Democrats: 100% Clean Energy by 2050, because “Australia is Burning”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Democrats have released a bill to shut down all US fossil fuel industries, because of climate change.

House Democrats Introduce Ambitious Climate Change Plan 

Legislation will call for a 100% clean U.S. economy by 2050.

By Randy Showstack  6 hours ago

Democrats in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have released the legislative framework for what they are calling a bold, ambitious, and sweeping plan to achieve the goal of a 100% clean U.S. economy by 2050.

“We’re really treating climate change like the existential emergency that it is,” said committee chair Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) at an 8 January briefing. He said that the legislation, which grew from a series of congressional hearings, is one of the committee’s top priorities.

“The climate crisis is here, and we can no longer afford to address this issue along the margins,” he said. The 2050 goal would respond to a 2018 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that stated that limiting global warming this century to 1.5°C would require net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide to be reduced to zero by about 2050.

“But there’s a fundamental problem here, which I’d be crazy not to acknowledge, that most of them are climate deniers. The president, the [Republican] leadership, won’t admit that there’s a human element to the climate disaster that we face. So that’s a huge problem to get them to participate,” he said. Pallone added that he doesn’t know of a single Republican who has agreed to the target of 100% clean energy by 2050.

“What choice do we have? Australia is burning. We can’t just sit here and say, ‘Oh, the Republicans may not like this or the president may not like this.’ We’ve got to keep going and see what we can achieve,” Pallone said.

Read more:

Representative Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), I think it is very sweet of you to offer to bomb the US economy back to the stone age because you support Australia, but I think most of my fellow Australians would prefer free tickets to Disneyland. Or maybe you could help the Australian Navy deliver emergency beer supplies to pubs cut off by the fires.

4 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 11, 2020 2:12 am

The bushfires in Australia occurred where the uncleared forest fire load was at its greatest not where the temperatures were at their greatest. So where does GlobalWarming / Climate Change relate to that? The contributing factors were the drought, arsonists and lightning strikes, and the prevention of forest clearing by the Greenies who are now hiding behind a GlobalWarming Smoke Screen.

peter jones
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 12, 2020 4:27 am

The interesting thing about the long expected serious bushfires (due to a lack of adequate hazard reduction burns) and the nature of Australia, is that both liberal and labor state governments have the same terrible record on this issue, whats going on here ?, they are all still implementing the same failed policy’s revealed in eighteen separate enquiries.
What hidden hand behind the scenes has the power to ensure both party’s quietly adopt the same policy’s in different states while attempting to convince the public they are quite different.


January 11, 2020 2:24 am

The sky is falling!
We must do something!
This is something, therefore we must do it!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 11, 2020 6:46 am

This bill has what Greens crave…Socialist Totalitarianism.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 11, 2020 5:51 pm

It seems to me the Democrats are too far out in la-la-land to get elected, but I’m old so what do I know.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Pop Piasa
January 12, 2020 7:40 am

A bill like this is written with the full certain knowledge that it will never become law. Its sole purpose is for Senator Pallone to get in front of a crowd of ignorant partisans in New Joisey and say some nonsense about how “I sponsored the bill to solve the climate crisis, but OrangeManBad opposed it and the Rethuglicans in the Senate voted it down”. It is not constrained by reality, not even the laws of physics, and it can never have any negative impact on a voter the way it would if the nightmare ever could become law. It can promise each constituent free energy, free food, free medicine, free housing, free education, a chicken in every pot, forty acres and a unicorn. Billionaires and trillionaires will pay.

Every Dem candidate at one debate last year raised their hand that illegal immigrants would be eligible for free healthcare. Now that might get weaponized by Trump, but you can be certain that it is going into the memory hole as far as the eventual Democrat nominee is concerned.

It looks like the DNC will make sure Joe Biden is the nominee, probably with Klobuchar as VP nominee to get the requisite balance of X and Y chromosomes necessary to qualify as a Dem ticket under DNC rules. They will need a waiver for being melanin-deficient, but they did that in 2016, so that won’t be a hurdle. (“We had the most diverse field in history”)

In short, by August, with the yeoman work of the people’s propaganda organs (mainstream media), the Biden-Klobuchar ticket will be the reasonable, moderate alternative to the raging erratic madman who has given us worker shortages, a crisis of too much affluence, plus premature peace through reckless war crimes.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 20, 2020 9:04 am

The CBC up here in Canada is pushing free healthcare for illegal immigrants too. I notice that they didn’t bother explaining what would happen to the existing rationing (wait times) if the “free” service is extended from 30 million Canadians to all 7 billion Earthlings.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 11, 2020 8:45 am

The democrats are going to save Australia even though Australia has not asked nor wants to be saved 🙂

If you want to save us can we ship all our left/greens over you seem to have enough stupids and a few more surely won’t make a difference?

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 11, 2020 3:39 pm

Let’s try it .
In the month of February 2020, by Presdential executive order, disconnect Washington D.C. from the grid, shut down the gas and NG pipelines and bring in some horse drawn carts.
For the entire month, go back to the time of the Founders.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  RLu
January 11, 2020 5:29 pm

You can re-run the Salem witch trials while you are at it.

Reply to  Komrade Kuma
January 11, 2020 5:50 pm

Pelosi already has that covered, with her impeachment nonsense.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 11, 2020 4:59 pm

I propose that all Democrats in the US drive electric vehicles, but they must be recharged using solar power only.

They can also pay a $100 per panel recycling fee.

January 11, 2020 2:45 am

Australia is not burning.
I just looked out the window. It’s raining.
Weather changes.
While there is a mega fire in Victoria, we will get on top of the bushfires.
Mr. Pallone and the Democrats should understand 2019/2020 is weather.
Climate it is not.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  Herbert
January 11, 2020 5:44 pm

Actually what Australia is experiencing it climate the same climate Australia has had for million of years. The only difference unlike the Bushman, White man don’t burn off the bush periodically. So yes you are experiencing man made climate change, the only problem with the congress man is he too stupid to not know the fires have little to do with CO2.

January 11, 2020 2:51 am

Looking better every day for Trump!

Reply to  Warren
January 11, 2020 6:15 am

The President by, of, and for the working class. The concept of work is absolutely terrifying to Democrats, but also to fabulously rich liberal people.

Curious George
Reply to  Luke
January 11, 2020 1:07 pm

Are Democrats returning to their slave-owner roots?

Reply to  Curious George
January 11, 2020 1:47 pm

They never left.

Richard Patton
Reply to  MarkG
January 11, 2020 4:37 pm


Tom Abbott
Reply to  Warren
January 11, 2020 7:10 am

Keep up the crazy talk, Democrats.

The Democrats have lost their minds. Unfortunately, crazy people are always the last ones to know they are crazy.

January 11, 2020 2:56 am

Australia burning is mainly due to natural causes with some help of few arsonists. Hot weather comes and goes, but with it comes air circulation and atmospheric electrostatic charge, followed by a rapid discharge i.e lightning, the most likely cause of the (eucalyptus reach) forests fires.
This map shows the lightning intensity during 24 hours (on 2nd January 2020) for an area north of Sidney
link to real time and archive

Reply to  Vuk
January 11, 2020 6:05 pm

Last I heard… seems your “few” arsonists is around 180.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Alcheson
January 11, 2020 7:58 pm

There needs to be, and will I suspect, an accounting of sources of ignition.
Of the 180 mentioned by Alcheson, how many are arson?
Arson is the crime of willfully and maliciously setting fire etc.
Some are suspected, others known and charged. We await more info.

A study in the USA shows >80% of fires that require involvement of fire-fighters happen because of humans being somehow contributing to the ignition. Most are not deliberate.

Reply to  Alcheson
January 12, 2020 5:23 am

Alcheson, hi
In this case my word ‘few’ has same meaning as ‘number of’, hence I will correct to :
“due to natural causes with some help of number of arsonists”
Now you can pick any number from 23 to 200, whichever source of information you choose to be credible.

Deplorable Lord Kek
January 11, 2020 3:08 am

1974/5 bushfire season v this bushfire season (Dr Roy Spencer)

comment image?fbclid=IwAR0XBmp9aRTiATLurtapJHhfbAdpaAahY_qwuDbWlldPMHSXD5rXrvF9My0

James R Clarke
January 11, 2020 3:22 am

The climate change over much of Australia over the last 100 years has been towards cooler, wetter weather while atmospheric CO2 increased. This past year has been hot and dry, but not as hot and dry as it used to be. The fires this past year are more the result of environmental laws that prohibit or restrict brush management. As long as those laws are in effect, there will be catastrophic fires every now and then. With intelligent laws there will still be fires, but they won’t be so catastrophic.

A quick glance at the temperature and rainfall data over Australia for the last 100 years should convince even a Democrat that CO2 has nothing to do with it in less than 5 seconds.

Reply to  James R Clarke
January 11, 2020 6:41 am

 “The fires this past year are more the result of environmental laws that prohibit or restrict brush management”.
You nailed it. Either we clear the brush and create fire breaks or nature will. Pretty simple stuff.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Ron
January 11, 2020 5:37 pm

And the mean old so and so has cleared some scrub this time. She does not much around ‘down under’. Which is why our indigenous ancestors religiously burned the country for millenia. They had received the memo, loud and clear a long, long time ago. It is only recently when our cities had inner cities and cafe districts that we became isolated from her messaging, dumbed down our approach to such matters and started believing in eco fairies or at least started to let eco fairy believers draft our laws, regulations and practice guides.

Rich Davis
Reply to  James R Clarke
January 11, 2020 6:50 am

You’re asking them to look at naked data instead of listening exclusively to St Greta’s sermons? That’s obscene!

William Haas
January 11, 2020 3:24 am

But the reality is that the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. If we eliminated all CO2 form our atmosphere, life on Earth as we know would die out yet the Earth’s climate could continue to change unabated. It is all a matter of science. Eliminating all life as we know it on Earth many not be all that good for the economy.

January 11, 2020 3:33 am

The US has zero chance of going emission free ever. Period. Would some of these alarmist types please gather themselves together somewhere and demonstrate for all humanity exactly how they can live with no electricity, no phone, no communications of any sort, no vehicles, no building materials, nothing made of any type of metal or plastic or made by any sort of machine, no medicines, no prepared foods, no refrigeration, no heating, no fire, no animals, and if I’ve forgotten anything please forgive me. You get the picture. All of the above requires emissions of carbon either when you dig it out of the ground, manufacture something, trade it, transport it or consume it. This demonstration must be done for at least a year. It’s about time all this hysterical nonsense stopped. Either show us how it’s done or shut up and go away.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Peter
January 11, 2020 7:20 am

The Democrats ought to be asked what they are doing personally to stop their carbon dioxide footprint. If they want everyone to go without fossil fuels, they ought to be leading the way by going without fossil fuels. “Do what I say, not what I do” doesn’t cut it. We need good examples of this Green New Deal mentality. Show us how it’s done, Democrats. Personal sacrifices are called for here. Otherwise, you are hypocrits.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 11, 2020 1:42 pm

They and all other alarmists think that burning fossil fuels is the only way that CO2 is released into the atmosphere. They also have no concept of the fact that to manufacture one solar panel produces more CO2 than using it will save in it’s useable lifetime. Nor do they know that to make an EV or even a hybrid EV consumes more copper and other rare earth minerals that are more expensive economically as well as environmentally to extract that the point of owning or using one is lost. Worse still, all these bright young minds that are so fond of gathering in mobs screeching poorly worded slogans and waving cardboard signs – recycled, of course – and filming it on their phones so they can post it on their socialist media platform of choice have no clue that the world they think they want to live in would not include the freedom to gather in mobs, there would be no platform for virtue signalling and their phones would become environmental hazards being rendered useless.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Peter
January 13, 2020 5:35 am

“their socialist media platform of choice”

Thanks! That made me laugh! 🙂

Reply to  Peter
January 11, 2020 7:45 pm

Nicely stated. They should read Clan of the Cave Bear, or a later book of the series, Shelters of Stone. Obviously an authors creation, but the reality is the fact that those who worked HARDER, SMARTER and LONGER will end up wealthier. The problem with leftists is everything to them is a zero sum game. They think there are only X dollars available, or X houses or X energy. A false premis since the more productive WORK done, the more product produced. But alarmist types only form of production is in making someone else to do their bidding through government coercion. Obama was highly regarded as well qualified for the presidency because he was a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, a leader of those who got the government to pay for things to be done that they would not do themselves, with OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.

I won’t hold my breath waiting for them to educate themselves, they are not interested in gaining knolwedge, just getting their way.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Peter
January 20, 2020 9:19 am

I’m pretty sure that that demonstration has already been done, Peter. Tell them to go visit the Amish or Mennonite communities. All carbon dioxide neutral!

Joe Hoggins
January 11, 2020 3:45 am

So Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the big bad wolf and responsible for every weather induced event in the World, including the bush fires in Australia.

It is ‘estimated’ by those people who know best (!) that the total CO2 in the atmosphere is circa 190-225 Gt, with anthropogenic CO2 circa 5-6 Gt. So, from the total estimate there is a discrepancy of 35 Gt (which is six to seven times anthropogenic produced CO2).

If I take sugar in my tea and I normally have 200 granules of sugar, would I actually notice the sugar pile is smaller or taste the difference if I reduced it by 5/6 granules?

Surely CO2, in the atmosphere, is all carbon dioxide, and doesn’t distinguish between naturally or anthropogenically produced CO2? When the majority of emissions occur from the oceans and with around half-a-million Earthquakes per annum, many occurring in the 70% of ocean covering Earth, the effect of man can not be deemed to be ‘devastating’ or classified as an emergency?

With a huge increase in the population of people on Earth, any ‘reduction’ of CO2 will adversely affect the much needed cultivation of rice (for instance) to feed the billions of underfed and starving peoples of our planet. Cutting back on CO2 will ensure the added suffering of the World’s poorest (not forgetting that 40% of all anthropogenic is taken up by plants and the oceans).

I would be much more sympathetic to reducing CO2 if someone would just tell me ‘what’, and spell out exactly, what the climate emergency looks like.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joe Hoggins
January 11, 2020 7:30 am

The Climate Emergency looks like every misfortune anywhere on Earth. It’s the modern version of demons to whom we attribute all human suffering.

January 11, 2020 3:54 am

A must see Liz Wheeler especially for schoolkids re AGW Greta ect. Apologies if already posted

January 11, 2020 4:04 am

“The climate crisis is here, and we can no longer afford to address this issue along the margins”

Yes sir. Of course. The scientific evidence is there for all to see

and the evidence is clearly seen once you get past the denialist skepticism.

January 11, 2020 4:33 am

Ironically Australia has one of the highest levels of roof top solar and has been closing down coal fired plants at a rate seriously impacting reliability and affordability. Per head of population we have more renewables than almost anywhere else in the world.
We still had these fires . I don’t think that there is a correlation between the amount of renewable generation and fires otherwise the fires would be getting less intense not more.
I don’t think that the Democrats have thought this through. I think the Australian bushfires should be interpreted as proof that undertaking extreme measures As we have in Australia , rather than reduce fire risk may be making them more intense. Per head of population of the major countries India and China have done the least amount of renewables and increased the number of coal fired plants but rarely have any bushfires. QED. More renewables and less coal leads to more severe bushfires not less.

Reply to  Zigmaster
January 11, 2020 5:30 am

Must read comment by Mr Zigmaster.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Zigmaster
January 12, 2020 9:57 pm

They keep telling us we must prepare for more extremes. More heat, more rain, more wind, more insects, more disease.

I don’t think they know what the word “prepare” means.

George V
January 11, 2020 4:33 am

This is why I think there really is a climate crisis. It is NOT due to any major changes in the climate, the crisis is due to the solutions that will be foisted on otherwise generally free and independent people. These “solutions” will set the economy back decades while doing very little to any climate change. The solutions will be implemented as demographics in the US will drive it. Younger people are trending more “progressive” in their voting over time.

Making it more of a crisis is that the Chinese economy and government will remain untouched. For some reason the Chinese government can give lip service to mitigating climate change, continue to build coal-fired power plants, increase their CO2 output and still be considered a leader in the area. They will be the last large economic power in the world once the US abdicates in the name of saving the climate. As such they will be influencing other nations and driving global activities.

peter jones
Reply to  George V
January 12, 2020 4:41 am

The interesting thing about the long expected serious bushfires (due to a lack of adequate hazard reduction burns) and the nature of Australia, is that both liberal and labor state governments have the same terrible record on this issue, whats going on here ?, they are all still implementing the same failed policy’s revealed in eighteen separate enquiries.
What hidden hand behind the scenes has the power to ensure both party’s quietly adopt the same policy’s in different states while attempting to convince the public they are quite different.


January 11, 2020 4:41 am

Straight from Wikipedia: “Existentialism asserts that people actually make decisions based on subjective meaning rather than pure rationality.”

Rich Davis
Reply to  Russell
January 11, 2020 7:24 am

I would caution that the word existential should not be conflated with Existentialism. An existential threat is anything that threatens our existence. The philosophy of Existentialism uses the word existential as you point out, but Existentialism doesn’t define the word existential. In the same way that Leftism doesn’t usually enter into it when you turn left while driving, Existential angst is not always the reason why existential threats are perceived. There can be objectively true existential threats, not just bogus threats dreamt up by people who define their own reality.

It is instructive though that the sort of politician who talks about the Politics of Meaning (HRC), is likely to refer to the imagined Climate Emergency as an existential threat. Maybe in their case, it should be capitalized as an Existential threat.

Mike Ozanne
January 11, 2020 4:57 am

““We’re really treating climate change like the existential emergency that it is,” ”

… as long as you don’t expect us to build fission reactors…

Harry Passfield
January 11, 2020 5:23 am

“We’re really treating climate change like the existential emergency that it is,” said committee chair Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.)

That being the case, Rep Pallone will be quite happy to explain – scientifically – what the emergency is and how it relates to the government’s ability to rule, and what changes to the country the switch to a ‘zero-carbon’ economy would mean in terms of civil stability and law.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 11, 2020 8:49 am

Harry Passfield. I keep on asking for someone to explain, exactly, what the scientific emergency we are facing and why we only have few years to resolve it. If they know the time frame they know exactly what the problem is!!

If it’s AGW, and in particular, CO2, why is 5-6 Gt of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere the big bad wolf of the 190-225 Gt produced naturally (Note; 35 Gt of discrepancy). Is anthropogenic CO2 much more volatile? (!!)

If it’s beef production and the release of Methane (NH4) why is NOONE discussing the production of RICE grown in paddy-fields, where the production is increasing, and produces more NH4 globally(?) !

Paul Hildebrandt
Reply to  JoHo
January 11, 2020 12:11 pm

CH4 is methane, NH4 is ammonia. Just a FYI.

January 11, 2020 5:27 am

I’m happy that the existential crisis of a dwindling beer supply is being addressed. We need more carbonated and ethyl alcohol enhanced beverages.

Reply to  Scissor
January 11, 2020 5:51 am

Scissor, “carbonated” is such a descriptive word. Anyone wonder why the non-alcoholic versions are called fizzy drinks?


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 11, 2020 6:13 am

Is that a regional terminology?

Where I grew up, folks called soft drinks “pop” (short for soda pop). Further East, folks tended to use the term “soda.” I think that soda pop originated from time when such beverages were made by acidifying sodium carbonate of sodium bicarbonate with some acid, e.g. phosphoric acid.

Now, CO2 is used to carbonate such beverages without the need for sodium. I suppose there could be a campaign to ban carbonated beverages.

Reply to  Scissor
January 11, 2020 7:26 am

Scissor asked about Fizzy Drinks, “Is that a regional terminology?”

Britain and I believe one of the lands down under…but I’m not sure if it’s Australia or New Zealand (maybe both?).


John in NZ
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 11, 2020 4:47 pm

In NZ it is fizzy drinks.
not pop or soda.

Soda is just carbonated water without any flavouring. (Note the correct spelling of flavouring.)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
January 11, 2020 7:28 am

“I think that soda pop originated from time when such beverages were made by acidifying sodium carbonate of sodium bicarbonate with some acid, e.g. phosphoric acid.”

Now I know why it was called Soda Pop! One learns something every day around here! 🙂

We call it pop in this neck of the woods. Love my Dr. Pepper!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 11, 2020 10:43 am

I grew up on the east coast of the US, we called it soda. I’m on the west coast now, everyone calls it pop.

Tom Waeghe
Reply to  Scissor
January 11, 2020 1:08 pm

Another good use of all that sequestered CO2!

January 11, 2020 5:34 am

Democrats don’t know the difference between weather and climate. They also confuse ‘bushfires and climate change’ in Australia with ‘bushfires and arsonists in Australia’.

January 11, 2020 5:43 am

A fossil free economy equals an ox cart economy. The Demorat bill is going nowhere.

Reply to  Rob
January 11, 2020 5:53 am

Rob, I thoroughly enjoyed “Demorat”!


Andy Espersen
January 11, 2020 6:04 am

The Democrats are continuing on their headlong path to a sure loss in the upcoming election, simply by coming out with nonsense like that : The safest way to guarantee a Republican victory. The Dems would stand a fair chance of winning if they just openly stated that ideas about what the weather will be like at year 2100 can of course only ever be theories – and instead concentrated on hammering Trump’s terribly risky, inane and unnecessary policy against Iran.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Andy Espersen
January 11, 2020 7:46 am

“and instead concentrated on hammering Trump’s terribly risky, inane and unnecessary policy against Iran.”

Trump is doing just right . If you want to know how to handle murderous dictators, just watch Trump.

If you convince a murderous dictator that you will kill him the next time he attacks you, then he won’t attack you, unless he is genuinely insane. The problem is you have to convince the dictator that he really is in danger from you.

Trump convinced the Mad Mullahs that he was going to lower the boom on them if they killed one more American, and they backed off because they think he is serious. And then along come the Appeaser Democrats taking the side of the Mad Mullahs possibly giving the Mad Mullahs the idea that maybe Trump won’t hit them hard if they kill another American.

The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to our enemies, the Mad Mullahs, with their anti-Trump, anti-war rhetoric. One American Democrat congresswoman who made the outrageous claim that Trump is responsible for the Ukranian airliner being shot down is having her comments being played over and over on Iranian State television. Good move, congresswoman. You have demonstrated your ignorance of the facts and hopefully your are just doing this out of ignorance and not because you want to help murderous terrorists continue their murder spree.

Democrats are totally unfit to defend the United States from its enemies. This Iran situation demonstrates that quite clearly.

President Trump said Soleiamani was targetting four embassies when he was killed. Those plans are still active no doubt, and a new commander can have them carried out, so we should not be surprised if the Mad Mullahs continue their attacks on the U.S., especially after being given encourgement from the Democrats in the United States.

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that if the Mad Mullahs kill any more Americans, Trump is going to hit them very, very hard. If he goes into Iran, he’s going to come out with the Iranian military completely destroyed. Is that what you want, Mad Mullahs? Don’t let an ignorant Democrat lead you into believing you can come out on top with Trump. You won’t. And Congress can’t stop him before he stops you.

Andy Espersen
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 11, 2020 12:35 pm

Tom Abbott – There is no doubt in which polarized, political camp you belong! To me it is saddening that in neither of the camps we see mentioned the most meaningful aspect of Trump’s Iran policy, namely its immorality. The United States of America broke her solemn word that she, together with a number of other major world powers, would adhere to a written contract. Trump here behaved exactly like Hitler at Munich. Do you remember Chamberlain proudly waving a piece of paper : “Peace in our time”. Hitler had signed it – and to Chamberlain’s old-fashioned mind that was sufficient.

That was what the American Indians could not stomach either : “White man talks with two tongues”. And this, in the long run, will prove the most damaging effect of Trump’s foreign policy : The United States cannot be trusted.

Reply to  Andy Espersen
January 11, 2020 5:22 pm

The ‘Iran Deal’, just like the Paris nonsense, was an agreement with Obama, not the US. The ‘Iran Deal’ was not a treaty, and was not approved by Congress. Hence, it has no legal power on anyone but Obama.

Once Obama was no longer President, why should the US abide by it? Obama agreed to it, the US didn’t.

Reply to  MarkG
January 11, 2020 6:15 pm

Spot on… Obama refused to send either to the senate for ratification because he KNEW the US would NOT agree with his “deals”. The other countries should have known quite well that unless the US makes it a formal treaty…. it is not worth much more than the paper it is written on as it can be changed just as soon as that president is out of office.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Andy Espersen
January 12, 2020 10:04 am

Andy, the U.S. had every reason to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal,because it did not prevent the Mad Mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them, and the U.S. had the legal right to withdraw from it, as all the signatories were aware of when the treaty was signed between Obama and the other parties. They all knew the treaty was solely dependent on President Obama being in Office.

The U.S. cannot allow the Mad Mullahs to acquire nuclear weapons. Can you imagine what they would be threatening right now if they had them? I can.

So Trump is going to do whatever it takes to prevent the Mad Mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons even if that includes all-out war.

Fact: The United States military is capable of completely destroying all of the Mad Mullahs military assets: tanks, aircraft, ships, missile batteries, etc.

Fact: The Mad Mullahs are aware that the U.S. military can completely destroy them.

Fact: Murderous dictators are psychopaths, but even psychopaths have a sense of self-presevation, unless they are genuinely divorced from reality.

Given these facts, what does it take to deter a murderous dictator who has a sense of self-preservation?

First, you have to convince the murderous dictator that you have the technical ability to do him great harm.

Second, you have to convince the murderus dictator that you have the will to use your technical superiority against the murderous dictator.

If you convince a murderous dictator of both those things, then the murderous dictator will *not* cross the redline laid down.

If you can accomplish this convincing, then you can get your way without resorting to war. But you must be willing to go to war, convincingly so, in order to put your self in this position.

This is the downfall of Democrats. They are definitely *not* willing to go to war to deal with a murderous dictator and they signal this weakness at every opportunty.

And the most important part of this whole deal is the convincing of the murderous dictator that the president means business, which may prevent bloodshed not cause bloodshed, yet the Democrats are blind to this and undermine the president at every turn while the Mad Mullahs and other dictators look on wondering if Trump can really do what he says he will do.

I think the world is going to find out the answer to that question because I think the Mad Mullahs are fanatics who are backed into a corner and their only thought to fix their problems is to react violently.

The Mad Mullah’s militia’s in Iraq have fired a couple of Katusha rockets at an Iraqi base the other day and they lobbed half a dozen mortar shells into a base this morning. This may just be the particular militias acting out on their own, although U.S. intelligence said the Mad Mullahs were putting out the word to the militias to “cool it”.

At any rate, these so far are small attacks. These small rockets and mortars can be set up are fired in a very short time and then those who fire them can run away fast so they don’t get spotted by the helcompters. So these are small-scall harrasement attacks, but they could lead to an American getting killed and if Trump can connect that to the Mad Mullahs then that will be the end of the Mad Mullahs.

Let’s hope for all our sakes that the big demonstrations going on in Iran right this moment against the Mad Mullahs succeeds in ousting the Mad Mullahs. This is the best outcome possible, letting the Iranian people decide, and Trump has signaled them his support and admiration.

So we will see. Just keep in mind that Democrat unity on this issue would serve the cause of peace by putting more pressure on the Mad Mullahs, yet they do just the opposite and side with the Mad Mullahs. The Democrats are unfit to defend us. They don’t have the mentality or the understanding to do so. Fear clouds their minds when it comes to national defense.

Guy Dombrowski
Reply to  Andy Espersen
January 11, 2020 8:04 am

And Obama policy worked so well…

January 11, 2020 6:06 am

If you don’t reduce the fuel load by burning the Aussie bush in a controlled way then it’s going to burn in an uncontrolled way. The current disaster was 100% predictable based on misguided Green policies which fly in the face of 30,000 years of land management practices. To use a pun, climate change is a smoke screen.

What we are now seeing in Australia is an example of what the bush fires were like before the native Australians started to “manage” their environment.
This of course has nothing to do with climate change, but is most certainly an entirely man made disaster.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 11, 2020 6:10 am

Hmm. If the US is to achieve a 100% fossil-fuel-free economy in just 30 years, there is a hell of a lot of research and engineering work to be done. Millions of wind turbines, many square miles of solar farms, huge biofuel production facilities to keep the transportation sector running. And much, much more.

My question is: how likely is it that someone with a degree in say, feminist film studies will make any contribution to that vital work? I think very unlikely. So if we were serious about meeting the challenge, we should be serious about making sure the next graduate generation has the right skills.

So why are we continuing to guarantee student loans for degree programs outside the STEM disciplines? We will need those dollars to retrain displaced coal miners as Java coders. Going further, why are we giving federal grants for art, literature, etc., etc.? How are they going to help us develop reliable grid-scale electricity storage? Or why indeed are we allowing tax-deductible status to private gifts for such frivolous purposes? Since foundations set up to support frivolous pursuits are no longer needed, we should confiscate their assets and redirect them to something useful.

It’s clear that if we were serious, whole university departments need to be eliminated to make room for instructors and curriculum that really matter. Students and professors unwise enough to have specialized in irrelevant disciplines can be trained to clean and maintain solar panels, as unlike coal miners they are most likely not capable of learning Java programming.

That is, if we’re really serious.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 12, 2020 2:28 am

Alan, how did you get to level 7? I am working hard just to be a denialist level 2. Please explain how you got to level 7? I am just certified tool freak level 3, and working hard on certification to level 4 tool freak, but it is a long way to level 7 Denialist.

January 11, 2020 6:11 am

Saturday January 11, 2020, French meteorologist Guillaume Sechet writes
The Indian Ocean is responsible for devastating fires in Australia
Since September, the Australian continent has been facing tens of thousands of particularly devastating fires. In early January, estimates now show more than 8 million hectares of vegetation gone up in smoke
This is far more than the fires that affected the Amazon during last August, and 10 times more than the fires that ravaged California during the summer and early fall of 2018.
How is this abnormal situation explained?

The climatic conditions reigning over Australia are influenced by the temperatures of the Indian Ocean. However, at the same latitude, the water temperature is not necessarily homogeneous over the whole of this ocean. Significant differences can be observed between its western part (African coasts) and eastern part (Indonesian coasts): this temperature oscillation between East and West is called “Dipole of the Indian Ocean”
comment image
The Indian Ocean Dipole
Identified for the first time by climatologist researchers in 1999, this phenomenon offers three phases: neutral, positive or negative dipole.
-> Neutral dipole: temperature of the Indian Ocean similar in the eastern and western part
-> Negative dipole: temperature of the Indian Ocean higher in its eastern part
-> Positive dipole: temperature of the Indian Ocean higher in its western part
In recent months, the dipole has switched to a positive phase: we find indeed a warmer water temperature than normal in the western part of the Indian Ocean (off Africa) while an abnormally fresh was observed in the eastern part (around Indonesia).
comment image
Situation at the end of 2019: a strong positive dipole
This positive dipole phase is exceptional. The peak was reached around October 2019 with an index of around + 2.0 ° C: it is the highest value observed since 1997!
And this is not without consequences in terms of ocean / atmosphere interactions. The warmer the water, the more it is able to humidify the atmosphere and increase its instability (convection and thunderstorm formation). It is then the opposite phenomenon which occurs on the south of Indonesia and on Australia where the waters are cooler than usual: the humidity is found limited and the chances of precipitation are low.
During a positive dipole period, drought is particularly marked on a large central strip of the continent (Northern Territory and South Australia) but also on Tasmania and the State of Victoria (South-East of the country). As far as temperatures are concerned, the usual tendency is to be very hot over a very large part of southern Australia, and therefore synonymous with remarkable or even extreme heat waves (> 45 ° C) in summer.

old white guy
January 11, 2020 6:12 am

Has anyone discovered just what that 100% clean energy is supposed to be? Fairy dust is non-combustible.

Reply to  old white guy
January 11, 2020 7:44 am

Joules, at the end of that rainbow.

Reply to  old white guy
January 11, 2020 9:12 am

Magic unicorn flatus?

Ewin Barnett
January 11, 2020 6:14 am

THE RENEWABLE GREEN ENERGY MYTH: 50,000 Tons Of Non-Recyclable Wind Turbine Blades Dumped In The Landfill

January 11, 2020 6:17 am

It appears the woke have awaken in Australia and have decided swe’ll leave fuel reduction alone and instead we’re going to put up more windmills and solar panels …..the windmills apparently capture the wind and send it off in another direction, away from the fires and the solar panels will reflect the heat of the sun and send it back to the sun.

Should do the trick.

January 11, 2020 6:18 am

Wait a minute, So your telling me that the mighty USA, caused the Australian fires 😐 And if all Americans live like the Amish, Australians will enjoy perfect weather? Sunny days with a lite breeze, cool rains and patchy white fluffy clouds???

I wonder how the Aboriginal natives lived in Australia for between 60-80 thousand years, peacefully, without destroying the land and water 😐 Would that mean the native americans were peaceful as well, and low co2 producers?

January 11, 2020 6:26 am

Like I posted before, the bush fires are because of wet years. Plants grow very little in very dry years and if Oz had been going through the forecasted “mega drought” that has never materialized there would be considerably less combustible material.

Like California, the areas that have had fires won’t be having them again for many years. But the wet years will return, the trees and undergrowth will grow back and assuming no one learns from this experience sometime in the future there will be another very dry year and the fires will return.

Phillip Bratby
January 11, 2020 6:27 am

Has this idiot laid out a plan to achieve a “100% clean economy” by 2050 and has he provided a full costed plan?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 11, 2020 7:46 am

How much does it cost to bury 300 million people in open pits? That would be a rough order of magnitude.

January 11, 2020 6:36 am

In a hot-dry weather event 500 years ago, there would be much less fire compared to what they have now in the modern world.

About 87% of the fires are caused by humans in these conditions.

January 11, 2020 6:37 am

IF ANYONE ACTUALLY CARED, and they do not, this can be stopped instantly. SHUT IT DOWN NOW. But it won’t happen because no one cares, wants to fix it, etc. When we have the ability to stop something and DO NOTHING, that means we WANT THAT SOMETHING. Why bother to write all this when PEOPLE WANT THIS?????????

You don’t even have to shut down oil. Just have the gumption St. Greta had and park your fannies outside your local government idiot palaces. But you won’t….And you’ll be angry at Greta.

(No, I don’t care. If future generations want their kids to live in hell and life destroyed, I don’t care. Not a whit.)

Reply to  Sheri
January 11, 2020 9:07 am

Did you have a point? Not to your posted irrational rant, to your life?

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 11, 2020 9:52 am

Yeah, I post rant that idiots like you won’t understand. It’s really really fun. Thank you for making my day, there, Chas buddy.

Reply to  Sheri
January 11, 2020 11:52 am

“St. Greta”. You mean Greta the Climate Puppet?

Frans van Helvoort
January 11, 2020 6:52 am

Are the Dems really that stupid?? Hope that Trump wins the coming election, otherwise US will be economically destroyed. Obama killed the economy, the free speech in science and free climate science in particular. This may never happen again.

Reply to  Frans van Helvoort
January 11, 2020 12:15 pm

“Are the Dems really that stupid??”

They’re being paid to destroy America. They’ve been promised a spot in the elite bunkers in New Zealand when the country collapses.

The stupid part is that the spot in the bunker is a lie. None of the ‘elite’ will want these losers around after SHTF.

January 11, 2020 6:54 am

In the proposed bill there are Recommendations to for committees on:
“(A) environmental justice;

(B) climate justice;

(C) fairness and equity for workers; and

(D) the transition of communities dependent upon fossil fuels.”

I don’t know what A and B even mean, C is just trolling for votes as we already have laws regarding non discrimination and D would entail every single community in the country

And to show how confident the sponsors are in achieving zero fossil fuels, the committees disband on December 31, 2050. As this is 30 years hence maybe a nice cushy job leading to retirement for a niece, nephew, grandchild…

Reply to  Michael
January 11, 2020 6:22 pm

A and B are code words for minority reparations. Since minority/ poor/people of color/ indigenous people are hardest hit by the middle and upper class use of carbon based fuels… a hefty “justice” tax needs to be in-acted and monthly checks cut to said impacted people.

Terry Bixler
January 11, 2020 6:56 am

Democrats consistently do the wrong things for the wrong reasons. This is a prime example.

Craig Moore
January 11, 2020 7:08 am

Here’s the solution. Make Fosters free and mandatory until everyone fills their tanks. Then unleash upon the fires. Very portable and tastes good.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Craig Moore
January 11, 2020 1:05 pm

Fosters? Taste good?

In some parallel universe, maybe. We don’t drink it here, we just export it to gullible foreigners 🙂

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 11, 2020 9:07 pm

In a blind tasting of Fosters, lye, turpentine, and curdled milk, Foster’s tied for second with the turpentine.

I’d say that’s a respectable finish so go easy on the Fosters criticism.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 12, 2020 5:22 pm

“In some parallel universe, maybe. We don’t drink it here, we just export it to gullible foreigners 🙂”

Please take it back. Along with the “no worries” meme that’s pervaded everything since Crocodile Dundee.

January 11, 2020 7:08 am

I can get behind the idea to go green when it comes to energy. So when are we going to start building more nuclear power plants?

mario lento
Reply to  DCE
January 11, 2020 11:38 am

I like your sentiment, but still have a problem with endorsing that “Green” means something opposite of what alarmists think it means. CO2 is by definition the single ingredient needed for green life to form… well that and magnesium and water.

Andy Pattullo
January 11, 2020 7:28 am

As the average voter consistently puts climate change at the bottom of their list of priorities, if not in the trash bucket, this is a great way for the Democrats to display their total lack of suitability to govern. Makes decision-making next fall so much easier for the undecided. Those who want to continue a lifestyle of reliable food, shelter, energy and opportunity can vote for rational thought, those who favour economic suicide just learned who can deliver it with a minimum of delay.

January 11, 2020 8:12 am

Every time they fail they get crazier.

He must be terrified every time the wind blows or rain falls or he is a bad liar with special interests.

He reminds me of Rodney Piper’s role in the movie They Live. With special glasses he can see what no one else can see. What glass is he looking through?

Geo Rubik
Reply to  Olen
January 11, 2020 9:41 am

Rowdy Roddy Piper and Kieth David They Live. Best fight scene ever.

Linda Goodman
January 11, 2020 8:49 am

For every factual report of over 180 arsonists arrested since Australia’s fire season started, two dozen over this latest, there’s a a fake news story denying it to peddle fear porn over the tragic losses in Australia. And no one is asking ‘Who Benefits?’ from the fires when there is ONE obvious beneficiary: the AGW fraud. How many arsonists were paid and by whom? It’ll surely be covered up from the top down, so we’ll likely never know.
Police Take Legal Action Against More Than 180 in Australia’s Most Populous State for Alleged Bushfire-Related Offenses
Bushfires: Firebugs fuelling crisis as national arson arrest toll hits 183
Professor Ogloff said for many firesetters, bushfire season was like being “a kid in a candy shop”.
“Everywhere you look there’s fire and everywhere you look there’s opportunity,” he said.
Hundreds arrested for deliberately starting catastrophic Australian bushfires
The Australianreported on Tuesday that 183 people have been arrested for lighting bushfires in New South Wales (NSW), Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.
In Queensland, where the fires were worst in November, 101 people have been arrested for deliberately starting fires, almost 70 percent of whom were juveniles.
According to James Ogloff, the director of the Forensic Behavioural Science at Swinburne University, approximately 50 percent of Australia’s bushfires are started by arsonists.
“They’re interested in seeing fire, interested in setting fire and quite often the information around how fires burn and accelerate excites them,” he told News Corp. The University of Melbourne’s associate professor Janet Stanley said that arsonists, or “firebugs”, were typically young males aged either 12 to 24 or 60 and older.
24 arrested as Australian police crack down on arsonists
Dozens of Australians accused of starting blazes during bushfire season
Two Dozen Arsonists arrested in connection with recent fires
Bushfires: Firebugs fuelling crisis as national arson arrest toll hits 183
Hundreds of Alleged Arsonists Arrested for Starting Australia Wildfires
Australia wildfires: Dozens arrested for deliberately starting fires
24 Australians have been arrested in New South Wales for deliberately igniting fires since November, alongside 53 who failed to obey a total fire ban and 47 who allegedly threw lit cigarettes or matches.
Police have taken a strict no-tolerance approach to taking legal action against recklessness as the country struggles to gain control over thebushfire crisis that has destroyed over 2,000 homes so far.
NSW Police Force Deputy Commissioner Gary Worboys told reporters: “I know that all of those people aren’t [alleged] arsonists in a sense, I know a lot of them were doing things like using fireworks or lighting fires to camp or cook food or young children, in fact, that got the benefits of the Young Offenders Act and quite rightly so.
‘Arson is not caused by climate change’: Row breaks out over real cause of Australia’s bushfires after it emerges more than 180 people have been arrested for starting them
• Liberal MP has claimed arson to blame for bushfires, rather than climate change
• Craig Kelly, a climate change skepticism, appeared on Good Morning Britain 
• 24 people have been charged with bushfire-related offences this fire season
• A further 53 people arrested for failing to comply with state-imposed fire bans   
• At least 25 people have died, and 1,500 homes have been destroyed so far 
• Some have seized on arrests to say that impact of climate change is overstated 

Yes, arsonists started some of Australia’s fires. No, it doesn’t mean climate change is fake
The truth about Australia’s fires — arsonists aren’t responsible for many this season
Only about 1 per cent of the land burnt in NSW this bushfire season can be officially attributed to arson, and it is even less in Victoria, the ABC can reveal.
Despite massive fires causing chaos in Victoria this season, authorities are treating only one blaze as suspicious.
The Euroa blaze on January 4 closed a section of the Hume Highway, burnt about 385 hectares, and destroyed no properties.
More than 1.3 million hectares has been burnt in Victoria so far this season.
The Country Fire Association (CFA) said the majority of fires were not arson-related.
“Most of the fires have been caused by lightning,” said Brett Mitchell, the CFA incident controller in Bairnsdale, in East Gippsland.
“Our intelligence suggests there are no deliberate lightings that we are aware of.”
Victoria Police had no arson figures available for this bushfire season, but said in the 12 months to September 2019, a dozen people had been arrested for causing bushfires.
The viral false claim that nearly 200 arsonists are behind the Australia fires, explained
Only a handful of fires were deliberately ignited. But that didn’t stop people from spreading misinformation.
Those claims about nearly 200 arrested for arson in the Australia bushfires are wrong
Surprise! Surprise! Don Jr. Just Told an Outrageous Lie About Australia’s Wildfires
Police contradict claims spread online exaggerating arson’s role in Australian bush fires
People Arrested for Deliberately Starting Australia Bushfires?
The ‘arson emergency’ trending amid Australia’s bushfire crisis is actually not a thing
Arson Misinformation Undermines Link Between Australia Fires And Climate Change
Conservatives including Donald Trump Jr. and Sean Hannity have shared misleading figures about arsonists igniting wildfires.
Too Many Idiots Are Blaming Arsonists For The Bushfires
Climate change deniers have spent the last few months tying themselves in knots trying to pinpoint a cause for our unprecedented bushfires — anything other than the obvious, which is climate change.

peter jones
Reply to  Linda Goodman
January 12, 2020 4:51 am

The interesting thing about the long expected serious bushfires (due to a lack of adequate hazard reduction burns) and the nature of Australia, is that both liberal and labor state governments have the same terrible record on this issue, whats going on here ?, they are all still implementing the same failed policy’s revealed in eighteen separate enquiries.
What hidden hand behind the scenes has the power to ensure both party’s quietly adopt the same policy’s in different states while attempting to convince the public they are quite different.


peter jones
Reply to  Linda Goodman
January 12, 2020 5:00 am

Of course the reality is that the fires are caused by two factors , high fuel loads and drought, and global warming is not responsible for either, as per latest IPCC, and independent scientific work in Australia there is no link between global warming and drought.
Not even an indirect link.
Those who are convinced that an average increase of global temperature of between .3 deg c and .7 deg c will cause the end of the world as we know it should join the Scientologists at least someone will get some value out of their irrational commitment to what is in effect earth magic.


Michael Jankowski
January 11, 2020 10:09 am

Caught myself watching horse racing from 5 different tracks throughout Australia last night. Presumed that the fires would have had an impact or been brought up as a topic of discussion. Nope. Watched for 3 hrs and not even a mention.

The only drama was stakes races at the Gold Coast had to be delayed because competitors (including later Magic Millions Guineas winner Alligator Blood) were stuck behind an accident involving an overturned fuel truck.

January 11, 2020 10:55 am

This just further convinces me that AGW is a quasi pagan religion.

“97% of our shaman tell us that if we make the appropriate sacrifices and changes in our lifestyles then we will have good weather and life will be blissful, but if we do not-right now- then life will become woeful and we soon cease to exist.”

January 11, 2020 12:01 pm

I am amazed, once again, at the level of utter stupidity in government officials elected to office.

The “existential crises”, thus, is NOT what it is claimed to be. Rather it is precisely the growing level of stupidity supporting this ridiculous, popular claim.

January 11, 2020 1:09 pm

Australia is no more burning than the USA was burning when California had their bushfires. This is emotive nonsense , as is drawing a direct line to climate in the absence of anything else.

We have bushfires every summer, usually numerous and small scale. If you look at the Emergency Services map it will not be unusual to tens of fires across the State at any point in time. Mainly caused by lightning and tourist stupidity. This is exacerbated by us being in a drought cycle, which some part of Australia is usually having.

Population pressures mean more humans are visiting the bush or living in it (the “tree change” phenomenon as people leave the cities to retire or reinvent in country areas)

There seems to be an unlimited supply of fools doing remote diagnostics on the Australian environment but precious little knowledge on what they are talking about. Most of the loudest alarmist voices are rarely seen more than 30klms from the city centre unless there is a photo opportunity in it. As per the US the clueless meme driven inner city “elites” seem to be the most prone to lecture on matters where they have no skin in the game beyond virtue signalling.

Fred V Squillante
January 11, 2020 3:46 pm

You think Australia will put the fires out by 2050?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Fred V Squillante
January 11, 2020 10:44 pm

Of course. Australia will be under water by 2050. Sheesh!

January 11, 2020 6:03 pm

“We’ve got to keep going and see what we can achieve,” Pallone said.

Well the absolute best thing to achieve would be complete elimination of the CO2 endangerment finding and complete roll-back of ALL EPA rules to 1990. That would do immense wonders for the US, the middle class… and indeed the world.

Matthew K
January 12, 2020 12:26 am

These democrats are delusional. This plan will never pass through the Senate. Trump just announced that he would be doing away with all these climate plans, he won’t accept this plan.

peter jones
January 12, 2020 5:10 am

The interesting thing about the long expected serious bushfires (due to a lack of adequate hazard reduction burns) and the nature of Australia, is that both liberal and labor state governments have the same terrible record on this issue, whats going on here ?, they are all still implementing the same failed policy’s revealed in eighteen separate enquiries.
What hidden hand behind the scenes has the power to ensure both party’s quietly adopt the same policy’s in different states while attempting to convince the public they are quite different.


Verified by MonsterInsights