by Tilak Doshi
It has taken President Trump and his ‘energy dominance’ agenda less than 60 days to put the entire edifice of the climate juggernaut – over 30 years in the making – at risk of collapse. As with much of the President’s agenda in foreign policy, economic policy and the culture wars, his energy team is charging full steam ahead, firing off policy and regulatory initiatives at a pace designed to overwhelm the capacity of opponents to respond. It is leaving the administration’s zealous climate adversaries scrambling to oppose the Trumpian counter-revolution.
Yet, it is not apparent that the climate industrial complex – that unholy alliance among “self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners” referred to by Bjorn Lomborg – can easily be halted in its tracks. The sheer scale of its influence across rent-seeking corporations, Left-wing billionaire foundations and myriad climate NGOs, its deep rootedness in the Western psyche and its pedagogic hold over the younger generation from elementary schools to universities cannot be underestimated. The task ahead for the Trump administration is fraught with challenges, not least activist judges who can continually put up legal obstacles to the President’s executive authority every step of the way.
Leftist Tears and Sceptic Schadenfreude
A brief scan of recent headlines in the legacy media shows how distraught the true believers in the Church of Climate have become. A Bloomberg opinion article published on Wednesday laments: ‘Years of Climate Action Demolished in Days.’ Co-authors Mark Gongloff and Elaine He constructed a detailed if not exhaustive list of climate-related actions of the Trump administration’s first 52 days. They claim with trepidation that “nothing could have prepared us for the breadth or intensity of the assault on climate action that Trump has unleashed”.
A Wall Street Journal article reported that the fossil fuel industry is getting its “revenge” on green activists, with environmentalists “reel[ing] under President Trump’s pro-fossil fuel and anti-climate actions”. The New York Times complains that “in a few short weeks, President Trump has severely damaged the Government’s ability to fight climate change, upending American environmental policy with moves that could have lasting implications for the country and the planet.” The Guardian claims that Trump officials “decimate environmental protections” and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “takes aim at almost every major pollution rule in what environmentalists call an act of ‘malice toward the planet’”.
It is no surprise that the pearl-clutching concerns expressed by the climate zealots and their media enablers have led to evident schadenfreude among sceptics. Charles Rotter of the Watts Up With That? website puts it across with relish as “common sense, courtesy of Mr Trump”:
It’s hard not to chuckle while reading Bloomberg’s opinion piece, ‘Years of Climate Action Are Being Demolished in Days by Trump.’ One gets the sense that Mark Gongloff and Elaine He were typing furiously through a cascade of tears, their trembling hands barely able to clutch their reusable bamboo keyboards. Their anguish is palpable — and deeply entertaining.
In a picture of two clinking champagne glasses on X, Mark Morano of Climate Depot links the Bloomberg opinion piece to the comments: “This is how it’s done! Thank you, Mr President! @realDonaldTrump” and “cheers”.
“A Dagger Straight into the Heart of the Climate Change Religion”
The progressive think tank Centre for American Progress claimed that “the United States has accomplished more on climate change under the Biden administration than during any other Presidential administration”. Like the Obama administration, the Biden administration did just about everything in its power, in a ‘whole-of-government’ approach, to wage a regulatory onslaught on US oil, gas and coal while showering taxpayer largesse on favoured ‘green’ industries. This culminated in the most obscenely large boondoggle in US fiscal history, misnamed, equally obscenely, as the Inflation Reduction Act, to support ‘renewable’ projects to ‘save the planet’ from a ‘climate crisis’.
The Trump administration has taken a radical approach to bringing back some level of normality with cost-benefit analysis – the stuff of bread-and-butter economics – to energy and environmental policies. Much like how a good surgeon would take aggressive measures to excise metastasized cancer growth in a patient’s body, President Trump’s energy team has gone for a root-and-branch overhaul of energy and environmental policies which focus on business costs and consumer welfare rather than on some hypothesised, impending climate apocalypse.
While the Trumpian energy dominance agenda is equally a ‘whole-of-government’ effort, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin occupies the policy hot seat. Under his watch, the agency launched the most far-reaching deregulatory action in US history. In 31 separate actions, the agency seeks to eliminate “trillions of dollars in regulatory costs and hidden taxes”, to lower the cost of living for American families, reduce prices for such essentials such as buying a car, heating a home and operating a business. Mr Zeldin said that he was helping drive “a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion”.
The EPA’s formal reconsideration of the ‘endangerment finding’ will drive that dagger. It was that finding which empowered the Obama EPA to regulate CO2 as a ‘criteria pollutant’ which, by definition, harms human health. It gave government agencies carte blanche to conduct the war on fossil fuels and intrusively regulate consumer choice on appliances and consumer durables including cars. It gamed investment incentives to privilege favoured ‘green’ projects. The Obama administration’s ‘Clean Power Plan’ forced unavailable technology on coal and new natural gas plants in order to benefit unreliable, intermittent wind and solar electricity. It brought in electric vehicle regulatory mandates via tailpipe emission standards which put the death sentence on petrol and diesel-powered cars.
The endangerment finding was sanctified by the Supreme Court’s Chevron deference decision of 1984 that granted regulatory agencies broad leeway to interpret legislation. This gave the Democrat-run EPA control over CO2 emissions and, hence, most human activity. The over-ruling of the Chevron deference principle by the Supreme Court last year and Mr Zeldin’s likely successful reversal of the endangerment finding bode well for President Trump’s energy dominance agenda.
Demise of the Net Zero Insanity
In the court of law, the ending of the Chevron deference principle strips away the privileges of an unaccountable, partisan bureaucracy over the implementation of public policy. In the court of public opinion, the election of Donald J. Trump has given impetus to a return to normality in public policies related to energy and the environment. Dystopian Net Zero policies no longer have a stranglehold in the machinery of state in the US. Sadly, populist political parties in the EU and UK – demonised as the ‘far Right’ – that support moves against costly and intrusive climate change rules and regulations are marginalised by political firewalls and a compliant media.
Nothing is certain in politics. The Trump administration has its work cut out at least until the mid-term elections and nothing can be taken for granted by ‘energy dominance’ proponents. Between now and the mid-terms, the strategy for the Trumpian counter-revolution can only be ‘full steam ahead’ and ‘take no prisoners’. Fighting ‘gentlemanly’ along The Marquess of Queensberry Rules, as Victor Davis Hanson has long reminded us, is not going to cut it.
Dr Tilak K. Doshi is the Daily Sceptic‘s Energy Editor. He is an economist, a member of the CO2 Coalition and a former contributor to Forbes. Follow him on Substack and X.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Don’t relax, it’s not over yet. The nit wits like Nick Stokes have embedded the nonsense deep into society.
I’ve just come back from hospital appointment and the place was full signs saying they were doing this that or the other to cut emissions. Even the ambulances, and a police car, were boasting how they were low emission to save the planet.
Patient death greatly limits their emissions.
Environmental activists should be ecstatic about Trump’s tariffs impositions.
These will stop people all around the world from buying so much indulgence stuff that can’t be repaired, and it finishes up in landfill tips after a short time because they get bored with it or it goes out of fashion.
What’s not to like, greenies?
(oh that’s right – Trump did this)
It’s a long trip down the yellow brick road before you get to sing, “Ding dong, the wicked witch is dead!“
ehm..first came the song and then the long walk, remember Trudy’s “allies” were picked up on the way. 😁 But I agree with you, it’s too early to sing..sadly
Willis E. said something to the effect, “Post something on WUWT and if it’s wrong it will be unmercifully pointed out in short order.” I got the formula for Bovaer® wrong a few days ago.
Damn Steve, was I being “unmerciful”? I thought I was just being an organic chemistry dork ??
The proper technical term is nerd, Phil. 🙂
I was a nerd in high school in the ’60s, thinking it was cool to walk around with my slide rule hanging off my belt. Didn’t impress the girls doing that, unfortunately.
Do you mean Judy (Judy Garland) or Dorothy? if your reference is to anything made after 1939 then I plead ignorance.
Yes it’s Judy..sorry my old brain and names. Besides the silent movie and the 1939 production with Judy Garland – the remakes afterwards are simply unbearable.
Thank you. I can usually spot things like that, but ‘Trudy’ just stumped me!
True, but this is the first time we’ve been on the yellow brick road in several decades. Now it’s just keep marching forward!
“the United States has accomplished more on climate change under the Biden administration than during any other Presidential administration”
Look close. Can you see it?
Or is it not about CO2?
Funny how that happens given CO2 is “resident in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.”
You have to carefully define what you mean. The average time a single CO2-molecule spends in the atmosphere is measured to be under 10 years.
However, if you believe that anthropogenic emissions changed the atmosphere with long lasting consequences as for example the yet incomplete and very imprecise global climate models trying to suggest, you indeed could talk about CO2 being “resident in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.”
There are certainly recorded events in Earth’s history affecting the CO2 level for hundreds of years!
Not doubting or contradicting you, but I’ve always been curious how they can track a single CO2 molecule over it’s lifetime. Just a rhetorical question/comment.
They all have tiny bar codes.
Actually some scientists kinda did – after nuclear tests, they tracked the decay of newly generated carbon-14 from the atmosphere. It wasn’t very accurate as I recall, but I believe the half-life was of the order of 6 or 7 years. Not a single molecule, but a specific population of specific molecules.
I was parroting the climatologists.
If one looks at the graph, CO2 does not look like it has a long term residency.
Yes, that seasonal collapse is interesting. How do they explain that?
I think we all knew you were parroting priests of a specific religion.
If it really is about CO2 we’d be building Nuclear power plants, but those are being decommissioned right along with the fossil fuel power stations. Google search on:
“how many nuclear power plants have been decommissioned”
As of June 2024, 210 nuclear reactors have been permanently shut down worldwide, with the United States having the largest number of shutdowns at 41 units.
You will notice not a flicker on the expanded sawtooth from the COVID deindustrialisation. So the increase is NATURAL. And human anti CO2 has had no effect whatever
A 10% drop for a couple of months simply is not a large enough signal to see against the very noisy yearly data.
The amount of CO2 that is being generated by fossil fuel burning is more than enough to explain all of the CO2 increase, and there are no known sources of natural CO2 that have increased enough to generate such a signal.
Has the UK Met bureau given all the molecules names yet?
Four decades of massive spending on the wind and solar energy transition in the US and around the world and the share of primary energy produced from fossil fuels has been reduced from 80-some percent to 80-some percent. Only liberals can look at the complete failure of a hugely expensive program and conclude that the solution is to spend even more doing the same thing.
“Don’t relax, it’s not over yet. The nit wits like Nick Stokes have embedded the nonsense deep into society.”
I don’t think that is going to change the situation. Net Zero is falling apart in front of our eyes because reality is intruding. Even the most zealous Climate Alarmist is going to have to admit to failure at some point.
I doubt it-there are still “flat earthers” around. Never, and I mean never, underestimate human-or liberal- stupidity or cupidity. And then there is also self-delusion
As Albert Einstein reputedly said: Only two things are infinite: The Universe and Human Stupidity. But lately I’m beginning to have my doubts about the Universe.
It’s a shame that stupidity isn’t painful….
It can be, it usually takes huge amounts of other people’s money to cushion one from the results of their own stupidity.
Agreed. The problem is not Global Warming. The problem is you can’t run countries on intermittent wind and solar. That’s becoming expensively obvious, and that is driving the unravelling.
When we are reduced to hunter gatherers and living in caves – wind and solar is about all we will have
The best response to AGW points is ridicule.
Trump cou8ld hit it with massive tariffs
They’ll find some way to blame capitalism for this failure as well.
Also Trump! It will be very convenient. The big orange meanie ruined our chances to save the planet.
Oh well, on to the next thing. The only way to avoid this (fill in the blank) catastrophe is to dismantle capitalism and Western civilization!
previous values for the blank have been:
global cooling
acid rain
ozone hole
global warming
climate change
What’s next?
When the rest of the world stops trading with America net zero will be here in no time flat.Trump’s subltle plan to save the planet
“When the rest of the world stops trading with America”
As if that’s going to happen. The rest of the world likes American money.
America likes the rest of world’s products particularly German cars, French wine, Scotch whisky – and hosts of products they haven’t a clue how to make
America likes the rest of world’s products particularly German cars, French wine, Scotch whisky – and hosts of products they haven’t a clue how to make
It would be an adjustment, but the rest of the world would survive without USA.
But insults are counter productive. The only way to score points is to VERY patiently repeat the facts. I know that many here have been through this many times with many discussion “partners”. Experiencing old falsified argument rezombie out of the abyss again can be frustrating, but slinging mud is not the answer…
The challenge is finding a “discussion partner” who will listen and not shout you down. They are invariably dumbfounded to learn the facts that:
1. CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas.
2. The greenhouse effect is not like a blanket, or a greenhouse but a colourant, a tint, like food dye in water.
3. The dreaded back radiation under clear sky is from a low emissivity gas with an average effective temperature of ice.
4. All the global efforts to decarbonize are not reversing the rising CO2.
> 2. The greenhouse effect is not like a blanket, or a greenhouse but a colourant, a tint, like food dye in water.
To expand, CO2 is a small tint in an already tinted medium. So much of its adsorbence spectrum is already taken up by water vapor and such.
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
-Churchill
You beat me to it! Well done!
It sure remains everywhere, just like the COVID requirements in some hospitals, and here is Canada it seems likely that one of the climate insiders will win the election.
He who lives by political influence dies by political influence. If there was no good economic reason to do any of the Green New Deal, as soon as it is taken off political life support, it expires.
“If something cannot go on for ever, it will stop”
Herbert Stein
Don’t forget government programs…they do go on forever.
Like the USAID? Even Irresistible Forces can be stopped if they finally meet an Immovable object.
Wasn’t that Reagan? Didn’t he say something like, there is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program?
Salute!
I believe the Gipper said “lmmortality”, and forty more years later we are watching portions of our major govmint departments witness the whittling away at the low-hanging fruit. Easier to breathe fresh air every day now.
Gums sends…
No, they don’t go on forever. All government programs of France under Louis XVI were terminated effectively in 1790. Nearly all Russian government programs were terminated in1917. They may replace them with other government programs, but all of the previous ways and rules of doing business come to a complete stop with revolutionary overthrows of governments. Ask King Charles I of England.
We all need to stay strong and get this administration all the backing that we can.
Vladimir Putin would wholeheartedly agree with that. How about an alliance like the Molotov Ribbentrop pact.
If climate change was an actual problem, the collapse would not be happening.
What collapse would that be? When my favorite liberal agrees
that “The Climate Crisis” isn’t a problem, then maybe.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I meant the collapse of the climate alarmist narrative.
It’s starting to collapse – some Just Stop Oil turds are in jail and Michael Mann is on the hook for at least a half million $$, and likely to be double that. That ain’t sustainable.
Just Stop Oil is just noise. Michael Mann outlived his usefulness, he is expendable. Those were paid mercenaries of real powers. The real forces are the ones controlling the money, i.e. the printing machine and investment decisions. Those have been rattled, but they are not admitting defeat.
Leality and reason aside, the real trick is to make the entire narrative unfashionable. If it ain’t cool to be Net Zero, it will die.
I think we can go further and make the whole thing “patently ridiculous” as well as unfashionable.
Indeed, that would do nicely.
It already is ridiculous.
Here in Wisconsin the election results of two days ago is a reminder that euphoria and ringing church bells is a bit premature.
Well, Wisconsin did vote to put a requirement to show a voter ID in order to vote, into the Wisconsin constitution.
The woman that won the Supreme Court Justice seat was crowing that she had beaten the billionaire, Elon Musk. She didn’t mention any of the Leftwing billionaires that funded her campaign, like George Soros. She had more billionaires funding her campaign than did her opponent. So she has to be a hypocrite about it. Typical radical Democrat: Distort the Truth.
I wonder if she got any money from the Democrat Dark Money Laundering Outfit “ActBlue”. ActBlue seems to be involved in some serious criminal money laundering activity in support of Democrat candidates, and now there are new reports that some of this money is coming from foreign sources.
It’s going to get interesting.
I see where DOGE is reporting that upwards of 3 million illegal aliens were given U.S. Social Security numbers during the Biden administration, which would pave the way for those illegal aliens to vote in United States elections.
I wonder where the Biden administration sent these potential illegal alien voters? Were they sent to battleground States to possibly swing the balance in favor of Democrats? Does this explain why Democrats wanted to import millions of illegal aliens into the United States, criminal or not?
Voter ID laws are good. There are good reasons to have them, especially today.
All true, but it confirms that Greens are not giving up, and the battle is not won, or, rather, that a battle won in a long war does not equate to ultimate victory.
The war for common sense will be won when an average person will know that CAGW was deliberately made up fiction. That will take years of persistent work. Globally.
No one is going to win an election in Wisconsin if they do not support abortion in cases of rape, incest and health of the mother. Schimel’s stance may have been legally principled (it should be the legislature, not the court that addresses the issue) but it was political suicide.
19th amendment.
Nuke it from orbit, only way to be sure. ; )
CC is the biggest Leftist Hoax of all times. All that To live on us taxpayers money. Sometimes I cannot imagine living in these times and realize what’s happening. So much people lying and extorting money to the others half of the country…!
Sadly lefties invent every time a new hoax, once the old doesn’t work anymore
DDT, Global Cooling, Acid Rain, The Ozone Hole, Global Warming, Climate Change, The Climate Crisis, CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Hydrocarbons, Freon, Tetra Ethyl Lead, Asbestos, Mercury . . .
Be careful to not conflate pollutants with agendas.
What you call “hoax” has been invented by elites in power for eons before Leftists were conceived. Most importantly, all religions are fabricated “hoaxes”, created by people in power to control masses and perpetuate their power. Green “hoax” is just one of the latest in the long string of them. Also, the Right played as big role in its creation. M Thatcher was hardly a leftist. Neither was GW Bush promoting green hydrogen.
Never put any stock in what politicians or their henchmen say.
Study what they DO.
‘Most importantly, all religions are fabricated “hoaxes”, created by people in power to control masses and perpetuate their power.’
So, ironically, said Karl Marx. But if you really want to know how the ‘State’ rose to prominence in human affairs, i.e., how it was ‘created by people in power to control masses and perpetuate their power’ read this:
https://mises.org/online-book/anatomy-state
“Neither was GW Bush promoting green hydrogen.’
Maybe we agree that GWB doesn’t belong in any Pantheon of Limited Government, and like too many so-called conservatives, didn’t actually conserve anything.
Karl Marx was wrong predicting the future.
But he was very good at analyzing the past.
States and religions co-evolved, and until very recent times they were inseparable. Some still are.
Reading about history is one of my favorite pastimes, I will take a look.
‘But he was very good at analyzing the past.’
I don’t think so:
‘This plays to two of Marx’s great historical swindles. First, commerce and all human action can be scientifically engineered by a central authority to produce desired ends. Second, that the nobility of those ends in the indeterminate future justifies any and all means, potentially limitless suffering, in the present.’
https://mises.org/mises-wire/socialists-it-doesnt-matter-if-socialism-works-what-matters-power
Based on the historical results of implementing Marx’s analyses, I doubt the old sod could have found an acorn in an oak forest.
Yep, George Orwell had that guy figured out.
This is a wrong conclusion about the future. This is conjecture/prediction, not analysis of the past.
This is pure ideology, not prediction, and has nothing to do with analysis of the past.
Of course the deadliest religion of them all is atheism.
Not true.
First, atheism is not a religion, it is refusal to join any party of believers. Being on your own. It is a simple admission that existence of God cannot be proven, and that any god is not better than any other, with strong suspicion they are all made up. After all, all believers are atheists regarding all gods but their own. Second, believers have proven to be deadly for thousands of years, committing relentless acts of genocide for their cause with no remorse, and there is no empirical evidence that atheists are more violent.
“Nothing is certain in politics. The Trump administration has its work cut out at least until the mid-term elections and nothing can be taken for granted by ‘energy dominance’ proponents.” (my emphasis)
This is important!
Skeptics of climate alarm should arm themselves with empirical evidence that the incremental static radiative effect of CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. should never have been thought capable of driving warming or ANY metric of climate conditions to a bad result.
This is the aim of the short time-lapse videos on this Youtube channel. Each has a Readme description for the full explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8vhRIT-3uaLhuaIZq2FuQ
Indeed, no one has even been able to measure the radiant effect of atmospheric greenhouse gases other than water vapour, at ambient temperature, at the surface. It is literally a ghost of an idea, a phantom, a hallucination.
(WV concentration does have a measurable effect in reducing radiant energy loss (cooling) from the surface, because it can vary all the way up to 100% in some conditions, which CO2 will never do)
The radiation physics involved in H2O vapor and CO2 is exactly the same apart from the wavelengths, but you claim CO2 can’t do what you admit H2O can. Amazing stuff, that physics.
Except emissivity for WV is near .9 and CO2 is near zero so the effects are somewhat different.
No, Kevin, that’s not what I wrote. I said that no one has ever measured the radiant effect of CO2 at ground level, at ambient temperature – but they have for water vapour. And we already know that you have no idea what “radiation” means, and you’ve never studied physics, so you should probably sit this one out. Stay in your lane.
‘I said that no one has ever measured the radiant effect of CO2 at ground level, at ambient temperature – but they have for water vapour.’
Is this because many thermal ‘detectors’ only operate in the so-called atmospheric window or because of how pyrgeometers work, etc.? Details, please.
Pyrgeometers that measure in the required CO2 range generally show a dip in radiation through that range.
The small amount of CO2 absorbs downward radiation as well as upward radiation.
As Tom Shula explains, there is very little radiation left in the CO2 range once it is transferred to the H2O frequencies.
b,
I’m completely onboard with Shula&Ott’s explanation why radiative transfer models are NOT applicable to the lower troposphere. However, given that both CO2 and H2O in their excited states are predominantly ‘thermalized’ within meters of the Earth’s surface, why would emissions from H2O be measurable at the surface, but not those from CO2?
Frank, the reason for that is only due to the highly variable mass of H2O in the air over time. Pyrgeometers show a range of about 0 to 100 W/m^2 of power loss from the surface to the air, and this depends entirely on the relative humidity conditions. There is no detectable influence from CO2.
So this is not properly described as “emissions from H2O at the surface” but rather “reduction in surface losses due to absorption by H2O in the near-surface air”. That can be measured easily.
Thanks. I found a relatively recent paper that mentioned that DLR is largely parameterized using estimates for temperature and ‘water column’ – not exactly what I would call strong evidence for the existence of same.
Indeed, they have to “parametrize” it, because they can’t measure it 🙂 A long-standing trick of climate shysters.
Yes, basically what you said: the ambient detectors like pyrgeometers are broadband devices, and they measure overall power loss from the surface to the atmosphere. So all of the variation in those measurements over time is due to variations in water vapour content, which greatly outmasses CO2 in the air.
Meanwhile, the spectrometers which can distinguish between energy emission from CO2 vs water vapour molecules operate at liquid nitrogen temperatures, so they are not measuring radiative power from the atmosphere to the surface at all. What they are measuring would be better described as “power that could be developed from the atmosphere to something approximating outer space”, which is not a “forcing” in any way but a “relaxing”. (Although to be more precise, they are operating at temperatures that are warmer than outer space, but much colder than Earth’s surface, so those measurements do not correspond directly to anything that’s happening on Earth or around it)
The only radiant effect of CO2 in the air could be to reduce the rate of energy transfer from the surface to the air, if the atmospheric CO2 got hotter while the surface didn’t, but no one has measured this. The effect is so small and so swamped by everything else that it is effectively unmeasurable.
The pyrgeometer “measurements” that Kevin posted the other day are, of course, completely fake. Even he knows this, and said so, but he refuses to admit it to himself.
Good info, thanks again.
Thank you for stating this so clearly.
And the conclusion:
If it is unmeasurable, it is not falsifiable.If it is not falsifiable, it is outside of realm of science.
Yes, the Narrative has not been defeated. General perception is that Trump is cynically willing to “pollute” in order to give USA advantage, doing what is good for USA today at the expense of the whole world tomorrow. This makes him look selfish and immoral, but he is playing into his opponents hands. If he bothered to dismantle the Narrative, he would look like the leader doing the right thing for the right reason. But nobody told him that upholding values is more important than seeking advantage.
“Yes, the Narrative has not been defeated. General perception is that Trump is cynically willing to “pollute” in order to give USA advantage, doing what is good for USA today at the expense of the whole world tomorrow.”
I would have to agree with that.
That’s how the Democrats and Climate Alarmists would like to have Trump portrayed. Portraying him that way would keep the Human-caused Climate Change narrative alive.
The Trump administration is doing nothing to dispel that notion. They really should come out and make it clear where they stand on CO2. We all want to know.
Of course, it is not necessary for the Trump administration to spell out a specific position on CO2. They can carry on like they are doing without doing that, but it doesn’t dispel the idea that it is being done out of selfishness and endangers the world.
You want President Trump to publish voluntary material that opponents would gladly take to their lawyers for more lawfare? Why burden yourself when the average voter has little idea of what is “true” or “false” in this scientifically complicated topic labelled “climate change”? Geoff S
I want Trump to say: “I see no reason to regulate CO2.
If methane and CO2 are pollutants, why are we all not in jail for polluting?
And H2O. Apply the linear no threshold to that molecule. After all, water does kill (drowning, for example).
“Sadly, populist political parties in the EU and UK – demonised as the ‘far Right’ – that support moves against costly and intrusive climate change rules and regulations are marginalised by political firewalls and a compliant media.”
The actual problem are the voters, too many compliant and short sighted fools, Wisconsin is the latest example…well “and the band played on”..blubb,blubb…
Have you seen some of those “man on the street” interviews? It’s pretty scary to think those people actually have a vote.
I guess the real dummies are highlighted by television, but there sure are a lot of them. They look like perfect candidates for brainwashing by the Leftwing Media. Seriously clueless.
Asking simple questions of college students is pretty funny. Such as: Name state bordering Canada.
Don’t forget the “gold bars” thrown overboard as per the EPA..
Ed Miliband would disagree, on his planet…
Net zero is unstoppable Miliband tells MPs
Miliband “thinking” is the problem.
UK politicians are going to delude themselves right into bankruptcy. Then it will stop. Too late, of course.
Fanatics have a hard time letting go of their obsession.
Well, sometimes bankruptcy is more the problem of the debt holder… 🙂 But in case of the UK the problem is not bankruptcy per se, but the deindustrialization. Industrial prowess is much easier to destroy than to build.
I really feel bad for UK citizens who are being led off the cliff by delusional leaders.
Lots of people can see the UK train wreck coming, except for the UK leadership.
It’s a crazy situation.
I do not. This is a democracy, so let them face consequences of their own actions.
Ed’s always mixing up his words they come out so fast. What he meant to say surely is Net Zero is impossible 🙂
Yes, there has been wholescale capture of institutions, embedding it into not just the collective western society but also exported to educated masses in many other parts of the world.
This is wedded to corporate interests having wet dreams about a future green industrial revolution
Add to that climate terrorist groups, NGOs used as policy influencers, self interested academics and a general assortment of useful idiots
Now you have your juggernaut
But but but, it can collapse as suddenly as it grew, and we are witnessing this in real time
This is not all about trump and his policies. He’s merely accelerated the collapse
It has been coming for a while
The public rolls its eyes at the mention of climate change, scientists have been seen for the clueless opportunists and parasites they often are, especially those in the public eye, and there is rampant inflation
The EV collapse was a weather bell, we are well and truly in the last days, there is no more to be gained financially or reputationally from the green scam
I always said that the political and banking elites would have to make some adjustments to Net Zero and Green New Deal regardless of the party in power. This is simply because they are loosing money and global competitiveness. However, they would like not so much to dismantle climate-industrial complex as to rather scale it down to make it find its level, where the parasite can co-exist with productive economy. And this includes a lot of folks on the so-called Right.
First we have to disable the Human Hive mind. Social media, smart phones, influencers, censorship, the works.
Oh no! That would lead to *gasp* people paying attention while driving!
The left hasn’t gotten around to sacrificing virgins yet but when they do, and the average lefty finds out it’s his daughter who’s been selected . . .
Bird of Paradise 1951
Or they just will throw stones, like in The Lottery.
Given everything today, I have to wonder if they could actually find a sufficient number of virgins.
Abbas,
Read more about the capture of some scientific topics by The Establishment, here alleged toxic effects of low doses of Lead Pb.
Geoff S
https://www.geoffstuff.com/final_allead.docx
Geoff, trust me, I’ve seen it my whole career first hand
It’s not a conspiracy in most cases, they do it via funding and the scientific establishment does the rest
It self censors, it defunds or hurts in other ways those who don’t conform
It’s more collaborative than you may think, governments don’t have to push very hard to get the response they want from scientists
If the government says jump 1 metre, they will jump 2
The worst of all is medical science, because the opportunities to gain personal wealth are much more numerous
Medical science is totally corrupted, I wouldn’t be surprised is 99% of it was fabricated, trivial or otherwise wrong
Climate science comes a close second
Then you have other areas of science, in which the vast majority of what is published ie total horseshit – manipulated, exaggerated, plagiarised, completely made up.
Using ill suited techniques that they don’t understand on problems that don’t exist, applied incorrectly and interpreted using magical thinking
“Medical science is totally corrupted, I wouldn’t be surprised is 99% of it was fabricated, trivial or otherwise wrong”
I once heard a commercial for some wonder drug where it claimed a .5% effectiveness over a placebo and I realized that the ad assumed people were so stupid they wouldn’t notice that meant it was ineffective.
Look at the covid vaccines. 95% relative efficacy. Absolute efficacy about 0.1% if I remember correctly, which they never hid
This is the state of medical science. Even in the most high profile public health issue in living memory (by a mile), they still bullshit (and get away with it because the politicians, media and pharma-backed academics were in on it)
The fact is this: if mrna really works, where are all the mrna coronovirus, rhinovirus and influenza vaccines now? Why did their stock prices go back to pre pandemic levels almost instantly?
They dropped it, all of it, now that they’ve got the billions (from taxpayers). Increased scrutiny now that the crisis is over would mean they’d be found out. The markets knew, they’d smelled a rat before the end
The technology never worked and never will. It was a hoax, propped up by deceit, dodgy statistics, bastardising science, while claiming to be the ones upholding scientific principles.
Statins are another. A drug invented to solve a non existent problem. Worth who knows how much, which is why public health bodies will not drop it despite several meta analyses showing the whole cholesterol theory is wrong. Statins have quite severe side effects
Imagine all the other drugs that are not high profile.
I could go on and on
As far as the banner pic, to me Trump looks more like the guy on the left…
Yes, all Trump’s real-life opponents look rather small when compared to him.
From the article: “Mr Zeldin said that he was helping drive “a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion”. ”
There’s what the Trump administration thinks about Human-caused Climate Change. They think it is a religion/cult.
Both Trump’s Energy Secretary and his Interior Secretary have also described Human-caused Climate Change as a religion.
In other words, they don’t take Human-caused Climate Change seriously. That’s just what we want, because there is no evidence that Human-caused Climate Change is real.
Excellent article, Dr. Doshi.
Can we get the Daily Sceptic‘s writers to post about the US debt?
Thanks.
President Trump’s Energy Dominance Agenda Leaves Climate Juggernaut on Brink of Collapse
The climate juggernau is nowhere near the brink of collapse. It has been totally disproven, and that has not affected it at all. Trump may defund it in America, but the rest of the world will just put up taxes to keep the boondoggle going. There are too many people in positions of power depending on the money for it to stop.
The one think that may stop it is if Trump succeeds in halting globalisation and defunding the supranational bodies that keep it going. But China is doing very well out of it, and may even fund things itself if it can bring the West down that way. Europe is already beaten and compliant,,,
Let’s see.China about 1.5 billion, India 1.5 billion and growing, how about Saudi Arabia, all Middle East nations t appears anybody that all have a vested interest in oil as it is their livelihood. Russia also.w It appears that there are just a number of players not playing.
“The New York Times complains that “in a few short weeks, President Trump has severely damaged the Government’s ability to fight climate change”
Anyone who uses phrases like “fight climate change” in a serious manner is just a complete moron. These same people can’t tell you what it will look like when “climate change” is defeated.
When I read this article, not half an hour ago, you assured me that the Net Zero’s complete lack of movement was due to it being tired and shagged out due to a prolonged dunkelflaute.
Well, ah… It’s pining for the Biden administration.
Now do one with the cheese shop!
Ah yes, the Milliband Blue. Beautiful plumage!
Very nice. The US and Europe have wasted trillions of dollars in the fight against catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The way you fight CAGW is to lower CO2 emissions. Yet after wasting all this money global CO2 emissions have continued to rise, average global temperatures have continued to rise. Even the least of us can plainly see they have failed. They are clearly fighting an imaginary problem. Time to get honest and accept that CO2 is not the control knob for our climate, far from it. We have put up with their lies and cheating long enough it is time push back harder than ever. If we step on some toes or hurt some feelings that is just too bad.
“… hypothesised (sic), impending climate apocalypse”
more like, “mythical, impending climate apocalypse.”
The climate change warming paradigm is certainly gone from hypothesis to religious belief, no evidence required.
The influence of the climate crisis juggernaut has been overestimated. If it had the momentum its supporters think it had why is it that since 1990 global emissions have increased 60%?
And why do fossil fuels still generate 82% of the primary energy used on the planet? The reality is that if the Climate Crisis Con-Men had as much credibility as they believe, the transition to alternate energies would have been much faster. Instead, wind, solar, EVs, heat pumps and most of the other green gimmicks continue to spin their wheels even with all the subsidies, mandates, and alarmist rhetoric.
As the Net Zero nutcases and climate carpetbaggers and caterwaulers are routed, the battle cry should be Remember Climategate!
Why Does Trump do a sales pitch for Musk’s Tesla electric cars? Is it because they are not that environmentally friendly and the all seeing president realises this. I don’t think so as subtle insights are not one of his his strong points. Perhaps the EU et al should retaliate with a 100% tariff on Tesla cars