Principled Inaction in the Face of Climate Change Extremism.

Reposted with permission from Human Events

President Trump’s courageous commitment to America first on the issue of energy emissions.

By Gregory Wrightstone on December 2, 2019

For the next two weeks, delegates from nearly 200 countries and 29,000 visitors will be convening in Madrid for a summit on climate change.

President Trump’s refusal to cosign radical climate extremism is a courageous gesture of principled inaction.

The 2019 United Nations Climate Change Conference, “COP25,” began with a cryptic address by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres: “By the end of the coming decade we will be on one of two paths, one of which is sleepwalking past the point of no return … Do we want to be remembered as the generation that buried its head in the sand and fiddled as the planet burned?”

According to Guterres, “What is still lacking is political will.” And yet, despite all this “lack of political will,” some 70 countries have pledged carbon neutrality by 2050. Conspicuously absent from the proceedings, however, is the Trump Administration. No senior member of President Trump’s administration is in attendance at COP25.

But despite what Greta Thunberg or António Guterres would have you believe, it isn’t a lack of political will that explains our absence—quite the opposite. President Trump’s refusal to cosign radical climate extremism is a courageous gesture of principled inaction.

Nuclear power.


The main reason behind the administration’s absence from the Madrid summit is that the key objective of the program is to negotiate the finer details of the Paris Climate Accord—the agreement that President Trump has withdrawn us from in the name of American interests.

“[T]o fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord,” the President announced in June 2017, voicing an interest in negotiating an “entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.”

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” he retorted, critically appraising that the Paris Accords:

“[C]alls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments.  So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else.  Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime.”

Earlier last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the administration sent an official notification of its plans to exit the Paris Agreement. This was the first step in the year-long process to leave the agreement that allegedly aims to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The full withdrawal is scheduled for November 4, 2020, a day after the next presidential election.

In positioning America first, the President is refusing to sacrifice the immediate economic needs of everyday Americans in the face of an inflated threat.

The media, often enthusiastic contributors to climate catastrophizing, has presented the administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as an indication that the world’s environmental health has somehow been derailed. “[F]or us to be the exception on this issue is holding the world back,” NPR reports Andrew Light saying, a former climate official in the State Department who helped develop the Paris Agreement.

But that’s not remotely accurate.

In positioning America first, the President is refusing to sacrifice the immediate economic needs of everyday Americans in the face of an inflated threat. The Paris Agreement would have Americans dole out millions of dollars to the so-called developing world—countries like China and India—who refuse to take accountability for their own catastrophic environmental policies.

President Trump will not capitulate to this kind of climate bullying, especially if it compromises our global leadership as energy providers—both traditional and renewable.

Public domain.


It’s not just the technical negotiations over how climate policy will affect American industry; it’s the facticity of climate catastrophe itself that the Trump administration has bravely called into question.

For leaders supporting the Paris agreement, the specter of catastrophic warming provides the moral justification for ever-higher taxation, ever-tighter regulation, ever-greater state interference, ever-larger slush funds for big-spending politicians, and ever-diminished individual freedom to use, acquire, and consume at will.

Several other historical eras—Minoan (2900 to 1100 BC), the Roman Empire (27 BC to 476 AD), and the Medieval warm periods (950 to 1250 AD)—experienced warmer temperatures than we face today. These periods coincided with significant expansions of civilizations, bountiful harvests, and vast improvements in the human condition.

Historical periods of warm global temperature, often higher than our current climate, were commonly referred to as “climate optima” because of the higher temperature and their associated benefits to Earth’s ecosystems. The terminology has fallen into disfavor, however, in recent years, due to a media and scientific blacklisting of any mention of benefits owing to higher temperature. But before climate science became politicized, these past warm periods were associated with a thriving, prospering planet, and human civilization benefited in tandem.

The inconvenient facts, at least to the climate catastrophe crowd, is that the bulk of their predictions are errant speculations about what may or may not occur, 50 or 80 years in the future, based on climate models that substantially overestimate temperature rise.

In reality, by nearly every metric, we see that humans are thriving in the changing ecosystem. The current changing climate has led to increasing food production, soil moisture, crop growth, and a “greening” of the Earth. All the while droughts, forest fires, heatwaves and, temperature-related deaths have declined substantially.

Yes, there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. Yes, there has been some warming. Yes, some of the warming is likely man-made. Yes, some further man-made warming is to be expected. On all these matters, few would disagree; they are all self-evident.

But no, past and future anthropogenic warming do not mean that catastrophe will follow, or that measures to prevent global warming are scientifically and economically justified. Only the radical worldview of environmental catastrophizing could ignore benefits being accrued from atmospheric changes—while embracing harmful economic policies based on fallacious climate models.

What the “crisis narrative” is achieving, however, is extreme regulation and expropriation of profits from the energy sector. For leaders supporting the Paris agreement, the specter of catastrophic warming provides the moral justification for ever-higher taxation, ever-tighter regulation, ever-greater state interference, ever-larger slush funds for big-spending politicians, and ever-diminished individual freedom to use, acquire, and consume at will.

President Trump is bravely taking a stance against environmental extremism.

“What we won’t do is punish the American people while enriching foreign polluters,” President Trump said during a keynote to natural gas executives and employees at the Shale Insight conference in October of 2017. Pointing to the rising U.S. oil and gas production, and his efforts to deregulate the industry in the name of ending the “war on energy,” President Trump applauded his audience: “With unmatched skill, grit and devotion, you’re making America the greatest energy superpower in the history of the world.”

Wind farms.


It takes a lot of courage to do nothing.

Imagine the enormous pressure on President Trump to keep the United States in the Paris climate accord. Worldwide indignation and scorn were heaped on him after his decision to withdraw from the agreement. But it was the correct and principled one to make.

Thanks to near-total control of the news media by proponents of a pending Thermageddon, critical truths are poorly understood and even derided. The truth that there is no “consensus” among climate scientists and that “consensus” would not matter even if it existed. The truth is that global warming will be small, and largely beneficial ecological event, and preventing it would be orders of magnitude costlier than adapting to it. The truth that the correct policy is to have the courage to do nothing.

Like it or not, the truth is the truth. Policy should, in the end, be based on objective reality, and not on the back of a lavishly-funded and elaborate international campaigns of crafty and lucrative falsehoods promoted by the political, financial, corporate, bureaucratic and media establishments.

In this article:Climate Change, Featured, large

Written By Gregory Wrightstone

is a geologist and author of the bestselling book, Inconvenient Facts: The Science that Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know. As a strong proponent of the scientific process, Gregory is a leading voice in the large and growing climate change skeptic community. Among his many qualifications, including advanced degrees in geology, he was recently added as an Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR6). You can follow him on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Derek Wood
December 3, 2019 2:19 pm

Rock on, Donald Trump! The only politician I can think of who opposes this dangerous religion! Thank God for you!

Reply to  Derek Wood
December 3, 2019 7:04 pm

Kind of an ironic statement.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 4, 2019 12:25 am

Not at all ironic. Trump is a man-made global warming skeptic. Many in his administration or advisors are not. Or worse: they are AGW skeptics but they’re playing a strategic game. These self-styled pragmatists have the presidents ear for the moment.

December 3, 2019 2:28 pm

This is a keeper. The author employs a realist’s x-ray vision to see through all the faux-ness, all the hype.

Joe B
Reply to  heysuess
December 3, 2019 3:27 pm

Mr. Wrightstone is an exceptionally intelligent, effective proponent for common sense climate and hydrocarbon issues.
He is an outspoken advocate for vigorous development of the Marcellus/Utica resources.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
December 3, 2019 2:31 pm

Thank heaven for Trump’s refusal to roll over and accept the lies and falsified climate emergency nonsense. I hope he gets a second term and goes on to the offensive to expose the tampering with climate history. The incessant drivel conjured up each night now by the BBC and its hysterical news presentation is just wearing out most people’s patience.

Why doesn’t Greta declare a new children’s crusade and lead a march on India and China from Europe, because that worked so well last time. Roger Dustbin from the BBC can lead the adult flagellents to provide something for the accompanying adults to do while they trudge along as well.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
December 3, 2019 3:14 pm

Moderately Cross of East Anglia

I was listening to bbc radio 4 today from about 12:30 to 2:20 and I honestly got bored and angry of the climate rubbish, even the story they played (made up) was about a russian/columbian oil fix, with a climate change group hacking a bank and the government said they were terrorists 😐 Its utterly boring and play out!!

Gunga Din
December 3, 2019 2:32 pm

Like it or not, the truth is the truth. Policy should, in the end, be based on objective reality, and not on the back of a lavishly-funded and elaborate international campaigns of crafty and lucrative falsehoods promoted by the political, financial, corporate, bureaucratic and media establishments.

There was a saying, meant to be humorous, before “CAGW”.
“Everybody complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it.”
Well, people still complain about the weather. And, still, nobody really CAN do anything about it.
But they want us to pay them to try anyway.
“Nice work if you can get it.”

Curious George
December 3, 2019 2:35 pm

Mr. Guterres is a Socialist, and it shows. Doesn’t he look rather prosperous?

Reply to  Curious George
December 4, 2019 3:35 am

He’s not the only one, this was back in 2009:

In a video address to the Party of European Socialists, (PES) on Dec 8th 2009, as Copenhagen was about to get under way, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee at the time, had this to say, to his “Dear Colleagues”:

He called for a strong center left and noted the regular contact between democrats and PES over the previous three and a half years, at congress, senate and party level. He recalled his visit with Bill Clinton to the Global Progressive Forum in Brussels earlier in 2009 and US and EU progressives sharing a long-term global vision and seeking a global new deal. He spoke of the need for a Low Carbon economy, large investment in “green” technology, social justice and “differentiated responsibilities“ for developing and developed nations.

A New Global Climate Deal requires large scale investment, social justice etc…AOC is just picking up where they left off.

Climate adviser to the Pope, Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia Earth Institute, also addressed the Party of European Socialists at their conference:

He singled out the US as the biggest emitter of CO2 per capita and said it must spend more to save the planet. He promoted the UN Millennium Development Goals and the global target of 0.7% of GDP to fund development. He wanted a global carbon tax and a global financial transactions tax, a global health fund, a global education fund and a global climate fund.

He asked for PES leadership “for the sake of the world” on social principles, financial regulation and solidarity with the poor. In advance of Copenhagen, he claimed that millions were suffering because of drought caused by western induced climate change and a carbon levy was needed.

He said the Environmental Crisis was unprecedented. For the sake of the world, social democracy must be defended. The poor were suffering massively from climate change already occurring. Africa was crying out for our help.

At the same time, this was 2009, pre-Copenhagen, Pelosi was saying “the climate crisis knows no borders. It touches every family and community, every neighborhood and nation. This is not an issue that will be resolved overnight, nor can a single country fix the problem alone. It demands “action, and action now.”

All sounds a little familiar. Here’s Pelosi grandstanding in Madrid this week:

December 3, 2019 2:37 pm

what is this “year long process” to get out all about?

…that’s some kind of con job hoping there’s another election to reverse it

out is out…right now

Reply to  Latitude
December 3, 2019 3:28 pm

It’s a complete absurdity. Obama made an agreement without Congress, and therefore an agreement which could only be binding on him… but the alarmists claim that Trump can’t get out of that agreement without waiting several years. Because they say so.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkG
December 3, 2019 3:52 pm

Standard progressive tactics – ignore the law, and then hold the opposition to the letter – and if there’s a question, make sure you’ve stacked official positions with political allies/hacks.

michael hart
Reply to  Joel Snider
December 3, 2019 4:54 pm

Yup. As I’ve seen it explained, activist State Attorneys General get friendly activist Judges in the lower courts to issue orders ruling the President’s executive orders illegal or unconstitutional.

By the time it reaches the Supreme Court to be over-ruled (if at all), a different AG in another State is ready with another similarly obstructive complaint in the lower courts. And so the process continues.

They are driving a coach and four through the basic spirit of the US Constitution.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  michael hart
December 4, 2019 6:57 am

I have been wondering why Pres Trump hasn’t wised up before now and got a Federal Judge to IMMEDIATELY issue a valid Court decision stating that Trump’s just issued Executive Order is absolutely legal and/or constitutional.

Then iffen the Trump hating Democrats can get a liberally partisan Judge to declare Trump’s EO to be null and void, ….. said Democrat partisan Judge will first have find fault with Trump’s Judge’s Order.

Reply to  MarkG
December 3, 2019 4:01 pm

absurd doesn’t even begin to cover it!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  MarkG
December 3, 2019 9:58 pm

Another way to look at it is that Trump is playing by their rules, 2020 is when the deadline is. Obama didn’t. All Trump has to do is say the US is withdrawing and just wait, which is exactly what he is doing. I guess that may be why there is such strong pressure to impeach him.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Latitude
December 3, 2019 5:49 pm

Latitude, I posted here long ago the legal one year shortcut to a fast Paris exit—also exit UNFCCC.
President Trump chose not to take that shortcut. Perhaps wisely, because keeps a seat at the bigger table. Can always exit UNFCCC on one years notice now that the three year period (adopted by Paris) is long past.

Pat Frank
December 3, 2019 2:49 pm

they are all self-evident.

No, they are not.

Nothing in science is self-evident.

Reply to  Pat Frank
December 3, 2019 3:52 pm

… the ONLY point in the entire piece where I instantly balked as well. Good catch.

Reply to  Pat Frank
December 3, 2019 4:34 pm

It is to Mosher

Hokey Schtick
Reply to  Derg
December 4, 2019 2:17 am

Mosher is not even wrong.

December 3, 2019 3:12 pm

It takes a year long to get out but it would take a stroke of a pen to get in again. US did not get out of UNFCCC that was formally submitted by the late Pres. Bush o the senate and formally ratified by the US senate. The Paris agreement, just like the Kyoto Protocol are mere implementation vehicle of the UNFCCC. If Pres. Trump’s wants to make it more difficult for future US presidents he might as well initiate going out of UNFCCC. Then precedent wish the future US President if he wants to get in again to Paris and future agreements he will have have to follow the procedure of getting in back to UNFCCC first and that will include US senate ratification.

December 3, 2019 3:16 pm

Also this has really opened my eye fully to the u.n./ vile greta Scam

Several other historical eras—Minoan (2900 to 1100 BC), the Roman Empire (27 BC to 476 AD), and the Medieval warm periods (950 to 1250 AD)—experienced warmer temperatures than we face today. These periods coincided with significant expansions of civilizations, bountiful harvests, and vast improvements in the human condition.

Reply to  Sunny
December 3, 2019 4:04 pm

…in a saner world…they called it optimum

Bruce Cobb
December 3, 2019 3:45 pm

We live during very strange times. I don’t really like Trump very much, and would never go to a Trump rally, and yet, I will without hesitation be voting for him again. We stand at a crossroads, as a nation, but also the world. Put simply, if Trump is not reelected the US will take the wrong path – the one the rest of the world is already headed down. Green fascism may yet still win after another Trump administration, but at least freedom, democracy, science and truth will stand a fighting chance.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 3, 2019 5:09 pm

Not if Nikki Haley gets in for the GOP. She would be the most wonderful cathartic bringing together of the world. Watch her YouTubes, read her three books and you will recognise a person the world needs and applauds. An enormously caring but tough can do operator.

William Astley
Reply to  Adrian
December 3, 2019 6:16 pm

She would make a great vice president.

Trump has the toughest job in the world.

He saw that China was robbing the US. Now with a few tariffs, the impossible is real. China will not cheat if cheating is not allowed.

Trump needs some cooling to change the conversation. Before the next election.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 6, 2019 7:59 am

Very well said. Although, I probably dislike Trump’s demeanor less than you do, and I WOULD like (and intend to) go to one of his rallies here in Wisconsin next year. I keep hearing that he has an amazing personal connection with everyone at the rallies, so I’d like to see that first hand. Having little indication before he took office of how he would address the Climate Catastrophe Hoax, I’m incredibly thankful that he got us out of Paris Accord, and seems to really understand the threat from the global Socialist Green/Red Climate thrusts. It will still be a long fight to maintain sanity.

December 3, 2019 3:50 pm

Most of it well stated. One day Trump may be recognised for his courage in his largely lone stance against CAGW.

I take issue with the statement:

Yes, there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect.

Actual satellite measurements of OLR and water vapour show they are highly POSITIVELY correlated. Each millimetre of water vapour added to the atmosphere correlates with increase in surface heat loss by approximately 2W/sq.m. This is the OPPOSITE of the “greenhouse effect” fairy tale.
comment image

Chris Wright
Reply to  RickWill
December 4, 2019 3:13 am

Strictly speaking, there is indeed no greenhouse effect.
That’s because greenhouses don’t work by trapping radiation. They work by trapping the warm air and stopping convection.
Much of climate science – though not all – is religious junk. It’s extremely appropriate that these clowns couldn’t even get the name (AGW) right.

Alasdair Fairbairn
Reply to  RickWill
December 4, 2019 4:48 pm

An interesting point RickWill. Pity the links merely give a couple of graphs without explanation.
I have long held the view that water provides a negative feedback to the GHE due to its behaviour during the phase change at evaporation which occurs at constant temperature and greatly overrides any GHE generated by the water in its liquid and solid phases. The Latent Heat in the vapor being carried up through the atmosphere by the buoyancy of the vapor wrt dry air, winding up in the clouds at various heights with some as ice crystals in the cirrus clouds nudging the Tropopause.
All done oblivious of CO2
For every kilogram of water evaporated from the surface and then returning as rain etc. some 694 Watthrs of energy gets dissipated by these means.
Very interesting that there appears to be a figure of some 2 W/sq.m. of this energy finds its way into space. Can you cite the source and details of the paper?
Regards. Alasdair

December 3, 2019 4:14 pm

A good article by Gregory Wrightstone – thank you Sir.

However, I suggest you could have sharpened your pencil, and your assessment. I believe you are being too kind to the other side of this debate, the global warming fraudsters.

This is the true state of the science, and it completely refutes the CAGW fraudsters’ position:

1. Earth’s climate is not highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. The alleged catastrophic global warming crisis is a scientific fraud, created to further the fraudsters’ extremist political objectives.

2. Green energy is not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy. It doesn’t even significantly reduce CO2 emissions, because of its fatal flaws – intermittency and diffusivity.

3. The next real climate crisis will not be global warming, it will be global cooling, and it will probably commence about now.

4. Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. CO2 reduction and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

We have known the above facts ~forever. Since then, trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered to fight a fiction – non-existent fossil-fuel-driven catastrophic global warming.



We published the following in 2002:

1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

I published in the Calgary Herald on September 1, 2002, based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson:

3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

I modified my global cooling prediction in 2013 or earlier:

3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”

I published the following ~11 years ago:



A. “As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels – below 200 ppm – will cease to grow or produce.”

B. “The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 kyr BP (Before Present). During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 – 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 – 300 ppm during warmer interglacials…
… On longer timescales, various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide levels millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves. While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 myr BP of over 3,000 ppm and between 600 and 400 myr BP of over 6,000 ppm.”'s_atmosphere

Questions and meanderings:

a. According to para.1 above:
During Ice ages, does almost all plant life die out as a result of some combination of lower temperatures and CO2 levels that fell below 200ppm (para. 2 above)? If not, why not?
Does this (possible) loss of plant life have anything to do with rebounding of atmospheric CO2 levels as the world exits the Ice Age (in combination with other factors such as ocean exsolution)? could this contribute to the observed asymmetry?

b. When all life on Earth comes to an end, will it be because CO2 permanently falls below 200ppm as it is permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks, hydrocarbons, coals, etc.?
Since life on Earth is likely to end due to a lack of CO2, should we be paying energy companies to burn fossil fuels to increase atmospheric CO2, instead of fining them due to the false belief that they cause global warming?

Could T.S. Eliot have been thinking about CO2 starvation when he wrote:

“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”

Regards, Allan

December 3, 2019 4:22 pm

A refreshingly different perspective. Thanks, Charles, for posting it.


Adrian Mann
December 3, 2019 4:31 pm

413 days left for One Term Trump.

Reply to  Adrian Mann
December 3, 2019 4:48 pm

This is really funny coming from the party that defended every deed by Clinton and Obama, no matter how far outside the law.
BTW, nobody has presented even a shred of evidence that Trump broke any law.

Reply to  Adrian Mann
December 3, 2019 5:03 pm

Ask your dad to help you with your grammar. That should be;”until the end of his first term.”

John Boland
Reply to  Adrian Mann
December 3, 2019 6:24 pm

One Term? We plan on going for Three terms…

December 3, 2019 4:47 pm

“According to Guterres, “What is still lacking is political will”

UN bureaucratese consists of phrases like “Political will” and “The way forward” strung together and not of well understood underlying concepts nor their expression with clarity and meaning.

December 3, 2019 4:51 pm

Good on Gregory Wrightstone and more people should be calling the the naked emperor called CC.

December 3, 2019 5:03 pm

President Trump talks about …

… entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.

It is not fair that China has doubled down on coal and it’s dropping its subsidies for wind and solar. link It’s stupid for America to kill its economy with completely non viable wind and solar when China does not similarly handicap itself.

Pat Frank
December 3, 2019 5:07 pm

The truth that the correct policy is to have the courage to do nothing.

I believe have the courage to do nothing, as applied to CO2 and the climate, originated with Christopher Monckton.

Michael Jankowski
December 3, 2019 5:50 pm

US is doing pretty well when it comes to reducing emissions…we don’t need any farcical agreements.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
December 3, 2019 6:10 pm

It doesn’t matter if we are releasing too much CO2 as it is a beneficial climate gas…Just sayin…


Rud Istvan
December 3, 2019 5:54 pm

Charles Rotter, formerly just CtM, for what its worth I heartily approve the broadening of WUWT to the bigger political discourse consequences—even tho my own interests are more narrowly focused (here) on the ‘science’. WUWT is evolving with its climate topics. Just one voice, but Bravo.

Greg Woods
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 4, 2019 12:06 am

WUWT should continue to emphasize both the science and the politics of GW. While some of the science (most?) is beyond my attention span, through my own thought processes I have long seen through the GW scam. It is on the political battlefield that we must fight. The book, Human Action, by Von Mises foretold the demise of the Soviet Union. It was inevitable, and so too Reality foretells the demise of the GW Scam.
But who know how much has been done, and will be done. I hope to live to see the day when humanity can return to sanity.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 4, 2019 1:27 am

Yes, Rud, I agree and support.
More of us are recognizing the “global warming” is just another false propaganda weapon in the globalists’ quiver.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 4, 2019 8:24 pm

I agree Rud – of the last papers below, only one (published June 15, 2019) was primarily technical – the rest included the science, but focused on the politics. Here is why:

Radical-green extremism was never about the environment – it was always a false crisis, a smokescreen for their true objective, the totalitarian control of our society.

Many “green” politicians covertly or openly favour a Chinese-style dictatorship. They continue to sabotage our energy systems with deeply-flawed intermittent energy schemes that destabilize the electrical grid and could lead to major catastrophes, especially if grids fail in winter. They fully understand what they are doing – nobody could be this stupid for this long.

The true radical-green objective is to create an economic disaster, like Venezuela or Zimbabwe, as a means of gaining total political control. The radical greens have already gained control of most of our educational and professional institutions as a means to achieve their objectives – that strategy originated in the 1930’s and is now called “The Long March through the Institutions”.
“There’s little debate that modern-day American universities, public education, mainstream media, Hollywood and political advocacy groups are dominated by Leftists. This is no accident, but part of a deliberate strategy to pave the way for communist revolution developed more than eight decades ago by an Italian political theorist named Antonio Gramsci.
Described as one of the world’s most important and influential Marxist theorists since Marx himself, if you are not familiar with Gramsci, you should be.
The Italian communist (1891 – 1937) is credited with the blueprint that has served as the foundation for the Cultural Marxist movement in modern America.
Later dubbed by 1960s German student activist Rudi Dutschke as “the long march through the institutions,” Gramsci wrote in the 1930s of a “war of position” for socialists and communists to subvert Western culture from the inside in an attempt to compel it to redefine itself.
Gramsci used war metaphors to distinguish between a political “war of position” – which he compared to trench warfare – and the “war of movement (or maneuver)” which would be a sudden full-frontal assault resulting in complete social upheaval.”

When I wrote the following papers earlier this year, my views were considered excessive – but it took only months for the radical greens to prove me correct.

Told you so.

Regards, Allan

“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” – Yogi Berra
“Not so much.” – Borat Sagdiyev 🙂


Hypothesis: Radical Greens Are The Great Killers Of Our Age
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., April 14, 2019

Science’s Untold Scandal: The Lockstep March Of Professional Societies To Promote Climate Change
By Tom Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr, May 24, 2019

CO2, Global Warming, Climate And Energy
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019

The Cost To Society Of Radical Environmentalism
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., July 4, 2019

What The Green New Deal Is Really About — And It’s Not The Climate
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., July 19, 2019

The Next Great Extinction Event Will Not Be Global Warming – It Will Be Global Cooling
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., September 1, 2019

The Liberals’ Covert Green Plan for Canada – Poverty and Dictatorship
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 1, 2019

The Real Climate Crisis Is Not Global Warming, It Is Cooling, And It May Have Already Started
By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 27, 2019

December 3, 2019 6:01 pm

Don’t just do something, stand there.

Michael Daly
December 3, 2019 6:02 pm

“All the while droughts, forest fires, heatwaves and, temperature-related deaths have declined substantially.” .The link to supposedly diminishing droughts takes one to an article (Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system),which describes the development of a predictive system, but makes no definitive statement regarding decreasing drought numbers

Linda Goodman
December 3, 2019 8:24 pm

If President Trump is the only person with the courage to stand up to this fraud you can bet his globalist enemies intend to steal the WH in 2020; and if they fail you can bet they have a plan B, C, D & E. So we should all be deeply concerned that we’re one person away from worldwide misery & psychopathic insanity, simply because the vast majority of humanity is still oblivious that the true purpose of the climate fraud is eco-totalitarian world government. And if you consider the fact that carbon is 6 protons, 6 neutrons & 6 electrons, the human body is carbon-based and globalists intend to replace cash with a carbon card, then chip, it seems we’ve been warned. And another truism stands out: ‘Truth shall make us free’, yet almost no one is addressing it and that could be our downfall. Critical mass awareness of the true threat this fraud poses will dissolve the illusion – POOF. ‘The emperor is NAKED, we all see it now!’ So please make that happen, WUWT? Or all your efforts may be for naught.

Patrick MJD
December 3, 2019 9:53 pm

I caught the tail end of some newscast here in Australia that Trump is going to be impeached, is that true?

Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 4, 2019 12:30 am

Most probably, the Democrat dominated House will send articles of impeachment to the Republican dominated Senate which will not vote to remove President Trump from office. ie. he will serve out his term.

There is always a possibility that a group of Republican senators could vote against Trump. None of the talking heads seem to think that is likely. On the other hand prediction is difficult …

Patrick MJD
Reply to  commieBob
December 4, 2019 2:13 am

Especially about the future…

Reply to  commieBob
December 4, 2019 5:01 am

There is also the possibility that swing-state freshman Democrats from districts that Trump won in 2016 will break from the Democrat ranks and vote no on impeachment. The Democrats don’t need any Republican votes to impeach, but they can’t afford many desertions from their own ranks.

There are 41 freshman Democrats and they need at least 24 of them to vote yes. Almost all of those 41 freshmen Democrats won their seats by promising to be bipartisan and NOT engage in a witch hunt against the Trump administration, and almost all of them are now facing at angry hornet’s nest in their home districts. If their constituents can convince 17 of them their job is in jeopardy if they vote to impeach, the House of Representatives could fail to deliver impeachment. That would be massively embarrassing for their leadership.

While it is not a likely scenario (maybe a 10% chance of happening), it is far more likely than the almost impossible scenario where 20+ Republican senators vote to convict (close to 0% IMO).

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 4, 2019 12:59 am

Only in Pelosi’s House. Will never make it past the Senate. The house is now considering changing it to “censure”, which is basically a slap on Trumps wrist with a wet noodle ! : )

Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 4, 2019 4:47 am

Think of impeachment as like an indictment.

Yes, it is highly likely that the Democrat-leaning House of Representatives will impeach Trump, but once that is done, the trial will take place in the Republican-leaning Senate, where there is almost no chance he will be convicted. Plus, if they choose to, the Senate could deconstruct the impeachment farce by exposing to sunlight all the chicanery of the Democrats during their sham investigation.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 4, 2019 4:54 am

abc especially is pro dem and were and still are pro clinton etc
thing is they really arent reading outside their own memes
obama n clinton approved and fostered the Biden setup
and the dems really seem to think everyones oblivious to what went on in ukraine
well, even downunder people like me were following what went on, and shared and have better than short term memory;-) and will keep stirring the pot.

December 4, 2019 12:24 am

Good essay.
“Principled Inaction”
Outstanding description.

December 4, 2019 7:42 am

President Trump’s refusal to cosign radical climate extremism is a courageous gesture of principled inaction.

Oxford came up w/that earlier stupid phrase, but I really like the bolded phrase above by the article author, Gregory Wrightstone.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights