The long-overdue showdown with America’s most bloated, self-important arm of climate alarmism finally arrived this week — and what a spectacle it was. In a move that should have happened years ago, the Trump administration decisively dismissed the hundreds of so-called “experts” who were preparing the next National Climate Assessment (NCA) — a document often weaponized to justify costly and draconian climate policies that the American people neither asked for nor benefit from.
According to The New York Times’ own agonized reporting, “The Trump administration has dismissed the hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government’s flagship report on how global warming is affecting the country”. Translation: the gravy train of climate catastrophe peddling has hit a brick wall.
The National Climate Assessment has long been a centerpiece in the grand theater of climate fear, projecting dire futures with a laughable level of pseudo-certainty. Despite its authors’ best efforts to scare Americans into submission with apocalyptic visions, most of their “projections” have failed the simple test of reality. As Brad Plumer and Rebecca Dzombak gloomily noted, “The move puts the future of the report, which is required by Congress, into serious jeopardy”. That’s not a bug — it’s a feature.
The absurdity of the situation becomes even clearer when reading how the dismissed researchers reacted. Jesse Keenan, a climate adaptation professor, practically cried into his recycled coffee mug, declaring, “This is as close as it gets to a termination of the assessment. If you get rid of all the people involved, nothing’s moving forward”. Exactly, Professor Keenan. That was precisely the point. Perhaps it’s time to move forward with serious, grounded research rather than ideologically driven climate sermons.
Let’s also take a moment to savor the bureaucratic collapse. NASA, which had been doling out contracts like candy to firms like ICF International for “technical support” — read: glorified office busywork — saw those contracts axed. No more multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded boondoggles to prop up a narrative that grows thinner by the year.
Naturally, the usual suspects are already sobbing that without their preferred team of doomsayers, any future report will “downplay” the supposed dangers of warming. Yet one has to ask: if your “science” can’t survive the loss of a hand-picked team of activists, maybe it wasn’t science in the first place. Perhaps it was always closer to a political manifesto, dressed up in lab coats.
The Times frets that “state and local policymakers, as well as private businesses, rely on the assessment”. What they don’t admit is that these assessments often serve more to inflate public hysteria and lawsuits against the federal government than to offer sound advice. Russell Vought, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget Director, hit the nail on the head when he described the reports as a “source of climate alarmism”. It’s refreshing to finally see leadership willing to call out the climate-industrial complex for what it really is.
Predictably, the fearmongers are already plotting new strategies to sneak their ideology back in through the cracks. Meade Krosby of the University of Washington lamented, “The question is whether it [the next assessment] is going to reflect credible science”. Given their track record, “credible” in this context apparently means “produced by a select group of like-minded alarmists with a history of failed predictions.”
The American public deserves better than yet another self-referential, doom-and-gloom fantasy presented as objective fact. This purge of the climate clerisy from the National Climate Assessment is a long-awaited act of intellectual housecleaning. The public should celebrate that, for once, we have an administration willing to stand up to the sprawling technocracy of climate fearmongering and demand real accountability.
The scientists and bureaucrats who treated the NCA like their personal manifesto-writing project are shocked today. They should be. They mistook the American people’s tolerance for blind consent. Now, they are being shown the door, their shrill warnings reduced to background noise in a nation tired of being lectured about its alleged sins against the Earth.
Good riddance. May this be the first of many steps toward reining in the arrogance of central planners who believe they have the right — and the competence — to redesign society based on speculative, unprovable theories.
The climate fear machine has been unplugged. And the lights, ironically, have never looked brighter.
H/T Steve Milloy
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Queue up the funeral march……
Anthony Fauci did much to deal with government “science”, and climate change was as dodgy. Al Gore was out of office when he went all in on his jihad, but he reflected others still in office.
The COVID shutdowns, masks and vaccine mandates, school shutdowns did as much more damage to public trust in science “experts” than any failed climate predictions.
Things like of Arctic Ice disappearing or Phoenix might be 117F instead of 115F in the summer and such other meaningless fearmongering registered little in the public consciousness.
But the consequences of the COVID lockdowns and school closing hit every family, every small business, and everyone now sees how unnecessary it all was past the first month on April 2020. Dems and their scientist allies her in the US promoted it and now the public has lost trust in science. And so too the big media outlets, trust is gone. And Climate Scam is collapsing whole sale now.
And if Trump pushes through successfully with his Energy Dominance plans, the Renewable energy scams of wind and solar will be finished and bankrupt in a few years. And there won’t be any resurrecting that solar and wind machines now with a hostile China confrontation now brewing.
+1
That argument doesn’t hold up. Lockdowns were implemented across the world by leaders from all political backgrounds. The idea that any politician wanted to enforce lockdowns is counterintuitive. These measures were devastating for economies and deeply unpopular. No leader willingly takes steps that are guaranteed to damage their political standing unless they believe it is absolutely necessary.
As for your statement that “the climate scam is collapsing,” I’ve been hearing declarations like “AGW is dead” or “climate change scam is collapsing” for nearly 20 years, ever since I started sporadically following the climate debate around 2006.
Despite this ongoing rhetoric in certain corners of the internet, it hasn’t translated into any meaningful decline in scientific consensus or serious global policy rollback. The vast majority of scientists, and much of the public, still recognize human driven climate change as a real and urgent threat. My prediction is that while contrarian talking points may persist online, they will continue to be disconnected from actual global trends in science and energy policy.
If ‘Janet S’ didn’t exist (& post) here, it would necessary to invent her, just to remind us:
She’s correct!
The Terminator (liquid-metal borg) will not collapse.
It cannot be killed by any normal means, arguments or evidences.
Like Hannibal’s elephant-mounted forces, descending from the Alps, and joined by defectors (oh horror!) from the defending side, it can only be defeated or diverted, not destroyed.
And that’s why the rallying cry must be, then as now —
Carthago delenda est!
— Lay waste to it.
— Leave no stone standing.
— Raze it all to the ground.
— Salt the foul earth from which this hath sprung.
— Oh let its names — for they are Legion — never be spoken.
Lest it rise again, zombie-like, to consume your posterity — minds, bodies & souls.
There is no other way out of this crisis:
A Carthiginian Solution is called for.
Fresh courage take, — RLW
Freeze in Liquefied N2.
Fracture into 1000 pieces.
Place individual pieces in bottles and fill with more liquefied N2.
Place the thousand bottles in a vessel filled with liquefied N2.
Send Vessel to Neptune.
The writing style of ‘Janet S’ seems familiar – an old troll using a new name?
The Times They Are A-Changin. 🙂
I absolutely disagree with you. Maybe at the beginning of COVID, politicians believed the lockdowns were necessary, but a few weeks in, and no slowdown in sight, it became all about the power. The more we were forced to cower, the more the power went to their heads. Climate change is no different–it is all about the power, and not about the earth, or the people.
After the initial lockdowns, the focus shifted toward more balanced and practical measures like mask mandates and vaccinations because indefinite lockdowns weren’t sustainable.
That doesn’t look like a power grab to me. It looks like an evolving public health response to a serious global threat. Preventive steps were still necessary to protect lives and the healthcare system from being overwhelmed.
As for your claim that climate change is ‘all about power’, if that were true, why would nearly every country, including geopolitical rivals like the U.S. and China, agree on the basic science and try to cooperate on solutions?
It’s hard to see how a global, bipartisan consensus on climate action amounts to a power scheme.
And if your response is to point to Trump, know that George W. Bush and several other Republican leaders across the country have acknowledged the threat of climate change and aligned with mainstream science on the issue.
Mask and vaccine mandates were balanced and practical? Holy moly, the brainwashing is strong with this one.
Can you show the evidence governments relied on showing the effectiveness of mask and vaccine mandates?
I don’t know where you live, but I’m in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Our then “esteemed” leader Daniel Andrews turned Melbourne into the longest locked down city in the world with an 8pm curfew. He first cited the curfew was necessary because it would make it easier for police to control people’s movements. When the police commissioner was asked if that was true, he said it wasn’t. Andrews then backtracked and told us the curfews were implemented because of “health advice”. Well, after 5 years of fighting the government to reveal this “health advice” (during which the government desperately tried to prevent its release – I wonder why?), it’s been revealed it was a lie. The curfew was not justified on anything. There was no “health advice”. Does this sound like an “evolving public health response” to you? What else could this be if not a power grab? Lives were lost, businesses and livelihoods were destroyed, families were broken, children lost out on socialising and education and families couldn’t farewell their lost ones because of these lockdowns, curfews and social gathering rules. If our governments lied to us about this aspect, what else have they lied about?
And here you are defending this?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017?
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/msphere.00637-20
In response to your:
Regarding your Melbourne experience, I’m not familiar with it, so I won’t comment on the accuracy of your story.
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(22)00098-5/pdf
What other evidence do you have to support the vaccine mandates?
Lol, are you joking with that mask study? It was conducted in a SEALED CHAMBER! Like we all live our lives in a sealed chamber without the effects of wind and open space? Do you even read the studies you cite?
That’s your criticism? If you actually read clinical trial studies, you’d know that researchers deliberately control for variables, like wind and ventilation, to isolate the effect of masks on viral transmission. That’s standard scientific practice.
If you believe wind and open space alone are sufficient to make masks unnecessary indoors, then please provide a study supporting that.
Otherwise, dismissing research simply because it was done in a controlled environment like a sealed chamber shows a misunderstanding of how scientific trials work.
From a public health perspective, the goal is to reduce transmission and ease pressure on the healthcare system. The most effective strategy would be to combine interventions: masks plus ventilation and open space and not treat them as either or.
So public policy should be based on trials that have no (or very little) reflection of the real world?
You are wasting your time. Janet S, doesn’t do science, she does consensus. Whatever her party tells her is true, is true, and anyone who disagrees is just being irrational.
For every report you dig up, there are dozens that counter it.
World Health Organization published that masking had no benefit in protecting someone. It did have a minor affect if the person was infected in reducing spread, a few percentage points.
You ARE brainwashed! Viruses are AIRBORNE. That means ALL of your orificies would have to be covered with a material with openings smaller than a virus particle. Eyes, Ears, Nose, Mouth…. The Masks all had openings larger than virus particles, and so were USELESS. That does not even account for the fact that one was not “covered”, every minute of every 24 hours of one’s life. The human body is attacked by viruses continually, and the only True defense is the natural immune system. EVIL was done.
Ah red herrings and political baiting…
I’m not the person to do this but it occurs to me that an AI analysis of ‘Janet S’ writing pattern should tell us what previous troll identities fit the new ‘Janet S’
China Agrees because China manufacturers, sells and distributes the “Solutions” to the rest of the world. If China truly “Agreed” China would not install new Coal Generation but would instead to install ALL the Solar they manufacture. China is however installing TWs of new coal generation and only MWs of new wind and solar.
China clearly “Agrees” that Climate Change is a non issue and their producing 1/3 of total global CO2 emissions is proof positive.
In 2024 China approved 66.7GW of new coal fired capacity and began construction of 94.5GW, the latter equivalent to 93% of such construction starts worldwide
Geopolitical China actually is our foe. They have negotiated exemptions for themselves on emissions but they trumpet the danger of those emissions. They suggest we cut back out CO2 emissions while they go ahead and build one new coal fire power plant every two weeks. Then they sell us solar panels and windmills that they build under their exemptions and sell them to us. So we degrade our energy infrastructure by buying from them, while the build their own energy infrastructure to compete with us in other industries.
When you cite a known foe for for pushing one narrative when talking to you and doing the exact opposite in the background, you had best step back and ask youself if you are being banboozled. You are.
China (LOL) is classified as a developing country and therefore exempt.
There is no threat from CO2-induced Climate Change. It’s not visible anywhere.
There is no universal consensus on CO2-induced Climate Change. A certain number of people think it exists, and a certain number of people think it doesn’t exist, or is so insignificant as to not be a problem.
Which group is correct? We know what your opinion is, but where is any evidence for CO2-induced Climate Change? Your two choices are temperature increases mirroring CO2 increases, and unusual weather activity.
It has been shown that the temperatures were just as warm in the recent past, with less CO2 in the air, as they are today, with more CO2 in the air, so CO2 has not added any additional warmth to the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s no warmer today than it was back then.
And, weather history shows there is no unusual, unprecedented weather happening today. We do have extreme weather. We have always had extreme weather, regardless of how much CO2 is in the air. But the extreme weather we experience today is no more extreme than it was in the historic past.
That’s what your opinions are based on. No evidence for a CO2 driver anywhere.
I wonder when they will accurately model the sun and orbit on the energy received by the earth.
Lots of studies exist that show the solar variations and those correlate to the temperature variations much more closely than any CO2 study.
Yes. Correlation is not causation, but when the input to an energy distribution system varies, it should be taken seriously.
Answer: Money and control.
Nonsense. It was, in its entirety, an abandonment of a century of progress in understanding and responding to viral infection. It was contrary to even the most basic precepts of good science and medicine.
That it was an exercise in control is well demonstrated by the blatant attempts to silence any objection to measures taken by political and bureaucratic authority, and the cooperation of the media in condemning those voices instead of including them in discussion.
As for your observation that other countries did some of the same things, ask yourself this: What is the nature of government? The answer is age-old. Government is force. It seeks to expand itself. The nature of bureaucracy is to sustain itself and to increase, and to never accept responsibility for failure, only to capitalize on confusion.
Both Branches of the Party in the US, R or D, are composed of people, and the people most likely to seek lifetime employment in the structure of force are those most likely to be corrupted by power.
Covid, the climate, terrorism, or any of the other myriad threats, real and imagined, are the tools of power through fear.
The naivety of the worshippers of authority, which apparently includes you, never ceases to amaze me.
UN and other world agency officials have publicly stated that it is not about the environment, it is about control, about the One World Order.
“The vast majority of scientists, and much of the public, still recognize human driven climate change as a real and urgent threat.”
That is more to do with the incessant lies and propaganda from the leftist media.
And most people around where I live think its a load of BS.
In surveys, “climate” generally ends up dead last in thing to worry about.
There is in fact NO CLIMATE CRISIS,
…nor is there any scientific evidence that human released CO2 causes any measurable warming.
You are welcome to try to produce such evidence.. but you won’t find any.
Just plain false.
https://www.rsc.org/images/arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
WOW.. Low information. Zero scientific understanding, 110% AGW mantra.
Arrhenius had ZERO information on the action of CO2 in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is NOT a glass jar.
He used a highly simplistic model that in absolutely NO WAY resembled the Earth’s atmosphere.
His model also used equations that didn’t even have dimensional balance.
His conclusion was nothing but a scientifically baseless conjecture.
Do you understand the difference between a “conjecture” and reality ??
Since 1979 we have a reasonably stable measure of atmospheric temperature. There is no evidence of any human CO2 caused warming in that data.
Maybe, if you are capable of opening your mind, you will get a much better understanding from this video.
Tom Shula and Markus Ott : The “Missing Link” in the Greenhouse Effect | Tom Nelson Pod #232 – YouTube
Janet, from your link –
I take it that you agree, otherwise you wouldn’t have provided the link.
Or are you just sloppy, stupid, or both?
Largely retracted by Arrhenius himself a decade later. Funny how nobody ever quotes his later paper.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf
I was wondering when that would come in. You obviously have not read any evaluations of his research.
Janet’s assertion that there is some kind of scientific consensus among the scientists is propaganda. In my experience, half the general public and science and engineering professionals understand that politicization of climate science has occurred, and that most climate-related communications in the main-stream media, and from so-called climate scientists are untrustworthy. Those who “believe” are either younger (naive) scientists or those who have done no personal investigation of the topic and have an unhealthy degree of trust in existing power structures (journals, scientific societies, etc.) especially in light of the general degradation of honesty in our society as evidenced by the well-publicized journal reproducibility crisis.
Of course, there tends to be a strong correlation between “belief” and voting left. I find an additional correlation – the more skilled I have assessed the scientist or engineer to be, the less likely they are to believe in AGW. This includes several scientists/engineers that are top 10 in their field in the world. I would say journeyman-level engineers I have contact with (hundreds) are probably 80/20 skeptical which is a pretty good indication of the truth. When you affix your seal and sign your name to your work and are legally accountable if it is wrong, you are playing a different game than writing a journal article. People should trust the engineers’ judgement more.
Policy is of course political and may be disconnected from the actual science. It will take time to displace those suffer from noble cause corruption or find AGW to be a useful tool in promoting centralized control.
The consensus is a lie, but there are many who have been misled and it will take some time to remedy the situation.
Well said, Vaprrs 🙂
I also know many scientists and engineers.. Even those who “play” in the climate field are highly sceptical about the whole scam.
Well stated. In the various IPCC reports through the years, the difference between the scientific studies and the supposed ‘Summary for Policy Makers’ created for the same subject matter seemed to b
Continued, fumble fingered the post on my phone my apologies..seemed to be disparate in conclusion more often than not. Most only read the SPM and not the research..
Regards,
MCR
There is a significant difference between a scientist and an engineer.
If a scientist makes an error, he erases the blackboard and start scribbling again.
If an engineer makes a mistake, he has to determine the root cause and fix it.
I am not intending to belittle scientists. I know a great many who are diligent and honest.\
When academics became publish or perish criteria for tenure, the cascade of irrelevancies and consensus reports flourished and took over the once honorable peer review process.
The climate scam isn’t collapsing? Did you actually read the article? The climate “experts” who have just lost their jobs might have something to say about this.
Only 15 countries have even bothered to submit their NCA’s (National Climate Assessments) to the UN for the forthcoming COP30 in Brazil. All your wishful thinking is useless against these hard facts.
Only 15 countries….
Is that not a sign the scam may have reached a “tipping” point.
The old consensus science, everyone who I know agrees with me.
There never was a “scientific consensus”, but the true believers will continue to lie and say that only those scientists who agree with them count and everyone who doesn’t isn’t a real scientist.
And the hundreds of billions that went to Pharma?
Seems there was more than a little 10% for the Big Guy happening.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and I will defend to the death your right to express it as much as I disagree and as much as I see how wrong you are.
The COVID shutdowns, masks and vaccine mandates, school shutdowns did much damage to the public.
Perhaps the “Climate Assessment” should proceed…but with empirical evidence gathered from the field instead of virtual fantasy gathered from computer models with unlikely future projections.
Are storms getting worse?
Are storms getting wetter?
Are storms getting more frequent?
Are wind events increasing?
Are wind events getting stronger?
Are heat events increasing or getting worse?
How are Heat and Cold mortality rates being effected? (if at all)
Etc.
Climate Truth instead of Climate Conjecture.
It needs to show that there is no clear evidence that changing CO2 has influenced temperature and there is a growing field of work that discounts anthropogenic CO2 as the sole cause of increased atmospheric CO2.
If you add up all the fossil fuels that have been burned over the last 100 years or so, it is enough to increase atmospheric CO2 levels by a factor of 2 to 3 times more than the increase that was actually seen.
Maybe, but not with the same “scientists”- those clowns who gave us all that BS deserve to go find a job in the real world.
I hear McDonalds in California is hiring.
I think its time for the Heartland institute, with its many realist scientists available to it, to produce a “National Climate Assessment” 🙂
Trump could employ them to do that. 🙂
Get DOGE to do it. First, audit the climate code and the systematic preparation of forcing scenarios to feed the pre-stabilized models. Then report, “We found it to have been completely circular all along. There was never any climate crisis, nor was the slightest shred of confirming evidence ever found that CO2 emissions are a risk. Carry on.”
For clarity, a final update about the NCA has been posted, so all those officials who relied on it can go back to their duties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYoNL4g5Vg
/s
> “the climate-industrial complex”
That’s not fair to true industries. Climate alarmist cabal is closer. I am open to more nuanced titles.
It really is fascinating that the warmists are so attracted to “We cannot” and “We must” to the exclusion of anything involving incrementalism or compromise. A classic attribute of zealotry.
What is most obvious, is that in Climate Scientology, as opposed to actual Science, the conclusion is to mandate political action, and define what people must be forced to do. In real Science, the scientists report on scientific issues, and do not attempt to define political agenda.
Climate-industrial complex is a re-spin of the military-industrial complex that was so disparaged in years past.
Neither were fair to true industries.
Go, Climate Caterwaulers. Run like the wind. You are now free.
You’re welcome.
A+ report card grade for the first 100 days of the new administration.
Mostly. Still needs to get Congress off its collective duffs and get legislation passed. Also not doing enough about millions of tech jobs lost to offshoring and outsourcing. DOT has recognized the danger of non English speaking truck drivers. at least.
CNN Poll: Trump’s approval at 100 days lower than any president in at least seven decades
Fake News-CNN?
Not just CNN though is it? Fox seem to calling it pretty bad too.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-poll-numbers-economy-fall-during-trade-fight-surveys-find
Who’s your favourite, AOC, Jazzy Crockett or Bernie ?? 😉
That was Fox reporting on the CNN poll. Don’t you read before posting links?
Here is Fox, sans commentary:
https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-first-100-days-president-trumps-second-term
And here is Fox again, sans commentary.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-trump-republicans-record-high-ratings-democrats-falter
Funny thing about polls. You can get whatever results you want just by how you phrase the questions.
Proof positive that CNN can Cook Books (spin a fake news story) as good as John Cook can
Ahh, CNN – the holy arbiter of truth. Surely you can’t be serious?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/donald-trump-stands-americans-100-days-his-second-presidency
Fox News acknowledged the low approval ratings too, but they really try to spin it. It doesn’t matter because, at the end of the day, the polls speak for themselves.
Have you looked at where the Democrats are..
Only just above single digit approval.
Round the “S” bend and out the other side. !
The best you can muster is AOC and Jazzy.. can it get more pathetic !!
I never said Fox was any better. Why should their polls be any more accurate? Who, and how many exactly were polled?
Trump was complaining to Fox News last night about their recent poll. He said Fox Polling was wrong during the 2016 election cycle and the same people are wrong now.
The News Media has seized on two things to try to undermine Trump: His deportation policies and his tariff policies.
There is enough confusion around both subjects to allow the Media to make hay and complain about Trump and distort the facts, and cause a lot of problems for Trump.
But, eventually, all these roadblocks to Trump’s progress will be swept away and the United States will be deporting illegal aliens with the consent of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the economy will be booming as all the new tariff deals are completed.
So the Leftwing Media should enjoy this short time span as much as they can because the situation in the United States is going to get dramatically better and everybody is going to know why: Donald Trump.
I think the Trump administration is going to announce the first tariff deal they have made sometime today or tomorrow.
It’s all working out the way Trump planned.
None of them asked me.
“at the end of the day, the polls speak for themselves”
Well, Trump seems to think CNN and the other polls are oversampling Democrats which would naturally bias the poll against Trump.
Trump says if they sampled Democrats and Republicans equally, he, Trump, would be somewhere around 60 percent approval.
One poll I saw showed Trump with a 37 percent overall approval rating. The same poll showed the Democrats with a 30 percent approval rating.
The polls that speak for themselves are elections. As I recall, polls said Harris was going to win. Voters had a different opinion.
CNN poll… roflmao. !!!
There are many reasons they are called FAKE NEWS MEDIA
Their polls said the Kamal and Tampon Tim would win the election.
Yet Trump won the EC and the so-called popular vote. GOP won the House and Senate running on MAGA issues. Meanwhile, the polls had Harris as a toss-up or ahead in the battleground states.
In ALL of the battleground States, which she lost decisively.
lol…is that you Simon? Have you found the pee pee tape yet?
Translation: “We polled the 79 remaining viewers of CNN and found Trump was overwhelmingly unpopular among them”.
That is far too high a grade for an administration that is using tariffs to implement central control over markets.
Yep Tariffs = sales tax.
We agree you were duped by Collusion
Again, the total non-comprehension of what Trump is actually doing.
BILLIONS of dollars of industrial and manufacturing dollars flowing back into the USA.
You, on the other hand, seem to be a solid backer of Chinese manufacturing… want it to continue to flood the USA with cheap knock-offs…. Why is that ?
“Again, the total non-comprehension of what Trump is actually doing.”
You are right about that!
I think people are going to see the light on Trump’s tariffs in the not-too-distant future. They are going to say to themselves: Why didn’t I think of that!?
Look at the number of countries that are lining up to ink free trade deals with the US.
And Trump said today that he had about eight TRILLION dollars in new investments lined up.
Nobody has ever done anything close to what Trump is now doing.
Cope and seethe.
If you somehow think I am wrong why don’t you say why? I’m very confident it will be the consumer in the US who will pay these tariffs, not the countries. It is very much a sales tax, of which the poor will proportionally pay more than the wealthy.
The tariffs are not permanent. They are a wake up call that has resulted in over 170 countries coming to negotiate fair trade deals.
Stop reading headlines and start thinking.
I don’t remember mentioning the permanence of them. You are right they won’t be permanent once the inflationary factor kicks in. I have nothing against tariffs, I just think they were never meant to be used as a blunt tool to punish penguins.
Once again you and the M5M believed Genocide Joe was of sound mind. Nobody believed you.
You are convinced of a hypothetical future inflation factor. Once again, media headlines strike. You identifying them as a sales tax or whatever infers a belief they will be permanent.
Permanent or not… they are a sales tax.
The participants, serving the media, governmental and international conglomerates, pretend that they have been creating these reports to help formulate policies to solve the “problem” of a climate crisis. In fact, they have been intentionally fabricating and hyping the “problem” so their premeditated “solutions” could be rolled out in response. That’s how the game has really been played all along. Grateful to Trump for not playing the game.
Yeah, but if there wasn’t a problem, what does anybody need with them? Of course they found issues.
And by finding “issues” they were able to justify trillions of dollars spent, with of course 10% for each of the Big Buys involved.
If congress requires an assessment, I’ll gladly volunteer to complete it.
The climate is fine and getting better.
Do I get my $100,000 now?
Um, you get an incomplete.
You failed to dismiss the 16 horsemen of the Climate Apocalypse (aka tipping points).
So, only $99,999.99
“The Trump administration has dismissed the hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government’s flagship report on how global warming is affecting the country”
If those guys are smart and energetic, they could do a lot of good out here.
They are smart and energetic, but have done nothing but harm.
If they really were smart and energetic, they would have seen through the scam immediately, and would now be doing something worthwhile.
Only if their innate honesty was stronger than their innate greed.
Smart doesn’t mean wise.
Do you a dollar figure to go with the dismissal numbers?
Chalk another success up for the mean orange man.
Well done, Charles. The caterwauling is epic—and fun to watch.
Charles’ way of writing increases the fun! 🙂
I analyzed all six of the ‘catastrophe’ examples in chapter 1 of the 2014 NCA in essay ‘Credibility Conundrums’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. All six were either contrived, historically inaccurate, or both. Complete junk served up by 14 US government agencies at taxpayer expense.
Remember the proverb that applies, here & now?
No rest for the weary (no peace to the wicked).
A Carthiginian Solution is called for:
Lay waste to it.
Leave no stone standing.
Raze it all to the ground.
Salt the foul earth from which this had sprung.
Let its name never be spoken again.
Lest it rise again, zombie-like, to consume the minds of your posterity.
Carthago delenda est!
With love & courage to you all, — RLW
The 16 horsemen (aka tipping points) of the Climate Apocalypse are back in the news.
Most of the “Climate Policies” espoused by state and local government are based on reports produced by “Climate Consultants” and blindly accepted as “The Truth” by those with no climate knowledge or technical ability, but still capable of implementing economically and socially destructive rules based on bad science just to forward their own political gain.
While it may take years for a society to recover from this kind of systemic abuse, there is always hope for increased awareness and critical thinking which has been smothered in the past.
We have to fix the education system, the schools, in this country to regain critical thinking skills.
I believe that the reason that the climate change / global warming theory is rejected in America is that people started to realize the true cost of “going green” or “net zero” during the Biden administration, with increasing energy costs and massive inflationary government spending on renewables with no real benefits for ordinary people.
During his 2024 campaign, now-President Trump capitalized on the fact that energy costs were relatively low during his first term, and nearly doubled during the Biden administration, and promised a return to lower costs and prosperity, partially due to increased use of fossil fuels, which voters did not demonize as much as before. Trump’s disbanding of the National Climate Assessment is the fulfillment of one of his campaign promises, which people supported in the last election.
Although previous presidential candidates, such as Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama had been sounding the alarm on “global warming” and advocating for reduced use of fossil fuels and increased use of solar and wind, none of them had pushed the “green” agenda as much as Joe Biden.
After American voters had the true experience of the high costs and minimal benefits of cutting CO2 emissions, most of them realized that replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar wasn’t worth the cost.
It remains to be seen when voters in Europe and Australia will come to this realization, because those in Canada did not.
Sometimes you can’t just tell people. you must show them.
Awaiting the full impact of the Spain/Portugal/France blackout.
Excellent news, we are winning.
Not winning. Not yet. A single battle does not define the outcome of a war, not usually.
I see this as a great opportunity. We can replace the hundreds of previous authors with a dozen or so of our best. They can review the previous reports highlight the good and the bad, the science and the propaganda and give a short concise description of what is weather and what is climate. Give a list of the natural processes that contribute to our climate, a list of human activities that can affect our climate and the limitation of these activities especially the limitations of CO2. I don’t think there is enough appreciation of CO2’s limitations. Yes it is a greenhouse gas but a rather weak one but more importantly each additional unit of added CO2 is weaker than the previous unit.
Besides that, it makes the plants grow.
It is a greenhouse gas only when injected into a greenhouse to help plants flourish.
“They can“
So how much did the recent Fifth National Climate Assessment cost and how much was the Sixth projected to cost? How many contributors were there? How accurate were the previous assessments? How much duplication is there with the IPCC report?
I have scanned the reporting for answers to these questions. Nada! Zilch! Is this another case of the Sherlockian “The Dog that Did Not Bark!”? I wonder why? Is it embarrassing?
classic case of “Opience” … opinion dressed up as “science” …
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/29/trump-administration-finally-pulls-the-plug-on-the-climate-fear-factory/
Is there a reason you linked to this page?
This is the first news I came across today. What a way to start the day.
The USA is hugely powerful in the climate scam. It essentially runs the show as well as funding the show. Removing another foundation stone weakens the whole unscientific edifice.
As Scott Adams observed about this, why would anyone pay a whole lot of expensive “experts” to provide an “assessment” when everyone knows it will come out the only way it can come out. It will support the “experts” political agendas, keep them from losing their research grant incomes by going along with the “mainstream,” and preserve their standing in the kind of society in which they circulate. Better to just stipulate that they will say “we’re all going to die!” and send them packing.
Trust in “science” waned once before, after Three Mile Island and the catastrophes of the chemical/industrial complex 50 years ago. Seeing scientific advancement in weaponry didn’t help much either.
That a supposed scientific debate might be led by a purely political elite seems to be an absurdity, but that seems to be what was offered to the world. It all just seems to be a continuation of death and taxes. Is anyone surprised when the average American shrugs their shoulders and just continues on?
Admittedly, the lies told about 3-mile Island and chemicals did turn a lot of people off on science.