Manchin’s Not The Climate Problem

Manchin’s Not The Climate Problem

Patrick J. Michaels, Senior Fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the CO2 Coalition.

Senator Joe Manchin, who killed Biden’s Build Back Better plan live on Fox News, is being vilified throughout the legacy press because BBB’s climate plans are now similarly moribund. Somehow, the story goes, Biden’s plan was going to keep the world from warming up a grand total of 1.5⁰C since 1850.

Ben Adler is the Yahoo News “Senior Climate Editor”, whose bio highlights that he has been a reporter for Politico, The Nation, and Grist. He wrote that “Manchin killing Build Back Better is ‘devastating’ to climate change action.  What “action” has Manchin stopped?

Similarly, NPR intoned:  “[Manchin’s] final rejection of a stripped down version effectively kills President Biden’s ambitious plans to reduce carbon emissions deeply enough to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. That’s a testable hypothesis.

The Washington Post is possibly the least able to confront real data, noting that Manchin’s rejection of the BBB means that

United States would fall short of the targets it committed to under the 2015 Paris agreement, potentially locking in a future of increasingly destructive forest fires, deadly floods and droughts. Already, record-breaking hurricanes and fires are testing the federal government’s ability to respond to overlapping disasters.

Adler, NPR and the Post are shining examples of climatic innumeracy. Much larger portions of the US burned pretty much every year until Disney’s Bambi sparked the modern era of fire suppression and containment.  The result has been disasters such as the Paradise inferno in California, brought to you not by climate change but the pathologic accumulation of fuel on the floor of our nation’s forests.  Out west, they get dry enough to explode pretty much every summer, with or without climate change.

Globally there’s been no systematic change in integrated hurricane power since satellite coverage became universal around 1970, even as surface temperatures warmed about a half of a degree in the late 20th century.  The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes no systematic changes in droughts, and paleoclimatic indicators show much more massive and long-lived droughts in the American West when the planet was cooler, several centuries ago.

Given that surface temperatures have already warmed a degree (C), it’s only a half-degree more before we reach the aspirational warming limit in the 2015 (unratified) Paris climate treaty.

As the world warmed, life expectancy doubled in the developed world, and per-capita wealth is about 12 times what it was in 1900. Somehow, we are told, if surface temperatures rise another half of a degree, this will all come crashing down.

Wouldn’t it be a good idea to know how much global warming BBB would prevent before blaming Manchin for the end of the world?

The qualitative answer is “not much”.  Consider what would happen if the US cut all its carbon dioxide emissions?  The Biden Administration’s own EPA runs a model, which is actually acronymed MAGICC1, that was designed to calculate the climate effects of such an eventuality.  If the US emissions were zero between now and 2100, the amount of global warming that would be saved is a mere 0.14⁰C, an amount too small to accurately detect.

Meanwhile, China’s emissions passed those of the US around 2005 and are now double what we emit per year.  Economists have long thought that as China’s economy matures, their emissions will stabilize around 2030, at around three times of our current emissions.

A simple application of MAGICC logic means that if China’s 2030 emissions are maintained through this century, it will, by itself, contribute an additional 0.42⁰C of warming, or three times what the US zero-emissions scenario would “save”.

Further, don’t forget that India’s rush towards coal to power its 1.4 billion inhabitants isn’t going to stop soon, and amortizing new coal-fired power plants requires about a half-century of operation.

It’s patently obvious that Manchin’s blocking of the BBB is climatically inconsequential compared to what will happen in the rest of the world. Blaming him for nothing is simply a pointless demonstration of climate innumeracy.

1 “Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-Gas Induced Climate Change”, or MAGICC.  The tiny amounts of warming noted in the text assumes much more warming (up to several times) is occurring in the upper tropical troposphere than is being observed.  Further EPA’s MAGICC assumes more global warming will occur than other models that are based upon actual observations.

4.9 27 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
December 28, 2021 6:07 am

But, but, but if Manchin had genuflected to the greens, it would have been the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, or something like that.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 28, 2021 8:36 am

It would have ushered in a new world order of equitably distributed despair.

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 5, 2022 4:53 am

Great argument there. Maybe I could use it to avoid paying my income tax. It wouldn’t affect the government’s revenue by more than 0.00001%

Climate believer
December 28, 2021 6:11 am

They think they’ve found a witch, and we all know what you do to witches. Plus ça change.

Curious George
Reply to  Climate believer
December 28, 2021 7:41 am

Only Democrats are people. Anybody else does not count. Democrats were unable to get a commitment from Mr. Manchin (I just contributed to him). They never tried to persuade any one of 50 Republican senators.

Reply to  Curious George
December 28, 2021 9:29 am

Only Democrats that comply are people. Ds not following the party line quickly drop back in the hater / exploiter group.

Reply to  Climate believer
December 28, 2021 10:48 am

“… we all know what you do to witches…”

Nope. Can’t burn ‘‘em anymore. Between the EPA regs and carbon emissions it would take you years to get a permit.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Fraizer
December 28, 2021 12:02 pm

Better finish them with an axe: net-zero emissions.

Last edited 1 year ago by Joao Martins
michael hart
Reply to  Fraizer
December 28, 2021 2:21 pm

do they float?

Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  Climate believer
December 28, 2021 2:44 pm

Isn’t it interesting. In what became the state of Massachusetts, the witch trials lasted 18 months, the judge largely responsible admitted he was mistaken and apologized. Compensation was paid to the families. What happened in Europe?

Reply to  Robert Alfred Taylor
December 29, 2021 12:33 am

The original minister involved whose granddaughter and grand-niece were primary witnesses and accusers started the latest 1691-1692 witch trials allowed the girls to accuse people because of “spectral evidence” only they could see.

A couple of the girls accusing others recanted their testimony during the trials.

Key accusers recanted and apologized after the trials were stopped.
Not the original minister who caused the panel of judges to be assembled. Nor did the original panel of judges who hung a number of witches before their kangaroo court was disbanded.
A couple judges were heard to mumble a sort of apology well after their witch trials were disbanded. Mostly that they shouldn’t have hanged the former minister, George Burroughs.
One judge resigned after the initial hangings.

The trials stopped when Governor Sir William Phips of the Province of Massachusetts Bay Colony disapproved of using “spectral evidence” and he disbanded the original trial judges.

September 22 1692: Martha Corey, Margaret Scott, Mary Easty, Alice Parker, Ann Pudeator, Willmott Redd, Samuel Wardwell and Mary Parker are hanged. Dorcas Hoar escapes execution by confessing.


October 3: The Reverend Increase Mather, President of Harvard College and father of Cotton Mather, denounces the use of spectral evidence.


October 12: Governor Phips writes the Privy Council of King William and Queen Mary saying that he has stopped the proceedings and referring to “what danger some of their innocent subjects might be exposed to, if the evidence of the afflicted persons only did prevail,” i.e., “spectral evidence.”


October 29: Phips prohibits further arrests, releases many accused witches, and dissolves the Court of Oyer and Terminer.


November 25: The Massachusetts General Court establishes a Superior Court to pardon remaining witches.




January: 49 of the 52 surviving people brought into court on witchcraft charges are released because their arrests were based on “spectral evidence.”

Banning “spectral evidence” ended the accusations and trials.
“Spectral evidence” seen only by accusers caused quite a few “witches” to be hung.

Last edited 1 year ago by ATheoK
Reply to  Climate believer
December 28, 2021 3:59 pm

Yup, if we was still back in the 1690’s they would have already burned him at the stake.

December 28, 2021 6:12 am

When the evidence is against you, you attack by discrediting the source. Often this translates to character assassination and lies in attempt to obfuscate the truth.
Then add the money they will not be getting and you have the cry’s and moans of climate activists. Hopefully this bill is permanently buried, but I have my doubts

Reply to  Doug
December 28, 2021 6:27 am

Yeah, the window is still open. The fight isn’t over.

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  Scissor
December 28, 2021 10:02 am

Right. Go to conference committee, agree to a 10% reduction, both sides declare victory and simply increase the national debt to pay for it. Fifty years of the same song and dance. How much longer can the charade last? Not much. The dollar is doomed as the world currency. We’ve had it IMHO.

Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
December 28, 2021 12:34 pm

The only saving grace is that all of the currencies being presented as alternatives to the US Dollar, are in even worse condition.

Reply to  Scissor
December 29, 2021 12:59 am

“Yeah, the window is still open. The fight isn’t over.”

The Senate is closed for the Holidays. It would take a major scramble to assemble the Senate to revote.

Manchin doesn’t buy the concept. He’d spend the full amount the bill is actually expected to cost if he believed the concept.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Doug
December 28, 2021 4:06 pm

“Hopefully this bill is permanently buried, but I have my doubts”

Manchin seemed ready to sign off on $1.8 Trillion in new spending until Biden’s staffers blew up the negotiations.

Don’t be surprised if Manchin makes a deal with Biden. We don’t really know what Manchin will agree to. If he signs off on $1.8 Trillion in spending, we know one thing for certain, the spending will increase inflation, and make it even harder for poor people to get by. Is that what you want to do, Joe Manchin? Let’s hope not. Let’s hope Manchin is as reasonable as he is trying to sound.

Dave Yaussy
December 28, 2021 6:26 am

We all should be grateful to Joe Manchin. Whether you agree with him or not, he showed the same conviction in standing up to his party as he did in voting against the Republican tax changes, which he thought were irresponsible, and being the only Democratic vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. I can tell you from personal conversations that he is well aware that the coal industry will never be what it was, but doesn’t see why the US should be punished while the rest of the world skates on by. He’s open to nuclear and anything else that brings reliable power.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
December 28, 2021 12:05 pm

Please transmit to him my admiration, as a foreign citizen, for his standing on BBB and on Kavanaugh.

Reply to  Dave Yaussy
December 28, 2021 12:36 pm

The same media that praised John McCain for opposing Republicans, is having a cow over Joe Manchin doing the same to Democrats.
If leftists didn’t have double standards, they would have no standards at all.

December 28, 2021 6:51 am

Lots of things I don’t agree with Manchin on, standing in the way of the greenunistas ain’t one of them.

Last edited 1 year ago by 2hotel9
Pop Piasa
Reply to  2hotel9
December 28, 2021 8:15 am

Lots of things I don’t agree with Manchin on” My take too, but maybe we should drop Brandon and yell “LET’S GO MANCHIN”.
At least they will get the message (maybe).

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Pop Piasa
December 28, 2021 8:37 am

I too like Mancin. But too bad his family name got changed from Mancini- which sounds much cooler to me.

Steve Case
December 28, 2021 7:09 am

If the US emissions were zero between now and 2100, the amount of global warming that would be saved is a mere 0.14⁰C, an amount too small to accurately detect.

Depending on where you find the information, 0.14°C is about how much warming methane would produce if it were to double its concentration in the atmosphere. And methane is being banned by various local governments which in effect denies their citizens the right to have a gas furnace, water heater, cook stove, gas drier, gas grills, fireplace or even natural gas powered automobiles. An over reaction to a non-problem if ever there was one.

bill Johnston
Reply to  Steve Case
December 28, 2021 7:55 am

“But we gotta DO somethin;”

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Steve Case
December 28, 2021 8:31 am

Steve, I see this as one step at a time toward purposeful energy poverty (created by politicians but blamed on “capitalist greed”) with which to garner support for any political change which promises us fiscal relief (free stuff) and enforces the “new justice” so arduously fomented by the MSM.

Last edited 1 year ago by Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
December 28, 2021 8:46 am

The left blames ‘capitalist greed’ without understanding that profit to a business is like CO2 to a tree, It’s a simple matter of survival,

Willem Post
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 28, 2021 11:48 am

If it was not for capitalist greed, we would all be hunter-gatherers


Tom Abbott
Reply to  Willem Post
December 28, 2021 4:14 pm

Self-interest is good.

Komerade’s Cube
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 28, 2021 5:27 pm

They understand it perfectly well. They don’t want businesses to profit.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Steve Case
December 28, 2021 8:38 am

“the amount of global warming that would be saved is a mere 0.14⁰C”
Quite possibly not even that amount.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 28, 2021 8:54 am

Quite probably, IMHO.
Water’s ability to morph into multiple states makes its effective bandwidth so wide that trace “greenhouse” gas concentrations become lost in the noise of water’s chaotic and multifaceted influence on the planet.

pat michaels
Reply to  Pop Piasa
December 28, 2021 9:35 am

I agree. That’s the number you get if you assume, as EPA does, an ECS of 3.0degC. Lewis and Curry and Christy and McNider put that value closer to 1.5. So yes the MAGICC amount should be less than 0.14.

I had a very pleasant plane ride a few years ago from DCA to CharlieWest, chatting with Manchin, who sat next to me. I’d met him before at a Cato breakfast and have maintained the feeling that he is a real stand-up guy who won’t sell his principals (or West Virginians) out.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  pat michaels
December 28, 2021 4:17 pm

“I agree. That’s the number you get if you assume, as EPA does, an ECS of 3.0degC. Lewis and Curry and Christy and McNider put that value closer to 1.5. So yes the MAGICC amount should be less than 0.14.”

So the 0.14C is just a guess, as with everything associated with alarmist climate science, and a bad guess, at that.

Steve Case
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 28, 2021 9:29 am

You are of course right, 0.14°C is for a doubling of CH4, the reality is that methane is on course to increase by maybe 25% by the end of the century. Given that the effect is logarithmic the first 25% would have more effect than the last 25% – so maybe as much as 0.04°C by 2100 is ballpark.

Google searches and other attempts to find out how much methane will actually run-up global temperature are relatively unproductive, and any answers actually found display a fair amount of variability. Here’s a title you can Google:

The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse 
Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures
David Coe et al

They say the sensitivity of CH4 is 0.06K

Earlier this month in the comments here on WUWT it was claimed that Modtran says CH4 sensitivity is 0.15C per doubling.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Case
Reply to  Steve Case
December 28, 2021 8:40 am

And the 0.14C assumes the IPCC is close to being correct about the magnitude of the effect, when they are actually so wrong, it’s an embarrassment to all legitimate science.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 28, 2021 9:31 am

Read the footnote. Perhaps Michaels should have put this in the body of his essay and said what could realistically be expected.

pat michaels
Reply to  Pflashgordon
December 28, 2021 10:50 pm

I thought it was too nerdy and would have spoiled the flow of my piece. Sorry!

Willem Post
Reply to  Steve Case
December 28, 2021 11:59 am


Mentioning temperatures is a most ridiculous thing, because almost all temperature data is distorted by man-made heat islands, inadequate, interpolated, and massaged to fit preconceived notions, which are published in serious-looking, scare-mongering reports by the 97% of scientists.

No one ever sees any raw data, except the insiders among the 97%.

The only consistent, valid data set is the satellite data started in 1979, but that data does not fit the narrative of the 97%.

All the rest is humbug.

Last edited 1 year ago by wilpost
Dave Fair
Reply to  Willem Post
December 28, 2021 2:26 pm

ARGO seems pretty good. While one must be careful in their interpretation, radiosondes do a good job. ARGO, radiosondes and satellites say there is no climate crisis; worst case warming over the 21st Century is less than 2 C.

December 28, 2021 7:32 am

The BBB’s supposed $550 billion was almost entirely tax credits, which you only get for profits, for shaky technologies that are mostly unlikely to make a profit. So it is mostly smoke and mirrors. Actual federal spending was more like $50 billion. None of this seriously advances Biden’s nonsensical multi-trillion dollar agenda.

Reply to  David Wojick
December 28, 2021 9:41 am

You’re confusing tax “credits” with “deductions”. A deduction reduces the profits on which you pay taxes; a “tax credit” is a benefit for taxes not actually paid, which means you get a “refund” if you make no profit.

Reply to  hiskorr
December 28, 2021 12:28 pm

Manchin also disagreed on the way U.S.A.’s child tax credit was proposed. This child tax credit used to be issued around annual federal tax time.

It was then altered into a regular monthly disbursement & for more money. This format is set to expire in the coming months & then monthly payment eliminated.

The bill Manchin turned away from would have not only made child tax credits remain monthly payments, but was going to expand the program. Although derided as heartless toward children opposition to the stymied bill is not trying to do away with the child tax credit, but rather not leave it open being gamed as a perpetual monthly fungible cash flow.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  gringojay
December 28, 2021 4:24 pm

“Manchin also disagreed on the way U.S.A.’s child tax credit was proposed. This child tax credit used to be issued around annual federal tax time.”

This should be called somthing other than a child tax credit since most people eligible for this do not pay taxes. This credit is money given directly to people by the government.

Part of the proposed BBB bill would allow people with an income up to $600,000 per year to be eligible for payments for children and eligible for big subsidies for electric vehicles.

The BBB is just a huge political boondoogle. If Manchin signs off on it, he is harming the United States.

Fred Hubler
December 28, 2021 7:49 am

While tornado deaths may have been reduced by better detection and warning systems, the US population has also more than doubled since 1950. Regardless of the number of deaths caused by tornadoes there has been a slightly declining trend in severe tornadoes (EF3 – EF5) since 1950.

michael hart
December 28, 2021 7:57 am

“Ben Adler is the Yahoo News “Senior Climate Editor””

Hey, check out the BBC for outrageous job titles:
“Marco Silva, Climate change disinformation specialist”

Yes, it really is true.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  michael hart
December 28, 2021 8:41 am

I think Harvard now offers a Phd in Climate Change Disinformation. You have to memorize the brilliant work of Mickey Mann and you have to be able to explain how trees make good thermometers.

December 28, 2021 8:07 am

Decarbonization cannot manufacture products demanded by civilization. The Green New Deal only plans to generate intermittent electricity, but no plans to replace crude oil, the fossil fuel that is NOT used for electricity.

Wind turbines and solar panels may be able to generate intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine to decarbonize the electric grid, but those renewables cannot manufacture any of the derivatives manufactured from crude oil that are the basis of all the products used by modern society.

December 28, 2021 8:18 am

As parts of Western Australia are tipped for another scorching hot summer, climate change is leaving a worrying footprint on the south-west of the state.
Experts agree the region is drying out at a globally significant rate.
It was one of the first places on the planet to see a trend of rainfall reduction, and the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report pinpoints it as one of the few regions in the world where the bulk of models agree drying will continue
Why WA’s south-west is drying out at one of the worst rates in the world (

Well there you have it folks.CO2 means drier according to the bulk of the models.

Alan M
Reply to  observa
December 28, 2021 3:43 pm

Especially liked this bit

“And then when you do add greenhouses gases, all the climate models agree that you do get a loss of that rainfall.”

Joseph Zorzin
December 28, 2021 8:32 am

It’s not as if Mancin did it all by himself- as if he personally has veto power- another – what, 49 or so Senators agreed with him. Thus, it’s democracy in action! But, the Dems think democracy means vote with the party, not in tune with your constituents.

Geoffrey pohanka
December 28, 2021 8:40 am

test your climate knowledge, take the climate quiz,

Reply to  Geoffrey pohanka
December 28, 2021 11:29 am

I detected a pattern in the answers :-}

Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  Geoffrey pohanka
December 28, 2021 3:11 pm

Strange. I found it extremely difficult – – – not to laugh.

December 28, 2021 8:44 am

Here is a bit of good news from energy sector:
“EU natural gas prices extended losses for the fifth straight session to a three-week low of €103 per megawatt-hour on Tuesday, roughly 45% below a record high of €180.27 reached last week, on expectations that a convoy of US LNG tankers will help ease the energy crunch and forecasts of milder temperatures. As of Monday, there were 20 US LNG tankers with declared destinations in Europe, compared to 10 tankers last week, and another 14 undeclared ships were headed to the continent, as Asian spot prices were less competitive. Still, Russian supplies remained a major upside risk, as Gazprom said European utilities weren’t booking more gas and flows through the key Yamal-Europe continued to move east, which President Putin says is due to German importers reselling natural gas to Poland and Ukraine.”

Reply to  Vuk
December 28, 2021 11:06 am

For some reason the EU refused to book more from Gazprom (I suspect they thought NordStream2 would be operational?).
Now look – you just could not make this shi*t up :

comment image?itok=XKLjmRl-

Last edited 1 year ago by bonbon
December 28, 2021 8:53 am

I look at it as the left holding “climate change legislation” hostage to their hyper ambitious social spending schemes. Bring a clean climate change bill and let it be debated on its merits.

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  dmanfred
December 28, 2021 10:13 am

Haha, good idea, never happen. You nailed it.

December 28, 2021 9:07 am

Two faces of man



December 28, 2021 9:11 am

Already, record-breaking hurricanes and fires are testing the federal government’s ability to respond to overlapping disasters. – article

Oh, yeah? Where’s the real proof to back that up???? C’mon, you disaster addicts, show us yer proofs!!!!!

I genuinely wonder how long it will be until the “climate disaster crowd” realize that they’ve been hosed and if anything, we’ll be heading toward a prolonged cooling period. That might shorten their food supplies and reduce their outdoor activities, but — well, as long as I don’t have to drive a Tesla or its imitation, fine by me. I also cook, y’know.

pat michaels
Reply to  Sara
December 28, 2021 9:39 am

That’s a quote from the WaPo that was supposed to be indented. I surely wouldn’t write that!

December 28, 2021 9:19 am

Your calculation of 0.14C of temperature increase by 2100 which would be “saved” if US emissions went to zero is based on presumed effects of CO2 on temperature. I do not believe Dr. Lindzen and many others skilled in spectroscopy would agree that it could be that much.

Dave Fair
Reply to  DHR
December 28, 2021 2:36 pm

IIRC, MAGICC uses an ECS of 3. I think that observational methods of calculation result in an ECS of less than 2 on the average; a little over 1 seems most likely.

December 28, 2021 9:31 am

You point out how much more CO2 China is emitting that the USA. Shouldn’t that have resulted in a fairly recent, and significant, uptick in temperatures? China’s doubling of the USA output and continued increased from India should be having some now observable effect somewhere, right?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Spetzer86
December 28, 2021 6:03 pm

Yes, the alarmists say the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer it will be, but things don’t seem to be going according to their predictions because instead of warming, the temperatures are cooling, down 0.6C since the 21st century highpoint in 2016. Increased amounts of CO2 do not seem to be having much effect on temperatures.

Back to the drawing board for the alarmists.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
Uncle Mort
December 28, 2021 9:38 am

“Ben Adler is the Yahoo News “Senior Climate Editor””

Wow – can he edit it in any direction?

Barry Moore
December 28, 2021 11:04 am

Absolutely nothing any nation can do will have any impact whatsoever and the percentage of carbon oxide that is in the atmosphere. The entire idea is absurd. And I doubt it will have much impact at all on the actual experience of the climate beyond longer growing seasons.

David John
Reply to  Barry Moore
December 30, 2021 1:14 am

All but 3 percent of the Earth’s CO2 is in the soil and the oceans. The rest is shared by the squabbling nations that are signatories to the Paris Accord and COP26. This is farce on steroids!

Geoffrey pohanka
December 28, 2021 11:50 am

Test your climate knowledge, take the CO2 Coalition quiz

Willem Post
December 28, 2021 12:12 pm

This article describes:

1) The BBB bill, concocted by the extreme-leftist, communist/socialist, “SHAPERS”-wing of the Dem/Prog party, and

2) Manchin’s role in finally killing BBB

The Dem/Prog cabal would be idiots to revive it during 2022, because the cat is out of the bag; Dem/Progs would get trounced even more by a TSUNAMI of votes in November.


Distrust in Government

I am not surprised at the lack of public trust in Washington, DC, and elsewhere. The games of smoke and mirrors played in Washington are off-the-charts outrageous.
Never, ever, has there been such a level of deceit, as Democrats have inflicted on the US People, since January 2021, using a controversial election in 2020 (see Appendix), to obtain government power, to relentlessly implement:
1) An increased size and intrusiveness of the federal government
2) A major change in US demographics by means of just-walk-in, anybody-is-welcome, open borders 
3) Increased Democrat command/control over the federal government and the American people to “remake America”
Here is an example:
“Build Back Better” Would Cost $4.490 Trillion Over the Next Decade, if Provisions Were Made to Last 10 Years
PHASE 1; BBB programs have various expiration dates to understate the true cost
BBB Bill “Shaping” and Cost Estimating
The cost of the original BBB bill was $6.0 trillion, as crafted by extreme-leftist Sanders, Chairman of the US Senate Budget Committee. When his proposals proved to be a non-starter, he was told to “whittle it down” to an alleged $3.5 trillion, which, he declared, was the “absolute minimum”. 

Whittled down means, he shortened the duration of some programs from 10 years to 1 year, or 2 years, etc., as explained in next sections. See table 1

Sanders is a life-long admirer of Communism and Socialism, who celebrated his honeymoon in the USSR, i.e., before the Iron Curtain came down

Explanation of “Standard Procedure” Congressional Budgeting
If a program of a bill would expire in one year, the costs of 9 years of the program would not be included in the bill’s total cost, if expiring in 2 years, 8 years of costs would not be included, etc. That is the “standard procedure” the US Congress uses to play bait-and-switch games with a bill’s “total cost”.
This is nothing short of premeditated lying to the American People. Decades of such procedures has led to the $30-trillion national debt. The main beneficiaries of the various bills are family, friends, and associates of Congress members, various self-seeking lobbies, and career bureaucrats, mostly Democrats, who would manage the government programs.

Opposition to BBB Bill: Manchin, moderate Democrat, US Senator of West Virginia, knows how to co-operate with moderate Republicans.

He had stated, he had reservations about the BBB bill, and would consider a bill costing about $1.5 trillion.
Senators Sanders and Wyden, the White House staff, and Pelosi’s staff, etc., aka “the Shapers”, had no choice, but to further whittle down the cost of the bill from $3.5 to $1.75 trillion, to partially placate Manchin, mainly by tossing some programs and shortening program durations even more. See table 1

Geoffrey Williams
December 28, 2021 1:46 pm

The climate change left have to have someone to blame when things don’t go their way.
It’s as simple as that . .

Tom Abbott
December 28, 2021 3:17 pm

“From the article: “Given that surface temperatures have already warmed a degree (C), it’s only a half-degree more before we reach the aspirational warming limit in the 2015 (unratified) Paris climate treaty.”

Well, the highpoint of the year 2016, the warmest year in the 2st century, was supposedly 1.1C above the average from 1750 to the present. And it is now, in the year 2021, 0.6C cooler than 2016, so we have about 1C of warming to go before we reach the 1.5C limit set by alarmists, not 0.5C.

That 1.5C limit seems to be getting farther and farther away. The alarmists are so sad.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
Peter W
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 28, 2021 4:13 pm

And, of course, back around the year 1000 the earth was even warmer than it is now.

December 29, 2021 1:07 am

Yes, excellent piece, asks the questions that ought to be asked about every Green measure to reduce CO2 emissions:

  • How much effect will it have on global emissions?
  • And how much effect will that have on global average temperatures?

It invariably turns out when you ask these questions that the answer is little or nothing. In fact, sometimes the proposed measures will actually increase emissions if you account for all the effects.

This is why future historians will evaluate the current climate hysteria as a case of religious mania, and the erection of wind turbines to be on a par with the construction of fake airfields by cargo cultists.

December 29, 2021 6:37 am

Had to laugh at this one as the lefties get paranoid conservatives are now doing what they’ve been doing for years and infiltrating back with the ‘we wuz robbed’ meme-
America is facing a ballot-box coup – help us sound the alarm in 2022 (

How dare they! Methinks the doomsters are suddenly feeling doomed with Sleepy Joe and his captain’s pick Ms Gigglepot.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights