Heartland Institute President James Taylor Knocks It Out of the Park on ‘Hottest Days’ Last Night on The Ingraham Angle

From a tweet by Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com.

If cue doesn’t work, James Taylor’s segment begins at 7:44. However, no reason not to watch the entire clip. It’s all excellent.

4.9 30 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 12, 2023 6:18 pm

James Taylor is a hell of a guy? Hats off to you James.

July 12, 2023 6:28 pm

It is heartening to see reporters becoming cynical about climate science and alarming predictions.

I expect Trump would gain considerable support on the single promise to stop funding the UN. It is a failed organisation that craves power and guaranteed income.

Reply to  RickWill
July 12, 2023 7:02 pm

Honestly same. I can see why he’s so narcissistic because he’s right about this. He knows bullshit when he sees it and he has the confidence to challenge it publicly in the face of ridicule and anger.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  RickWill
July 12, 2023 11:28 pm

Trump’s Knowledge of Science
WUWT Post on July 13, 2023
I don’t know what Trump is promising to do (next), but if it’s something he’ll accomplish by legislative fiat, it’s not a good idea. If he’s not able to articulate why global warming is BS, it won’t do much besides exciting the Greens and liberals in opposition and rouse the rabble of true believers. Unfortunately he can’t (articulate the science) because that would require that he have a serious grasp of some of details that James Taylor outlines above. Trump doesn’t care enough about the issue – or science in general – to learn such details. If he were elected, he’d need a science adviser who can.
Note that Trump became the only president we’ve had (to suffer) that did not appoint a permanent science advisor when he took office. Not since Franklin Roosevelt, whose adviser was Vannevar Bush, has the office had such an anti-science president. Science advisers have real power and can stand between the president and the public and speak with authority – like James Taylor does, or like John Christie would. Trump did not fill the office of science adviser for more than two years, when he appointed Kelvin Droegemeier, whose stance on global warming was not perhaps everything we might hope for.
Called upon to respond to the liberal “National Climate Assessment”, an ostensibly “scientific report”, Trump fielded the questions himself, saying he had read “some of the report” and replied, “I don’t believe it.” and “It’s a hoax.”
The suggestion in the report that a warming planet would reduce the US economy by 10% by the end of this century probably went unanswered until the Biden team managed to do it by shutting down the country from 2020-21 without recourse to the warming planet meme.
Meanwhile, Droegemeier (an expert on extreme weather events) noted that

… observations show that the planet is warming and “the evidence suggests that it is human-induced.” (He) has been quick to indicate that there is much left to learn about how the planet will react to the warming. (CNN article, :Can Trump’s new science adviser convince him that climate change is real?”)

Someone in this thread has said that Trump knows bull s**t when he sees it. Yet when the pandemic hit, he stood behind Fauci and Collins, endorsed their policies, and let them have their way. He’s a bad judge of character, bad judge of scientific integrity, and a science illiterate.
Presidents love to sign executive orders in front of a camera and hand out pens pretending that their display of brio is different from the last guy’s, and around and around we go, with each swing of the ideological pendulum. If we want to roll back the current crazy policies on warming, the reversals and new laws need to issue from (at least the appearance of) consensus-built bipartisan compromise. Such an old fashioned approach would start with smart, sound advice. How about a president who knows enough science that he can elevate and stand behind a real scientist like John Christie?
If you want science and technology to regain a respectable air, Trump cannot be the front man for it.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Bill Parsons
July 13, 2023 2:34 am

Trump is no Saviour. He has no principles except to oppose whatever the Democrats do. Does the US deserve a choice between him and Uncle Joe? If I weren’t a confirmed atheist I would pray for us.

William Howard
Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 13, 2023 5:53 am

let see – what is wrong with doing exactly the opposite ofdemocrats? I think that is a good plan unless you are for energy insecurity, failed economy, igh inflation & low wages, unlimited illegals flooding the country, criminals being let out of jail or not prosecuted at all, including politicians taking bribes from foreign countries, and of course allowing boys into girls locker rooms & sports – and there is lots more

Tom Abbott
Reply to  William Howard
July 13, 2023 5:27 pm

“let see – what is wrong with doing exactly the opposite of democrats?”

Nothing is wrong with that. That’s what we should be doing if we have any sense. The Democrats are insane.

Robert B
Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 15, 2023 1:19 am

There were plenty of examples of bipartisanship so your comment is just bollocks. He ran because he disagreed with how the country was run. Of course he was going to oppose many brainfarts of Democrats.

William Howard
Reply to  Bill Parsons
July 13, 2023 5:55 am

would that be the same science that gave us the non-vaccines vaccines, lockdowns, masks, and btw Trump is right – it is a hoax and the biggest misallocatioin (waste) of capital in the history of man

Bill Parsons
Reply to  William Howard
July 13, 2023 11:55 am

“…and btw Trump is right – it is a hoax and the biggest misallocatioin (waste) of capital in the history of man…”

I completely agree. It is a hoax. And Trump deserves credit for calling it what it is. But he didn’t back up the assertion with facts and arguments the way a science adviser would. Global warming myths are too entrenched to be dismissed. They need to be dismantled, forcefully but logically.

Reply to  Bill Parsons
July 13, 2023 1:36 pm

I don’t agree with Trump that it is a “Chinese hoax”.
The Chinese aren’t smart enough to put together a hoax this big.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Neo
July 13, 2023 5:29 pm

I think Trump just meant that the Chicoms were taking advantage of the CO2 hoax by playing along and getting the Western world to trash their economies trying to reduce CO2.

Reply to  Bill Parsons
July 13, 2023 2:31 pm

So many Z(too many) people who have (most probably) never been in the maelstrom of fury launched against everything he attempted (FOR the People) during his short time as CIC, have been quick to criticize him for what he didn’t, or couldn’t get done.
He committed much of his ‘being’ and his wealth to the Job. That massive “attempt” alone, is enough for me. Kindly name any other who came close.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  sturmudgeon
July 13, 2023 5:33 pm

Yes, whenever you talk about Trump’s accomplishments or lack thereof, you have to take into consideration that he was being constatly attacked from all angles by the radical Left, including using the power of the federal government to undermine everything he was trying to do. And they are doing it to this very day.

How many lawsuits did Trump have to win before he could get to building the southern border wall? Dozens of them, filed by every leftwing crank in the nation.

This kind of opposition happened with everything Trump did. Yet Trump still accomplished a tremendous amount despite all the headwinds.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bill Parsons
July 13, 2023 5:24 pm

“Meanwhile, Droegemeier (an expert on extreme weather events) noted that   … observations show that the planet is warming and “the evidence suggests that it is human-induced.” ”

What evidence? He must mean the greenhouse gas theory.

Just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas doesn’t mean it is warming the planet in a measurable way. He’s just guessing.

July 12, 2023 7:18 pm

Laura Ingraham also has an interview with Tom Harris of Ottawa who changed from being a warmist to recognizing that we don’t know for certain what the climate will change to in the future.

July 12, 2023 8:14 pm

Look, the reality is that ordinary people need ~ 50 years of living under their belts before their bullshit detectors are functioning adequately.

OK, for some their bs detectors are just factory lemons from the get-go, so they never want to look behind the curtain. But the rest of us should be able to move on without stopping to ‘re-calibrate’ the laggards. Sheesh, our paleo era ancestors would have just left these stragglers as food for the sabretooth tigers or something.

Look at poor ol’ Bill Mckibbon. He’ll no doubt get in sight of the Pearly Gates and realize – “faaarque, did I get taken for a ride all my life. How will I explain my bone-headedness to St Peter? Will I be able to talk myself in past the velvet entry cord?”

Reply to  Mr.
July 12, 2023 9:46 pm

Mr McKibbon will do no such thing. He will be the one explaining away taking the masses for a ride and making a ton of money at it. I doubt he is the gullible fool being taken for a ride, quite the opposite.

Richard Page
Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 13, 2023 8:23 am

Bill McKibben will no doubt bask in the warmth, nay heat, of his own making instead of the climate equilibrium beyond the pearly gates. And for all eternity he’ll have these words ringing in his ears; “Was it all really worth it, Bill?”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mr.
July 13, 2023 5:35 pm

“Look, the reality is that ordinary people need ~ 50 years of living under their belts before their bullshit detectors are functioning adequately.”

That might be true, especially where it concerns the Earth’s climate.

Geoffrey Williams
July 13, 2023 12:39 am

James Taylor knows his stuff . .

Rod Evans
July 13, 2023 12:46 am

Thank goodness we have the Heartland Institute and WUWT to rely on for sound scientific reflection.
Great performance by James Taylor. ‘You got a friend’

Harry Passfield
July 13, 2023 2:09 am

Whenever anyone in a position of authority starts to claim that ‘weather’ is caused by ‘climate’ you just know they are taking BS. When will they get it into their tiny heads that weather, over a period of 30-60 years, can then be claimed as determining ‘climate’.
Monsoon floods are climatic events because the weather that brings them has been doing so for so many years. The odd flood in some obscure US state is only a weather event. If it were to recur every year then it might be deemed, climate.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
July 13, 2023 6:54 am

Let’s clarify our thinking.

Weather over short intervals is just a manifestation of climate variability. 

As a matter of semantics, climate for a particular location can be defined as weather averaged over a sufficiently long time interval.

They are the same thing, just considered on different time scales. 

Neither climate determines weather, nor weather determines climate, as an entity cannot cause itself.

If we consider cause-effect issue, some forces that drive climate are the Sun, cosmic events, evolution of the Earth interior, etc.   

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Someone
July 13, 2023 10:34 am

Thank you for ‘clarifying’ that for me. However, if weather cannot determine climate, what does? And if it doesn’t, what does?

July 13, 2023 5:19 am

My attempt at a transcription of part of James Taylor’s contribution:

“What we know for a fact, what the United Nation IPCC itself has acknowledged, is that for most of the time period that human civilisation has existed, temperatures have been significantly warmer than today … The fact is that for most of the period that human civilisation has existed – a thousand years ago, 2000 years ago, 4000 years ago – temperatures were significantly warmer than today and the United Nations admits it.”

(Please correct if there are errors)


1. He seems not just to be re-stating what the UN or IPCC believe claim, but stating what he himself belives to be a “fact”. Is this correct?

2. How do we know this is a fact? Milloy has just explained that it is hard enough to know the temperature today – let alone thousands of years ago? Is the fact that the IPCC state it enough to believe it as a fact? What happened to the decades of criticism of the paleoclimate studies the IPCC rely on?

3. Where does the IPCC give the discussion that supports Taylor’s point? I’m looking at Chapter 2 of Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, figure 2.11 a, on page 316 and surrounding discussion. On the face of it, this does not seem to support Taylor. e.g. the quote from page 317:

“Taking all lines of evidence into account, the GMST averaged over the warmest centuries of the current interglacial period (sometime between around 6 and 7 ka) is estimated to have been 0.2°C–1.0°C higher than 1850–1900 (medium confidence). It is therefore more likely than not that no multi-centennial interval during the post- glacial period was warmer globally than the most recent decade (which was 1.1°C warmer than 1850–1900; Section”


3a) Is this representative of what the IPCC now thinks, or is there a better / more up to date reference?

3b) Have I interpreted what the IPCC is claiming (i.e. warmer today that last 6 thousand years, probably warmer than for 116 thousand years) correctly?

3c) Is there a precise citation we can use from the IPCC to back up what Taylor is saying?

Note in this part I’m interested in what the IPCC says – not whether they are right.

Thanks for any help getting to the bottom of this!

July 13, 2023 6:32 am

“these are unprecedented weather events that keep hitting us over and over and over again”

She clearly does not know the meaning of “unprecedented”

Richard Page
Reply to  Someone
July 13, 2023 8:25 am

Clearly? Not even vaguely.

July 13, 2023 6:07 pm

Reminds me of a quote from the movie Jaws: Mayor Vaughn: ‘ Martin, it’s all psychological. You yell, ‘ Barracuda, ‘ everybody says, ‘ huh, what? ‘ You yell ‘ Shark,’ we’ve got a panic on our hands on the Fourth of July.’

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights