise a descent into a socialist
Utopia like VenezuelaHell.With each minor weather event being hyped by the Climate Alarmists, as evidence of catastrophic climate change driven by man made CO2 (how could we even do that) we are shown the methodology they have adopted, and see the increasing urgency of their false claims.
After the one day “heat wave” experienced here in the UK on Saturday it is disappointing to report Sunday was normal and pleasant and today Monday its cool even by UK summer standards.
The number of people in France and central Europe, affected by a heat pulse coming off the Sahara was normal, but was hyped as the hottest ever recorded, following evidence from a thermometer on a roof in some little French town.
The evidence of global warming via CO2 as claimed by the Alarminsts just isn’t there. They look to ever smaller variations from the norm to help them keep the story alive, but they are failing. The BBC and other champions of the global warming fraud will continue pushing it, because they can do no other. They have invested too much of their reputation in it to back down.
The number of people who died “due to the heat wave in Europe” will be multiplied by the on message media. Unfortunate accidents such as drownings, and heat shock from jumping into relatively cold water after overheating or over drinking or both will make headlines.
Some of the younger generation who have led very cosseted comfortable lives have no concept of normal climate variation. They are the ones advancing/maintaining the myth of unusual weather/climate events.
People need to get out more, they need to enjoy the great outdoors as it was once described and stop fretting about something they can not affect or even know if they have affected, during their lifetime.
The world needed a Trump and it needs a second term Trump to help recognise the facts from the fiction.
Hmmm… 44% of German demand for electricity was met by renewable energy in the first half of 2019. German economy STILL not collapsed.
UK got 24% renewable energy in Q1… new solar record, June 30 got 41% of demand from wind…
Griff, there are some days when the wind blows and some days when the sun shines. Some days both things hapen and many days neither.
Now in this part of the world we like to have reliable energy 24/7 which means we have reliable generation systems freewheeling waiting for the wind to drop or the sun to go down at which point they power up the grid.
Now the question is, why would any sane world have two forms of energy? One of which is unreliable, when the one reliable form is already there and has worked well for over seventy five years?
If Germany were to disconnect from the rest of the European grid, it’s grid would collapse in a matter of days.
Show your proof with verifiable facts.
100 up votes!
German electricity is much more expensive than most other countries.
Your belief that because something hasn’t collapsed yet, it will never collapse is so darn cute.
AND, IF Germany had eliminated all other sources of generation, only around 32% of their population would have access to that vaunted energy source. The Hoi Polloi would be basting in the Heat of day and Shivvvvering in the Dark Cold of Night without sufficient energy sources.
Further, if Transportation had been 100% electric and all fossil sources eliminated, then only around 10% would have access to energy.
And Griff, your point is?
Blowing up East Tilbury power station which was running on coal and running Drax on woodchips costs money and pushes up electricity prices and reduces reliability. For what benefit?
EXPLAIN please.
As you have no doubt figure out by now griffie does not explain, it just spews, and not very effectively at that.
“Both Mr Worrall and Mr Watts need life threatening experiences if they do anything but say that such behaviour by the USA is way beyond unacceptable.”
Are you seriously threatening the author’s life if he doesn’t agree with you?
[that comment was removed. Mod.]
I could see from this excerpt and certainly from the main article that something about the air quality issue didn’t look right…
The Hill article links to an article in NYT that in turn quotes the associated press which quotes an EPA report on worsening air quality in 2017. This practice of linking articles which link further articles in successively deeper layers should be given a name (link archaeology/link mining?). It’s what the left so in order to hide inconvenient truths- and the last desperate ploy they use is to bury the the truth right at the end of the article because they can’t bear to admit it. Here’s the truth regarding the uptick in US air pollution in 2017:
“In an email, the EPA told The Associated Press the increase in unhealthy air days in 2017 “is largely associated with wildfires” in the west and it is studying 2018 before officially announcing its annual air trend data.”
This was buried at the bottom of the NYT article (linked by The Hill) which itself cited the Associated Press which in turn quoted the EPA email sent to them. It’s crucial to understanding the uptick in air pollution in 2017 which averaged one extra day for the 500 or so metropolitan sites surveyed. That of course chimes with an uptick in air pollution as the smoke drifts over nearby towns in random directions.
Moreover, the reason for the fires did after all turn out to be due to a lack of raking as a recent CA report showed and as President Trump had said all along.
Can we think up a name for this ploy of forcing us to dig down, link after link, article after article until we find the truth placed reluctantly at the bottom of the bottom layer?(always at the end of a long article implying the opposite in the hopes you won’t read to the end).
With a pithy name for it that everyone understands (like the way straw man is well understood) it means they can be called out in a couple of words. I say this because I’m constantly mining down through these links to find the truth at the bottom which bears no relation to the claim in the top layer. It’s a very common ploy. NYT is the worst offender, so much so that the fourth or fifth layer sometimes links back to a previous NYT article. I suspect their journalists don’t just pick this up, I think they’re proactively taught it.
You already said it – “bury the truth”, so call it “truth burying” for short. “Truthbury” could even be the verb, as in “he truthburied it”.
Thanks, good try but I’m thinking more about the method of truth burying in this particular case i.e. using layer upon layer of links. I don’t think many people realise this is a well used method; they just believe there’s one link they could click on to be shown definitive proof of NYT’s (or others’) argument and don’t bother. In reality it’s several layers that lead to something completely different. It’s as if they’re laundering the truth via several stages…
So perhaps truth laundering or fact laundering- or maybe link laundering.
Hmm, Link Laundering with capital letters- that sounds quite pithy and gets to the point that they’re using links to achieve it. What do you think? 🤔
That works too, and as a plus, it has that aliteration thing going for it.
Anthony,
Are you going to highlight this nutty comment calling for death threats against you and Eric?
Perhaps Rhys is suffering from global warming…
That sounds disturbingly like a threat of physical harm.
Surely not intended to be such.
I am no fan of Trump (Or any politician for that matter) however, he was democratically elected and that should be enough. All the crying and gnashing of teeth by “liberals” (Lefties in Australia) should be ignored (They hate democracy). Here in Australia we are bombarded by anti-Trump articles day after day. No-one ever mentions Trump has done more in a few years than Obama did in his 8 years with North Korea. You had the chance liberals and democracy prevailed. I bet Hillary is still spitting tacks for losing an unlosable election, just like Shorten and the ALP here in Australia. I really enjoy predictions like that failing spectacularly!
I hope Americans vote with sense again and usher in another term for Trump. Just to give those left leaning career lawyer politicians a sharp punch on the nose and a return to reality.
Fifty years ago I learnt not to trust either politicians or the media. The years since have simply confirmed my judgement. The sober reality is that in 20 years today’s fiercest critics of Trump will have to admit that he was nowhere near as incompetent as they portray him. However, Obama’s staunchest defenders will have to admit that their hero was nowhere near as great as they have portrayed him. We need a sober judgement on both politicians and climate claims.
Lucky US, when I have May who has signed us up for a 2050 net zero ponzi scheme.
“Wind doesn’t work for the most part without subsidy.
The United States is paying tremendous amounts of subsidies for wind.”
Because the critics of Trump believe he is a buffoon, totally incompetent and an ignoramus, they immediately discredit every claim he makes. However, if these two claims he makes are true, then perhaps certain other claims he makes about climate are also true. If the critics cannot produce both verifiable evidence that these claims are false and show that their reasoning is sound and logical, why should we believe them?
Yes, certain other claims he makes about the climate are indeed true. The most aggressively fought slap-down of a correct statement was directly after his Paris Agreement speech on 1st June 2017 in which he said the US was quitting the Agreement.
He cited MIT research saying the Paris Agreement commitments would result in a 0.2°C reduction in temperature in 2100. This was absolutely correct.
His speech needed at about 3:45PM EDT. By 6PM, Reuters were first to press with a critical article on the 0.2°C claim. Between 3:45 and 6:00PM they had interviewed the lead author of the 0.2°C study as well as a co-author. They were quoted in the Reuter’s article. All their comments were critical. They didn’t mention the 0.2°C report they’d authored a year before with the 0.2°C claim put in pride of place as a key finding. Instead, Reuters walked away with another report (authored by one of the two interviewees) which bore no relationship to the 0.2°C. Instead, it cited a different set of commitments leading to up to 1.1°C. Reuters linked this report in their 6PM article and it went viral round the world in minutes. It made Trump look as if he was making the 0.2°C up even though Reuters had interviewed the lead author of the correct report, who presumably never mentioned it to Reuters.
MIT then produced a statement towards midnight in which they tacitly acknowledged the correct report without mentioning its name or linking it. So between 6PM and midnight the lead author of the correct paper suddenly remembered his own paper with the “key finding” of 0.2°C and referred to that research in the MIT statement.
Reuters never made a correction to their article nor apologised for their error. That error appears to have been a forced error based on the two MIT authors either neglecting to mention the correct paper when asked or genuinely forgetting it existed in a stunning lapse of collective memory loss. It appears that when they did apparently remember it hours later during the drafting of their statement, they didn’t immediately phone Reuters to tell them of their terrible mistake.
Throughout that evening one of the two authors was tweeting that there was no way he was going to let Trump use his research to promote leaving the Paris Agreement. His Twitter feed before and since that day has been a screed of anti-Trump bile.
Full information about that day and the astonishing incompetence of MIT is here, fully researched and fully referenced:
https://investigativeanalysis.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/on-trump-and-mits-on-the-order-of-1-degree-celsius/
100 up votes plus 1!
Thanks! 👍😎
Oh, the irony!
Now if he would understand that ethanol is just as great a scam as any other “renewable”. Round and round and round they go, using diesel to plant, fertilize, apply weed and insect killers and harvest corn ethanol which provides fewer mpgs than gas does, and pollutes the environment more as well. If the ozone is up, guess why? Same goes for soy diesel. Planting, fertilizing, applying weed killers and insecticides and harvesting the beans to turn around and put it back in the tractor to repeat the process. There is no point to it. They are running in circles
As goes the thinking of Most Greentards
I am proud to have supported, albeit vicariously, Donald Trump for President. But, then I made Stephan harper Prime Miinster of Canada and where did THAT get us? Andy 2% Scheer!
Canadians! Vote PPC and Mad max! End this climate madness!
Can I throw in a few more exclamation marks just for good effect?!!!!!!!!!
It’s July 1st. and Dominion of Canada Day, a time to celebrate!
@ur momisugly Bill E june 30,2019 at 9:15 pm
BBC Media Action was in Syria from 2004, stirring the pot.
+ many other countries:
http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/bbc-media-action-subversion-broadcasting-house-kazahkstan
JD.
The same BBC reported, 9/11, that building 7 fell, 20 minutes before it was detonated.
Subversion & terrorism? Meat & drink for BBC?