Obama Official: “Americans Choosing Trump would Send the Signal that they Don’t Care about the Climate”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Climate change consistently ranks dead last on people’s list of priorities, only 36% of US people believe humans are “mainly” responsible for climate change, the USA elected President Trump in 2016, but the Washington Bubble still hasn’t gotten the message.

How bad can the climate crisis get if Trump wins again?

US greenhouse gas emissions are up since 2017 and Trump’s administration has ripped up curbs on climate polluters

Emily Holden in Washington
Sun 12 Jan 2020 20.00 AEDT

Climate pollution in the US is up under Donald Trump and threatens to undermine international efforts to stall the crisis, especially if he wins re-election this year and secures a second term in the White House.

“What they have done is created confusion within the business community and the environmental world as to what are going to be the standards,” said Christine Todd Whitman, who led the Environmental Protection Agency under the Republican president George W Bush. “Essentially every regulation the agency promulgates gets a lawsuit that goes with it, almost inevitably … that’s the only good thing you can say about it.”

Whitman called the approach “mindless” and said “whoever is a bigger donor gets to tell them what the environmental policy should be, it seems”.

Andrew Light, a climate negotiator for President Barack Obama’s state department, said the world is taking note of those efforts, but if Trump is re-elected “you are going to see a lot of people who are worried anew about what the US can do.”

Americans choosing Trump would send the signal that they don’t care about the climate, Light said.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/12/climate-crisis-if-trump-wins-again

Here’s my prediction for 2020 – I think Tom Steyer will win the Democrat nomination. Not because he is better or more popular than the other candidates, but because “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer might be about to obliterate most of the Democrat front row.

Steyer will run the climate change campaign he is promising to run – and will lose badly to President Trump, because Trump focuses on issues people actually care about.

Will Washington get the message in 2020?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Don B
January 13, 2020 6:14 am

Obama buying a house near sea level on Martha’s Vineyard would send a signal that he doesn’t care about climate change.

old white guy
Reply to  Don B
January 13, 2020 6:37 am

Don B, that was the first thing that crossed my mind. Too many of these so called climate activists live on a beach somewhere. If any of them believed any of the BS about climate they would all stop using fossil fuels immediately. Of course their lives would be somewhat less desirable than a family of five living on welfare, relying on government hand outs just to eat. Of course fossil fuels will still be needed to maintain even that lifestyle. So many stupid people so little time.

Ron Long
Reply to  old white guy
January 13, 2020 7:03 am

The second thing that crossed my mind was to feed Emily Holden, Andrew Light, and like-minded idiots to the polar bears, because, you know, they are hungry and can’t find ice for their drinks, or something.

Reply to  Ron Long
January 13, 2020 7:59 am

A huge environmental/legal story happened on Friday, and no one has noticed because the MSM have put a complete embargo on it. The New York State’s Attorney General had sued Exxon in State Court, claiming that they had intentionally misled investors about Climate Change, and seeking billions of dollars in damages. It was the most serious lawfare attempt yet. On Friday, the case was thrown out of course, and it will not be appealed. It’s over, Exxon won, New York State lost, completely.

Reply to  wws
January 13, 2020 8:06 am

I read about in december….

Reply to  wws
January 13, 2020 8:57 am

Thank you

Ron Long
Reply to  wws
January 13, 2020 9:00 am

So I suppose a curious person driving by the house of David Middleton this weekend would see the Exxon Ferrari parked in the driveway, and the Jeep Rubicon inside the garage? I think we should have regular reports as to where the Exxon Ferrari or the Jeep Rubicon is parked, this is the best indicator of which way the legal climate change winds are blowing.

Reply to  wws
January 13, 2020 10:28 am

There will be others. link

Alan the Brit
Reply to  wws
January 13, 2020 11:37 am

I suspect the New York State taxpayer was the loser in the end game, NOT the lawyers NOR the politicos!

nw sage
Reply to  wws
January 13, 2020 6:29 pm

NEVER the lawyers! They designed the legal system so they never lose.

Reply to  Don B
January 13, 2020 6:48 am

It certainly indicates he is aware there is no climate crisis.

Reply to  M.W.Plia
January 13, 2020 7:47 am

Exactly. It can’t get any better or any worse, because there is no such thing as a climate crisis.

What we have is a Baizuo crisis which, fortunately, appears to be getting better and less embarrassing for whiteys like me.

Bryan A
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 13, 2020 6:18 pm

Perhaps we could convince all the Greens to Write In for Kermit The Frog for President

Cameron Kuhns
Reply to  Don B
January 13, 2020 6:54 am

Or believe in the man made narrative.

Reply to  Don B
January 13, 2020 6:59 am

Obama purchasing THREE homes (that I know of) … including one in the Palm Springs desert where CA is in the grips of a never ending CAGW drought … suggests he doesn’t care about the climate. Well, TBH … he must like the warm climate in Palm Springs. OTOH … that’s simply what rich folk do with their money.

Mark Hansford
Reply to  Don B
January 13, 2020 8:05 am

Im sorry but I dont agree its well known that climate alarmists that live near or on the beach are unaffected by sealevel rise – this only affects everybody else – this is also true of CO2

John Endicott
Reply to  Don B
January 13, 2020 10:19 am

Well of course Obama has no problems having a house near sea level, after all he’s the one who slows the rising oceans and heals the planet. He said so himself.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Don B
January 13, 2020 11:35 am

Didn’t that other great envirnmentalist Al Gore buy a beach front property for $4M on the proceeds of “An Inconvenient Truth!”? True believers like these always demonstrate just how dedicated they are to the cause, just so long as their own personal lifestyles aren’t affected by their own beliefs & policies! DAISNAID!!!!

Cap Matifou
January 13, 2020 6:21 am

Here belongs a Trump pic, with him pointing upward onto the text:
**** like this is why I won.

[edited. Mod]

David Dibbell
January 13, 2020 6:25 am

Standing by to transmit the signal. But not from a lack of care about the climate. It’s from a sense of duty to counter the misdirected claims that there is a crisis at all. Let’s see what happens.

J Mac
Reply to  David Dibbell
January 13, 2020 10:36 am

Agree! To all the Obama psychophants that would tell others how to think or vote, I have a ‘one handed’ signal for all y’all!

And here’s another ‘one hander’ salute to your failed “…don’t care about the climate” attempt at a guilt trip! ‘How copy? Over..’

Tom Higley
January 13, 2020 6:25 am

Maybe Obama should tell people to vote for Greta instead. No surprise here that it is her dad writing her posts….


Reply to  Tom Higley
January 13, 2020 8:56 am

Which Greta ? Greta/Svante or Greta/Adarsh ?

john harmsworth
Reply to  Tom Higley
January 13, 2020 11:15 am

Maybe Obama should invite Greta and Leo and the polar bears and Al Gore to his beach side home where they can all join hands standing on the shoreline singing Cum-Bay-ah and waiting for the sea to wet their soles ( or souls).

January 13, 2020 6:27 am

“Americans choosing Trump would send the signal that they don’t care about the climate” No, Andie, it will signal Americans are not believing lies spewed by liars. The climate is doing what it has always done and will continue to do so despite what anyone has to say about it. DJT is going to be reelected, and the more leftists screech&wail about it the larger the margin will be. I am so glad leftists/greenunists are too stupid to simply shut up.

Y. Knott
Reply to  2hotel9
January 14, 2020 4:07 am

Actually, that’s exactly what it shows – they don’t care about the climate. They have jobs to go to, kids to raise, houses to pay-for and lives to live; “climate” is ‘way down their priorities list, and they couldn’t be bothered losing sleep about a great natural process that nobody understands and that they couldn’t do anything about, even if they wanted-to and knew what should be done.

Good old American common sense for the win – another triumph brought to you by Donald J. Trump.

Reply to  Y. Knott
January 14, 2020 5:45 am

The winning, it burns!!!! Still not tired of it, yet.

Reply to  2hotel9
January 14, 2020 6:10 am

you better hope so
word on aussie media was Meghan wont come back to usa while Trumps president
so hope she stays in canada and they foot the bills for her
and Trump spares you her as well as the warmist crap.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
January 14, 2020 10:37 am

Personally I think Her Majesty should have the strumpet droned, then Harry could spend his life as the Royal Widower. Charles can’t last forever.

Mike Bryant
January 13, 2020 6:28 am

The only people who give a rat’s axx about climate change are those who are lining their pockets with the public’s hard earned money. I think Steyer fits nicely into that category.

Reply to  Mike Bryant
January 13, 2020 8:10 am

I think and certainly hope that he’s losing money on his current phony crusade. Please tell me I’m not suffering from confirmation bias.

Reply to  Mike Bryant
January 14, 2020 1:13 am

It is believed Al Gore’s current net worth is around $300M. Quite some improvement from $700 000 when he started his CAGW crusade.

January 13, 2020 6:37 am

I care very much for the climate which is why I’m a strong supporter of Global Warming.

The alternative to Global Warming is much worse.

Steve Case
January 13, 2020 6:39 am

only 36% of US people believe humans are “mainly” responsible for climate change,

What percentage think CO2 is a problem?

Reply to  Steve Case
January 13, 2020 8:22 am

What percentage think?

Reply to  Sheri
January 13, 2020 2:31 pm

Well, half are below average, like you.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 13, 2020 2:59 pm

Any particular reason for that duesch-bag comment?

Or are you just being yourself?

Reply to  Steve Case
January 13, 2020 8:26 am

The motivation is clear once it’s noticed that nearly all of the 36% are aligned with the political left and more often than not, the lunatic left.

Perhaps mainstream Democrats are noticing how politically polarized the issue is and starting to consider that maybe the science isn’t as settled as they think, as the nature of legitimate science is that it can only be controversial when it’s not well understood. It should be even more clear that the proposed remedies are a waste of time, money and resources that will have absolutely no effect on the climate, even if the IPCC’s impossible claims were true.

It doesn’t take much due diligence on the IPCC’s reports to be convinced that misunderstood science is all they have, moreover; their many misunderstandings seem intentional and are all in the same direction of supporting the ‘destroy and/or steal American wealth’ agenda pursued by the UNFCCC.

Bill Rocks
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 13, 2020 10:47 am


Thanks for the very succinct analysis of the controversy. I began to look closely at the situation during the hockey stick era and continue to pay attention to the catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming movement, a most incredible episode in the history of science.

Fortunately, I had been educated to critically analyse scientific papers (in addition to writing and editing same) and had used solid and fluid earth computer models for practical purposes.

I read Roy Spencer’s book, Blunder, while sailing and crusing and it caused me to think differently about those afternoon thunderstorms rising 50,000 feet to the top of the troposphere, releasing energy to outer space.

Very sad and very frightening to realize that CAGW is 90% hype and propaganda enclosing a kernal of science. The scientific method has been hijacked.

Reply to  Bill Rocks
January 17, 2020 10:23 am

“catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming”

I think you mean anthropogenic.

John the Econ
January 13, 2020 6:41 am

Actually, I care very much about the climate. I am certain that billions of people resorting to burning wood, trash, and dung to cook and heat their homes in the wake of a destroyed electrical grid and economy would be very bad for it.

January 13, 2020 6:45 am

Maybe we should all be a little more respectful of the man whose uncle liberated Auschwitz


Except that the Russians liberated Auschwitz


Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 13, 2020 7:56 am

He also stopped the rising sea level.

On the outer Barcoo
Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 13, 2020 8:53 am

Not the Soviets?

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 13, 2020 9:42 am

That must have been Obama’s Uncle Putin. Now we know the Russian link with the DNC.

January 13, 2020 6:46 am

Oh its gretas friend, obama 😐 Lets all become amish and be like greta and obama 😐 sarc

January 13, 2020 6:48 am

I agree, it would send the signal they don’t care about sorcery like they do in the old world. Gosh, I’m shocked!

January 13, 2020 6:53 am

Christine Todd Whitman IS a Democrat. She joined the Democrat Party when Donald Trump won the Republican nomination for President of the United States. WHY do these less than stellars continue to quote Democrats as if they have something to do with Republican Presidents?

Reply to  Luke
January 13, 2020 7:38 am

I have no doubt that she had been voting mainly Democrat for years. Even when serving under Bush.

John Endicott
Reply to  Luke
January 13, 2020 10:28 am

Christine Todd Whitman was always a RINO but I don’t know that she ever did switch parties. She said she wouldn’t support Trump and would vote Hillary – that’s not the same thing as changing her party affiliation, Luke. Do you have any source that you can link to that shows she did officially change her party affiliation?

As to why these “less than stellars continue to quote” RINOs, it’s because RINOs will give them the soundbites they want to hear.

January 13, 2020 6:58 am

Al Gore’s San Fran place doesn’t exactly signal rising sea levels, either

January 13, 2020 6:58 am

You may be quite right in your prediction. The previous almost decade long administration in the U.S. opened the floodgates to just about any cockamamie theory of how to control nature. The MSM became the mouthpiece and we are still inundated with climate change nonsense about some far future day.
But it is the corruption that drives this onward. Huge companies backed by immense government funding that have an idea only to go belly up and no one goes to jail. No one responsible has gone to jail for anything in the last 30 years, or more.

Jeff L
January 13, 2020 7:02 am

“Climate pollution in the US is up under Donald Trump”
Now that’s funny … because we are doing more to curb emissions than anyone else. Why? Fracking & natural gas displacing coal. We are actually the leader in reducing GHGs as a percentage of economic output.
Funny the author didn’t mention that !

January 13, 2020 7:03 am

“Climate pollution”? WTH!? Sounds like an oxymoron such as … “jumbo shrimp”

January 13, 2020 7:05 am

Choosing Trump would signal they care about the decline of reproducible science and are concerned about agenda science and over reach administrations run by advocacy groups.

M__ S__
January 13, 2020 7:08 am

People choosing trump simply send a signal they don’t believe the hype.

Phillip Bratby
January 13, 2020 7:24 am

Sensible people don’t care about the climate because there is nothing they can do to change it.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 13, 2020 9:20 am

Humanity will have to deal with it when we descend into the next 100,000 year freeze. I suspect that we will be able to deal with it easily and the species that would otherwise go extinct will rejoice, metaphorically speaking, at the existence of life with brains.

I don’t know how it will materialize, but I would think it would be easier to divert a bit of extra solar to our wonderful planet than to do surface nuclear.

…. or both.

John Endicott
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 13, 2020 10:33 am

Indeed, Humanity will deal with it when the time comes. Dealing with it means adapting to it, not changing it. Man does not have the power to change the planet’s climate/temperature. at best man can modify the local conditions through stuff like land use changes. local not equal global.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 13, 2020 1:09 pm

A lot of New Yorkers are moving to Florida, partly due to climate.

January 13, 2020 7:24 am

Tactics used by the Democrats to get the ‘soft vote’ are being revealed by Larry Nichols, who was closely involved with the Clintons. Now, Larry Nichols is determined to spend the rest of his days exposing these devious strategies. He insists that the American people who normally do not vote or who are severely uninformed, will be enticed, probably financially somehow, to go out and vote for whoever is the most popular Democratic candidate. He’s speaking out at Crowdsource the Truth@csthetruth.com with Jason Goodman.
Understanding tactics is key.

Reply to  Sommer
January 14, 2020 1:48 pm
Andy Pattullo
January 13, 2020 7:27 am

If Trump is re-elected it will be because voters don’t care to have their taxes spent tilting at windmills, or to have their standard of living dramatically eroded in a feeble attempt to appease the weather gods. It will also be because they are smarter and more grounded in reality than the unicorn-riding far left socialists.

January 13, 2020 7:40 am

Trump is an arrogant, horrible guy. Still much better than Democrats. The sad theater they arranged with the impeachment – most of the process would be inadmissible even in a small claims court. Go lesser evil. (Actually, as bad as he is, he has a lot of common sense, something that eludes the “progressives”.)

Reply to  Curious George
January 13, 2020 8:54 am

He may be arrogant, but so are many other successful businessman and most politician. He just chooses to be brutally honest, especially when he’s right. I don’t see that this makes him a horrible person. In fact, I find honestly a refreshing change coming from a President.

Being honest about the consequeces of policy is what matters and not how the media portrays the person driving the policy. By this metric, Obama was a far more horrible President than Trump can ever be. Note that this doesn’t mean that Obama was a horrible person.

The idea that Trump is a horrible person is an invention of an MSM that’s in the tank for the Democrats where like any ideologue, lying about the opposition is their primary weapon for gaining support.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 13, 2020 11:15 am

Let’s not argue on technicalities. Trump was not elected because he pretended to be a gentleman – he never did. He was elected as a lesser of two evils. And I hope he will get elected again.

Reply to  Curious George
January 13, 2020 12:30 pm

My position was, and is, if you want to get rid of lying, corrupt SOBs, you don’t send in a Saint. You get the meanest bad a$$ you can find who will fight them.

If you look at past Presidents in our (or at least my) lifetime, you will find an inverse relation between character and effectiveness. Carter was our most ethical President, and our worst, followed, arguably, by Obama in both categories. At the other end of the scale, you have Trump and Johnson (blew Viet Nam, but effective as hell at getting legislation passed).

A congenial and nice person makes a lousy head of state.

Reply to  jtom
January 13, 2020 7:58 pm

What the heck was ethical about the Obama mal-administration?

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  jtom
January 13, 2020 9:30 pm

was our most ethical President, and our worst, followed, arguably, by Obama in both categories.

Obama was the worst in both categories.

I had to read it twice to get the gist of it as well.

Reply to  jtom
January 13, 2020 10:00 pm

Not his administration; Obama, the man. As far as I know, he, personally, was not involved anything slimy, didn’t grossly insult people, engage in financial mischief, or play sex games while in office. But he was incompetent, not knowing, or did not want to know, the misconduct of those around him. Virtually every department under him had a scandal, and he seemed totally oblivious to them all.

I’m sure many believed he orchestrated at least some of them, but I don’t think he was intelligent enough to do that successfully. If you listened to him unscripted (no teleprompter), he sounded dumber than a box of bricks.

John Endicott
Reply to  jtom
January 14, 2020 7:50 am

He may have sounded dumber than a box of bricks, but don’t let that fool you. He’s had enough less than savory associations (weather underground terrorist Bill Ayers ring any bells? How about the radical preacher Jeremiah Wright?) that it’s hard to believe he’s as totally oblivious to what they and the people he surrounded himself with in office where all about as you seem to think.

Reply to  Curious George
January 13, 2020 1:51 pm

There is an important technicality, which is that Trump is not motivated by evil intentions. He’s the most free market President we have ever had. He’s portrayed as evil by the left and its MSM, not because it’s true, but because they don’t like his free market policies, yet can’t defend their own Socialist policies in light of what his have already accomplished, so all they have left is to disparage him in the hope that enough will believe that the false rhetoric is true. Just look at the many things he has been accused and subsequently exonerated of, all of which were manufactured to project false evil. Many still even believe that the panoply of false accusations have merit.

On the other hand, the motivation of the Socialist left is not so benign, not because idealized Socialism is evil, just that it’s unachievable because it’s incompatible with the free markets and individual freedom America was built on, so they hide this truth behind imaginary benevolence that they know can never be achieved. When you press them that what they want is far too expensive to ever be achieved, the response is often something like “So what, the point is to change the system”, and this sentiment clearly illustrates their evil intent.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 14, 2020 9:18 am

The socialst left is not trying to create idealized socialism, whatever that is. They’re trying to set themselves up as oligarchs with all the power and all the money.

John Endicott
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 14, 2020 10:45 am

Indeed Cube, when they say Socialism just hasn’t been done right before, what they really mean is it wasn’t done right because they weren’t the ones in power. As long as they’re the ones in power it’s “done right” as far as they’re concerned, no matter the fact that the end result will be the same as all the other failed attempts.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 13, 2020 12:04 pm

Even after I began to approve of the Trump administration’s execution of his agenda (that was the biggest surprise, the New York Democrat that ran on the Republican ticket actually set about keeping his promises!), I still believed Trump was a horrible person. Until I resolved to stick with facts only. Now his 3 marriages and 2 divorces, with admitted infidelity/ies during the first two marriages, certainly proves he is fallible (he probably believes he doesn’t make any mistakes, that’s how he meant to do it), but other than that… Even the worst evidence against him, such as the Access Hollywood tape, I can believe something in the middle, such as he found that he could get by with such stuff, maybe even did it once or twice, but if he is a serial abuser of women, there would be a line of accusers, just as there is with Harvey Weinstein or Matt Lauer or Jeffrey Epstein (who didn’t kill himself) or Mr. William Jefferson Clinton. I am aware of Stormy Daniels, but the more I hear about her the more she looks like an opportunist without Mr. Trump or any of his advisors saying anything more than “I have done nothing wrong”, unlike what comes out of Shrillary’s mouth when asked about Juanita Broaddrick or any of the countless others (Shrillary has actively worked to smear, destroy and even imprison every accuser of WJC, and she’s not even subtle about it, you can see her tracks!).

Even less leftist outlets (I’m looking at you, Fox News) use the same lies over and over and over and over… Every time they talk about the President’s phone call with Zelensky, they include the paragraph, “…Trump’s efforts to press Zelensky to launch politically related investigations — regarding former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s dealings in Ukraine, as well as issues related to the 2016 presidential election. The president’s request came after millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Ukraine had been frozen, which Democrats argue shows a “quid pro quo” arrangement. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.” Which is not what was said!!! At all!!!

The transcript states (in part, I mark my skips with ellipses enclosed in brackets thus […]), “The President: […]I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. […] There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that… […] Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.” Clearly, he’s talking about the firing of the prosecutor, and the fact that Biden himself was bragging about getting him fired!, throwing in Biden’s son I guess just to emphasize which case he was talking about. Zelensky’s response doesn’t mention either Biden, but does say, “..specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue…” Rather than “…mentioned…” a better word might have been “…referenced…” because Trump didn’t say the name of the company, but it seems to me that Zelensky is making it clear he knows Trump is talking about Burisma, which he was. So why does Fox News keep repeating the lie? Their description is much closer to Adam Schiff’s fictional narrative, not to what actually happened! And nowhere in that do I find any mention or even hint of quid pro quo! Even Zelenskyy has said so!

That was kind of an aside, but still relative to what we “know” about Donald Trump is hardly based on fact. The claims of racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, misogynist, anti-Semitic, phobia-of-the-week, none are supported by even The New York Times own reporting, and often are contradicted (viz the anti-Semitic thing, but look at policies towards Israel, most especially moving the embassy to Jerusalem!)!!! I guess we have to wait for one of the family member’s (I’ll bet Don, Jr. will be first) “unauthorized biographies” to find out what kind of a man he really is!

Reply to  Curious George
January 13, 2020 9:04 am

I would say that there is one common thread that unites progressives. It is delusional beliefs in what they like the sound of over the hard facts of economics, science and engineering, and observable reality.

Reality is not their business, protected from it inside the cocoon of economic and engineering reality they are determined to destroy to deindustialise the world and return its ever safer and more properous populations to mediaeval feudalism..

Reply to  Curious George
January 13, 2020 9:36 am

I’m still trying to figure out why Pelosi believes that not sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate is supposed to put pressure on the Republicans.

They’d rather not deal with them, so Nancy not sending not sending them over is just what they want.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
January 13, 2020 10:42 am

Yeah, threatening to not give someone something that they really don’t want anyway is not the best tools for gaining of leverage. Ironically by delaying as she did, it’s not Trump that the maneuver hurts, instead she’s guaranteeing that the farthest-left candidates (warren & sanders) will be stuck in DC instead of campaigning in IOWA in the run-up to the caucuses.

Reply to  John Endicott
January 13, 2020 12:36 pm

Every day that she delays sending the articles over, for political reasons, just emphasis’s that the entire process is political.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
January 16, 2020 12:32 pm

Well now we know the real reason she delayed. She was waiting for her order of commemorative pens to arrive. /sarc

Reply to  John Endicott
January 16, 2020 3:42 pm

Hehehehehehe, she continues to beclown herself, along with all the others. I would pay good money to view security video of her and the rest of the lowlifes on 11/4/2020.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
January 13, 2020 11:37 am

It’s all about control – she still has her hands on it. And it prolongs their messaging in the press.

William Astley
Reply to  Curious George
January 13, 2020 11:55 am

In reply to:

Trump is an arrogant, horrible guy.” …. So says the Fake news and Hollywood, 24/7

Trump has the courage to change things and to question things that are not in best interest for the American people. For example, open borders or spending money on green stuff that does not work.

Trump for example was worked to reduce mandatory sentencing for simple drug users and first time offences.

Trump has skin thick enough to take 24/7 attacks such as the famous Democrat (The Clinton campaign paid someone to create the completely false story that was then included in the FBI request to spy on the Trump campaign) fabricated story that Trump met with Russian prostitutes giving Russia leverage over Trump. Completely false, absolutely made up.

Press oversight helps stop corruption. There was zero press oversight during the Obama administration.

In reply to: Here’s my prediction for 2020 – I think Tom Steyer will win the Democrat nomination. Not because he is better or more popular than the other candidates, but because “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer might be about to obliterate most of the Democrat front row.

Interesting prediction. It will be interesting to see what Peter Schweizer has found. The fake news is pushing Pete Buttigieg as the Democrat saviour.

Reply to  William Astley
January 14, 2020 11:33 pm

The fake news likes Buttigieg because he’s gay and for much the same reason they gushed over Hillary and Obama. They need to demonstrate how tolerant they are about which identity group someone belongs to, as long as they follow the party line …

January 13, 2020 8:03 am

Another solid reason to vote for Trump!

January 13, 2020 8:03 am

I don’t “care” about climate — why would I, that’s a mathematical abstraction. I’ve prepared for the weather every day of my life, as prb’ly everyone has.

Ken Molloy
January 13, 2020 8:15 am

The Chinese Belt & Road Project plans to build 700 coal fired electrical generating plants. This is in addition to all the plants they are building in China and India. They have climate records going back thousands of years. Apparently they have made the decision that the risk is less than the reward of bringing a or so billion people out of grinding poverty.

January 13, 2020 8:17 am

Steyer doesn’t have a chance. Schweizer could have pictures of all of the major Democrat contenders engaging in pedophilia and bestiality, and Dem voters wouldn’t care.

paul courtney
Reply to  icisil
January 13, 2020 10:15 am

icisil: Dem voters won’t care, but IMO Schweizer’s Clinton Foundation book released in 2015 had more impact on Hillary’s loss than the Russians. Not saying much, I know: Russian bots probably changed 0 votes, Schweizer a few hundred, but I think he damaged her and at least helped her lose.
What’s the reason I agree with you? Well, Schweizer’s book on Foundation came out ahead of primaries, it did not influence dem votes. And they won’t learn from their mistakes. Which may be the thing that saves us all.

John Endicott
Reply to  icisil
January 13, 2020 10:49 am

Unfortunately there still are lots of Democrats who vote democrat because that’s how their family always votes. Fortunately some have woken up (as opposed to being “woke”) over the past few years and #walkaway from the insane left that has taken over the party they formerly called home.

Reply to  John Endicott
January 13, 2020 12:39 pm

There are also a lot of people who vote Democrat because they are the ones offering the most free stuff.

Bloomberg has been running on fixing health care and making it affordable for all. (I thought ObamaCare was supposed to do that.)

January 13, 2020 8:22 am

Most Americans don’t really believe in CAGW, but many virtue signal their support to avoid being ostracized by their peers.

Steyer has already blown about $50 million on his campaign, and has about as many supporters as Pelosi has in IQ points; around 50, or about $1 million/voter….

At this pace, If Steyer blew his entire net worth, he’d get about 1,700 voters nationwide….”Please clap…”

Reply to  SAMURAI
January 13, 2020 9:30 am

…. and that would be his immediate family and friends. I do wish the DNC would choose him though.

Rachel Maddow’s going to look like she did two loads in her pants when the results come in this time, and she still won’t understand that she was part of the cause.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 14, 2020 8:58 am

It seems kind of funny to me that an old rich white guy is trying to get votes from a party whose message boils down to hating old rich white guys. How’s that working out so far, Tom?

John Endicott
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
January 14, 2020 9:56 am

The funny thing is, for a party that hates old white people, their top 3 front runners (Biden, Bernie, and Lieawatha) consists of nothing but old white people. (well, unless you are Harvard Law School, in which case you can list them as a Native American).

Reply to  John Endicott
January 14, 2020 6:26 pm

Gropin’ Joe, Bolshevik Bernie and Lieawatha walk into a bar and the bartender says, “I thought the Communist Clown Convention started next week.”

January 13, 2020 8:26 am

Another example of the shell game – When do you start and when do you end?


This says 2018 was up, but it was also colder than this past year.

January 13, 2020 8:27 am

Climate change does have its place in government to deflect attention on spending missteps, declining affordability of citizens, and the golden fleece potential for a carbon tax to pave over the mistakes.

Hawaii is a good lab rat experiment in progress.


It is educational though to see through the political fog.

Dennis Gaskill
January 13, 2020 8:52 am

That is absolutely right, we don’t believe in the climate change hoax. We really would like to
Send that message !
Trump is a bit arrogant , but he is not horrible !
He is a Bull in the Progressive China closet , just what we need.
Now if BOJO can get on our side and tweek the noses of the Euro Elite , 2020 will be great.

Joel Snider
January 13, 2020 9:16 am

So – the REAL question is what does OBAMA do now? Does he respect the wishes of the citizens, or does he ram climate legislation down our throats, by any means necessary?

Any doubts?

John Endicott
Reply to  Joel Snider
January 13, 2020 10:45 am

Joel, OBAMA isn’t in office any more. He can’t do anything with legislation, let alone ram it down anyones throats. not anymore, thank goodness.

Joel Snider
Reply to  John Endicott
January 13, 2020 10:58 am

OBAMA doesn’t NEED to be in office. His foot-soldiers are enacting his agenda and he’s got a lareg army of marching brooms.

January 13, 2020 9:28 am

I enjoy how Trump is driving the deranged Democrats defend the Iranian ayatollah and his murderous regime.

Climate change is a non-issue.

January 13, 2020 9:28 am

The climate is good. I notice the weather and act accordingly. Imagination can be good or very bad for health.

Steve Z
January 13, 2020 9:49 am

During the early years of the Obama presidency (2009-2010), Obama tried to get a cap-and-trade bill on CO2 passed, but it couldn’t pass the Senate, even though Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority at that time. Too many Democrats from coal-producing states voted against it, and it didn’t even get a simple majority of 50 votes plus Biden.

Since he couldn’t get a CO2-limiting bill through Congress, Obama tried executive action, imposing an EPA “rule” whereby new sources (including power plants) predicted to emit more than 100,000 tons per year of CO2 would have to demonstrate Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for CO2 to receive a permit, even though nobody (including the EPA) had really defined what constitutes Best Available Control Technology to limit CO2 emissions, since CO2 had not been considered a pollutant before, and nobody really developed commercial-sized technology to try to capture it.

The result of this rule was a sudden drop-off in the number of new gas-fired power plants being permitted, at a time when many nuclear power plants were being shut down, with only power plants permitted up through 2009 to replace them.

It is a well-known fact both in the industry and at the EPA that power plants using natural-gas turbines emit much less CO2 than coal-fired power plants per MW power produced, but the 100,000 tons per year limit on CO2 had some unintended consequences. The feed rate of methane that produces 100,000 tons per year of CO2 when burned has a heating value of about 130 MW, which would generate about 80 MW of power using a combined-cycle turbine at about 60% efficiency.

But most commercial-sized gas turbines are sized to produce about 250 MW, meaning that the CO2 emissions from one such turbine would exceed the limit, requiring the producer to somehow prove to the EPA that undefined Best Available Control Technology had been implemented before the permit could be obtained.

This limit led to the installation of many small “cogeneration” plants designed to generate a few megawatts from waste heat, or using steam-methane reforming to generate hydrogen for fuel cells, although such processes are much less efficient than large-scale gas turbines, effectively emitting MORE CO2 per MW produced than large-scale gas turbines, and restricting the amount of power that can be produced from natural gas, which has become abundant with the fracking of the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

If former EPA Administrator Christine Whitman wants an example of a “mindless” regulation, she has a great example from the Obama Administration in 2010!

This regulation was reversed by President Trump in 2017…

Reply to  Steve Z
January 13, 2020 10:13 am

Good summary. Thanks

Reply to  Steve Z
January 13, 2020 10:13 am

Thanks, Steve Z, interesting. Just another example of regulations having unintended (and inefficient) consequences. The AEC and NRC are catalogs of such handcuffing regs.

Reply to  beng135
January 13, 2020 12:14 pm

What makes you think these consequences were “unintended”?

Reply to  beng135
January 13, 2020 12:47 pm

I remember an incident back Jimmy Carter was in office.

Previous regulations had permitted plants that were built prior to the then current regulations could continue to operate. However if they made any major upgrades, they would be required to rebuild the entire plant to the new standards. Repairs and minor upgrades were not included.

A particular plant was getting ready to replace a turbine blade with a newer one that was 2 or 3 percent more efficient. Previously these upgrades qualified as a minor upgrade. Once Carter came in they were upgraded to a major upgrade. As a result the plant managers decided to forget the whole thing.

The regulators could have had a minor improvement in efficiency along with a minor decrease in pollution, instead they got nothing.

Reply to  MarkW
January 13, 2020 1:54 pm

The turbine was getting old and had to be replaced anyway.
The choice was rather to replace it with one that was identical to the current turbine, or to replace it with one that was slightly better.
The old regulations it was a repair under the new regulation it was an upgrade.

January 13, 2020 9:56 am

He’s right. Sane people don’t fret about what they have 100% no control over but show tolerance and compassion for the mental cases that do.

Reply to  cedarhill
January 13, 2020 2:36 pm

But don’t let them into positions of power. Tolerance has limits.

January 13, 2020 9:57 am

Such a signal would mean they wised up on climate scams because they had to. Just working and paying the bills is not good enough these days with concocted policy storm clouds gathering into a super cell.

Fred V Squillante
January 13, 2020 10:00 am

I think someone turned the light out for Mr; Light

Shoki Kaneda
January 13, 2020 10:35 am

No, Americans choosing Trump shows they don’t care about insignificant, former Obama administration officials.

January 13, 2020 10:41 am

Ah the old argument of – “If you disagree with me then you’re a bad person, because I can never be wrong.” That’s a political argument, not a science one.

January 13, 2020 10:44 am

I personally don’t care to deprive the climate of life-supporting CO2, upon which our food supply depends 100%! Anything else is pure folly!

Tom Abbott
January 13, 2020 10:46 am

From the article: “Americans choosing Trump would send the signal that they don’t care about the climate, Light said.”

No, it will send a signal that most Americans are not worried about the climate.

According to the survey in this article, 64 percent of Americans are not worried about human-caused climate change. As another poster said above, the 36 percent that are worried are probably mostly made up of those on the Left of the political spectrum.

The November 2020 elections will show us who holds the majority in the United States and what direction the United States takes from there.

I believe Trump/conservatives will hold a large majority of the vote, and the United States will go down the road Trump is preparing for us to a bright future free from authoritarians. A Republican-controlled Congress would make the future even more bright, and I think this will happen.

I think Trump is going to lead a lot of people in the world down the road to freedom. People in Hong Kong are waving posters with Trump depicted as a superhero, and in Taiwan, and even in Iran. Oppressed people don’t see Trump as an oppressor, as our American Democrats falsely portray him to be.

The Democrats are on the wrong side of History. That’s because they are delusional and live in a self-created false reality. A landslide political defeat in the November presidential elections might snap some of them out of their trance.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 13, 2020 11:00 am

A Republican-controlled Congress would make the future even more bright, and I think this will happen.

It would certainly make such a future more likely – as long as it’s not a RINO filled Republican-controlled Congress.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Endicott
January 13, 2020 12:59 pm

I think if Trump got a Republican-controlled Congess he might do something about reducing the huge budget deficits the U.S. has acquired. The U.S. is paying something like $600 billion per year in interests payments which will only go higher if something isn’t done.

There wouldn’t be any chance of reducing spending if the Democrats were to continue to control the House.

Reply to  John Endicott
January 14, 2020 8:37 am

That’s the problem. Repubs had majority in all Congress after 2016, and the swamp-member RINOS did nothing (or worse) to help Trump. Other than much of the US public, he’s pretty much on his own in the government w/just a few trusted aides/supporters. Still, he’s accomplishing alot, considering.

John Endicott
Reply to  beng135
January 14, 2020 10:42 am

Exactly right beng135. The only good part about the Dems winning the house in 2018 was that it put a lot of the RINOs out to pasture. Now if only we can get enough non-RINOs back in their place in 2020….

January 13, 2020 10:47 am

Climate change? Everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die.

John Endicott
January 13, 2020 10:57 am

Climate pollution in the US is up under Donald Trump

what is Climate pollution? she needs to define that term because if she means CO2/GHG emissions than she is wrong, as CO2 emissions have gone *down* in the US under Trump: in 2019, the third year of the Trump presidency, the U.S. reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2.1% and per capita, our emissions are the lowest they’ve been since 1950.

Linda Goodman
January 13, 2020 10:58 am

Is it really 36% though? My guess is more like 15%, ‘elites’ accounting for 1% and most of the press so it SEEMS like more. And I believe the DNC will hand Bernie Panders the nomination to capitalize on his magical-thinking supporters who ignored his betrayal [33% voted Trump & more will next time] and want to relive the excitement of the last campaign. And Fauxcahontas will be his running mate, to capitalize on the [clueless] female vote.

Linda Goodman
January 13, 2020 11:13 am

Christine Todd Whitman is responsible for thousands of slow, painful deaths, by idiotically claiming 9/11 volunteers didn’t needs masks. Granted too many don’t think for themselves, but those who program us to not think but Obey are ultimately responsible, and quoting CTW is another globalist slap across our collective face.

Craig Moore
January 13, 2020 11:31 am

The wisdom of the prairie oracle is helpful here.

Craig Moore
January 13, 2020 11:33 am

The wisdom of the prairie oracle is helpful here.

January 13, 2020 11:42 am

oh, that “Mainly” qualifier is sneaky. From The Hill (conservative) in 2018:

The survey says that 60 percent of respondents say that global warming is taking place and that human activity is either primarily or partially why temperatures are rising.

In 2019 Pew Research (non-partisian) found:

A majority of U.S. adults (56%) say protecting the environment should be a top priority for the president and Congress, while a smaller share (44%) says the same about dealing with global climate change

How about some fact checking?

Reply to  chris
January 13, 2020 6:02 pm

How about providing some links?

Alan Chapprll
Reply to  chris
January 14, 2020 3:26 am

Prof. Dr. Mickey Mouse is one of the 96% of “climate Scientists who ah …”believe ” ???

Robert of Texas
January 13, 2020 11:52 am

“If you vote for a liberal then you don’t care about the future of the U.S.” (or fill in the country you are from)

See how throwing junk out there is? It doesn’t have to be true, it just has to resonate.

I care about a lot of things – including the truth. I am not worried about the climate (which is different then saying I don’t care about it)

January 13, 2020 12:01 pm

“Obama Official: “Americans Choosing Trump would Send the Signal that they Don’t Care about the Climate”

Osmium dense Christine Todd Whitman?
Or is this your version of virtue signalling to devout democrats?

The actual question is how did you miss the message in 2016!?
Plus, even EPA bureaucrats should be smart enough to recognize that none of the glitterati, especially Obama and many other top democrats, live their carbon dioxide lives entirely unconcerned.

January 13, 2020 12:16 pm

I just posted a comment and it did not ask me to sign in. Did that get pushed out into the future somewhere?

George H Steele
January 13, 2020 12:22 pm

As a liberal I support the movement to protect the environment from polluters. However, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

January 13, 2020 12:33 pm


Climate does not matter … and the “Crisis” does not exist! Just “snow fake” hysteria.


Mark Broderick
January 13, 2020 1:03 pm
paul courtney
January 13, 2020 1:37 pm

Greatly appreciate this site plugging Schweizer’s book, he has been exposing corruption at high levels, both parties. Clintons still #1 grifters in USA.

Michael in Dublin
January 13, 2020 1:38 pm

When experts with PhDs sometimes write a lot of hogwash in scientific journals, is it any wonder that a journalist with no science and a single degree will write a lot of hogwash? She has evidently not looked closely and critically at conflicting scientific views and tried to examine the reasoning and logic looking for flaws.

John Endicott
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 14, 2020 10:49 am

of course she hasn’t, an environment reporter for Guardian, she only looks for what fits the narrative she/the Guardian wants to tell.

January 13, 2020 1:51 pm

Americans do care very much about the environment, but just don’t care about the Left’s climate hoax.

John Sandhofner
January 13, 2020 1:52 pm

“Send the Signal that they Don’t Care about the Climate” You are right. As it relates to human impact on climate change/global warming we don’t care because it is all a hoax. Man’s impact on any change that might occur is insignificant. Why worry or spend money on something that is not happening. Current environmental efforts are sufficient to protect the environment. In fact we can even cut back on a few of them that are over the top.

January 13, 2020 2:43 pm

And their point is?…..

January 13, 2020 2:49 pm

It would send a message that they dont care about their faux manufactured climate hysteria, thats about all in regard to climate. The Dems have so muddied the water with Trump derangement I doubt alleged climate issues are top of mind for the bulk of Americans. There have been many surveys to show this in the past, I expect that is only more so now.

Not Chicken Little
January 13, 2020 3:32 pm

Americans choosing Trump sends the signal that we don’t believe in the “climate change” scam or in its proponents who have lied and falsified data, and none of whose predictions have come true, and who can’t explain why the two-mile-thick glaciers that covered much of North America just melted away…Hint: it wasn’t Man, and it wasn’t CO2.

How can you even begin to believe people who claim that CO2 is a “pollutant”, and who regularly confuse Carbon and CO2 and demonize them both? How can you believe people who tell you that “ocean acidification” is a thing and that it’s caused by Man? How? By being ignorant. The left likes the hoi polloi ignorant, by design.

January 13, 2020 4:09 pm

A email sent to Ms. Holden:

Dear Ms. Holden,

Having read of your recent article, “How bad can the climate crisis get if Trump wins again?” I trusted you’d like to know of my recent peer-reviewed paper about climate predictions.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full “Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections” shows that climate models cannot predict the future climate.

The whole thing about CO2-induced heat is nothing more than a massive exercise in false precision.

The real crisis about climate, then, is how so many climate scientists got away for so long with being so incompetent.



Patrick Frank
Palo Alto, CA 94301
email: xxx@xxx.xxx
These things are, we conjecture, like the truth;
But as for certain truth, no one has known it.

Xenophanes, 570-500 BCE

January 13, 2020 4:41 pm

“Climate pollution”?? — I had not seen that one, before reading the article.

The phrase does not even make sense. It makes about as much sense as the phrase, “chromatic obesity”, which I just made up.

Climate is not a containment of something that can be polluted — it is a pattern of observed conditions over a period of years.

Idiots are stringing words together mindlessly to further increase their vocabulary of doom.

I’ve got some suggestions: “climate idiocy”, “climate pretentiousness”, “climate dim wit”, “climate perversity”,
“climate stupidity”, “climate narcissism”, “climate prevarication”, “climate clueless”. I’ll stop there.

January 13, 2020 7:14 pm

I don’t view the climate as a being with feelings.
Whether I care about the climate or not has no bearing on reality.

January 13, 2020 8:38 pm

Exactly. I do not care about climate. And that’s why I voted for Trump and will continue to do so.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  JeffB
January 13, 2020 9:34 pm

I care about the weather next weekend. And I’d vote for Trump if I could.

Clarky of Oz
January 13, 2020 9:27 pm

Problem solved by Aussie Greens politician Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. She is demanding that our Prime Minister, Scott Morrsion just pick up the phone and tell Donald Trump to “do more on climate change” 10:20 into the clip unless you want to watch the rest.


I am sure Donald is waiting for the call.

January 14, 2020 10:29 pm

I keep my house at 295K (71F). The average temp in Indiana is 284K (51.8F). So technically about 96.3% of my heat comes from solar. Global warming should improve my numbers to 96.8%. I switched to LED light bulbs, and my SUVs runs off of recycled dinosaurs, and I do my best to help eradicate farting cows by eating them whenever possible.. Besides flying in my private jet to every climate apocalypse summit, I’m not sure what else I can do? Maybe buy an Apple Phone made in the sweat shops of Asia where they have taught their child workers to live without air conditioning.

Rudolf Huber
January 15, 2020 2:00 pm

Choosing Trump would mean that people prefer someone who is abrasive, blunt and sometimes downright nasty but who is also as real as a heart attack over the usual lies, deception. People want to reduce the size of the hand that empties their pockets. They want jobs, they want an economy that works for them and not for the elites, they want houses and cars and send their kids to school. And they are sick of the drama.

Reply to  Rudolf Huber
January 15, 2020 5:37 pm

Donald Trump, at the bottom of the issue, is a builder. He looks you in the eye, shakes your hand and says “I will build you the greatest building ever.” And then he builds it. I got no problem with that mindset, absolutely none. I want him running rampant through the US Federal government with a machete and a scalpel. That is what he is doing, while all this tv drama crap oozes its way through the msm. Good man! And punking them in front of the American people the whole time. #4more

January 20, 2020 6:26 am

I voted for Trump PRECISELY because I care about the climate.

%d bloggers like this: