President Trump’s best hope of draining the Green Swamp has just been nixed by his Chief of Staff. The New York Times has the bad news:
John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, has killed an effort by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to stage public debates challenging climate change science, according to three people familiar with the deliberations, thwarting a plan that had intrigued President Trump even as it set off alarm bells among his top advisers.
The idea of publicly critiquing climate change on the national stage has been a notable theme for Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the E.P.A. For nearly a year he has championed the notion of holding military-style exercises known as red team, blue team debates, possibly to be broadcast live, to question the validity of climate change.
And yes – that really is bad news. In my view, it’s one of the biggest mistakes so far of Trump’s otherwise winning presidency.
Twenty-one children are using the courts in reliably left-wing Oregon to claim that the Trump administration’s policy on climate change is violating their constitutional rights.
As the Washington Postreported Wednesday:
The federal government’s request to halt the lawsuit “is entirely premature,” wrote Judge Sidney Thomas, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
“We’re looking forward to putting the federal government on trial on climate science and its dangerous fossil fuel policies,” said Julia Olson, the lead attorney for the young plaintiffs and chief counsel of Our Children’s Trust.
Kids, eh? Is there anything they don’t know about climate change, what with all that expert brainwashing they get at school from true believer teachers and from woke animated TV series like Captain Planet and Magic School Bus?
Climate alarmists are expressing great concern about the departure of National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn from the White House. They believe it is a sign that their influence over President Trump is waning – and with it their chances of persuading him to reverse his decision to quit the Paris climate accord.
According to E & E news:
George David Banks left last month after failing to get a permanent security clearance. He handled international energy issues and was viewed as a top voice pushing for re-engagement in the Paris climate accord. That, combined with Cohn’s exit, weakens the prospects that the United States will remain in the global agreement. Trump has said he’ll pull out of the Paris pact, but he can’t formally do that until November 2020.
“One thing is for certain, the pro-Paris crowd has certainly been dealt a setback these past few weeks,” said Tom Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research.
Good. With the possible exception of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Javanka, Cohn was surely the most powerful and dangerous advocate for green lunacy in the Trump administration.
In theory a burst water pipe ought to be largely in the male domain.
‘It’s always me who gets the worst of it,’ said the Fawn, surveying the wreckage caused by the burst water pipe. I did not disagree a) because I would have had my head bitten off and b) because it’s true.
Though I wouldn’t say I was completely useless: who was the first to spot the water gushing through the ceiling of the guest bedroom, eh? And who was the first to find the stopcock using the time-honoured method of running up and down the stairs for ten minutes screaming: ‘Where the hell is the stopcock?’ But it’s probably fair to say that the Fawn bore — and continues to bear — the brunt of the crisis.
In theory a burst water pipe ought to be largely in the male domain. But once you’ve got the man stuff out of the way — move furniture, place strategic buckets, call a plumber and find he can’t come for three days — the aftermath is pretty much woman’s territory.
I’m thinking of the business of dealing with the mounds of accumulated sodden linen, plus a weekend’s worth of unwashed clothes; drying the mattresses; airing the rooms; running a household with a crap husband and two useless teenagers when there’s no mains water.
Let’s “solve” climate change by halting economic growth, argues a paper from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna, published in Nature Climate Change.
Texas Tech professor Katharine Hayhoe tells a summit in Edmonton, Canada that climate change is “the greatest humanitarian crisis of our times”; confides how shocked she was on discovering, six months into her marriage, that her husband did not believe in global warming. “You have somebody you respect and you also love and you also want to stay married. I said well, ‘Let’s talk about it.’” Apparently it took two years to convince him.
Activists at Cambridge University warn of “large scale disruption” if the university’s £6.3 billion endowment fund ignores their demands that it should divest itself of its fossil fuel investment holdings.
An ex-White-House staffer from the Obama era tells Washingtonian about the time her date with a man came to a sudden end when he said he didn’t believe in global warming: “I started laughing, because I’m from Colorado and didn’t realize people actually didn’t believe in global warming. But he was serious.”
Climate industrial complex in UK has wasted £100 billion and shut down debate to no useful purpose, warns Peter Lilley – one of Margaret Thatcher’s former ministers.
‘Stop blaming both sides for America’s climate failures’, argues Guardiancolumnist. ‘The fault lies entirely with the GOP.’
I could go on but I wouldn’t want to bore you. Or myself. When you’ve been covering the climate/environment/energy beat for as long as I have, every day is Groundhog Day. Every day it’s the same bunch of troughers, spivs, second-raters, crooks, liars, half-wits, chancers, bottom-feeders and eco-fascists churning out the same old propaganda…
Which of these characters, you wonder, is the most absurd choice to symbolize the global war on climate change?
At first glance, perhaps, it ought to be ‘Red’. ‘Red’, after all, is nothing but a cartoon character from a popular video game and has never, either in his gaming or his spin-off movie career, shown the slightest interest in anthropogenic global warming theory, carbon emissions or sustainability. That’s because his only real interest is in saving eggs from pigs.
Then again, being a fictional character who doesn’t exist in real life, you could argue that Red is the perfect metaphor for climate change – which shares every one of these characteristics.
Scientists had known of an Adélie penguin colony (Pygoscelis adeliae) in these Danger Islands, but satellite images revealed more guano on the rocky islands than could be explained by the colony’s expected numbers.
Even though the tiny island chain is only about 10 kilometers across, researchers hadn’t realized the extent of the penguin population, says study coauthor Heather Lynch, an ecologist at Stony Brook University in New York. “In the Antarctic, distances are so vast, something major could be just around the corner and you wouldn’t know.”
Obviously this is great news for Adélie penguin fans. But terrible news for environmentalists. The penguin is what you might call their ‘polar bear of the south’ – that is, the cute, lovable, telegenic species most frequently cited in their propaganda stories about polar critters threatened by “climate change.”
Susan Crockford, arguably the world’s greatest polar bear expert, has some really bad news for environmentalists.
Their favorite ursine poster child of climate doom is doing great. Polar bear populations are stable, if not growing. That stuff you read in the liberal media about bears starving to death because thin summer sea ice is pure nonsense. The only evidence we have that polar bears are in any kind of trouble is the fake evidence of activists’ computer models.
Crockford’s full State of the Polar Bear Report 2017, produced for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, can be read here.
Here is a summary of its conclusions:
• Global polar bear numbers have been stable or risen slightly since 2005, despite the fact that summer sea ice since 2007 hit levels not expected until mid-century: the predicted 67% decline in polar bear numbers did not occur.
• Abundant prey and adequate sea ice in spring and early summer since 2007 appear to explain why global polar bear numbers have not declined, as might have been expected as a result of low summer sea ice levels.
• The greatest change in sea ice habitat since 1979 was experienced by Barents Sea polar bears and the least by those in Southern Hudson Bay, the most southerly region inhabited by bears.
• As far as is known, the record low extent of sea ice in March 2017 had no impact on polar bear health or survival.
• Some studies show bears are lighter in weight than they were in the 1980s, but none showed an increase in the number of individuals starving to death or too thin to reproduce.
• A just-released report of Southern Beaufort Sea bears having difficulty finding prey in 2014– 2016 suggests that the thick ice events that have impacted the region every ten years or so since the 1960s have continued despite reduced summer sea ice.
• Claims of widespread hybridization of polar bears with grizzlies were disproven by DNA studies.
• Overly pessimistic media responses to recent polar bear issues have made heartbreaking news out of scientifically insignificant events, suggesting an attempt is being made to restore the status of this failed global warming icon.
Or – short version – pretty much everything that Greenpeace, the WWF, the IPCC, the IUCN, the Guardian, CNN and the New York Times have ever told you about polar bears is a lie.
What particularly interests me about Crockford’s report are the extraordinary similarities it shows between global warming alarmism and polar bear alarmism.
In theory, there ought to be no connection whatsoever. Global warming studies, after all, involve scientific specialities like meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, palaeoclimatology. Polar bear studies, on the other hand, tend much more to lie in the realm of zoology.
Politics aside, Simon Schama has the makings of a first-rate TV historian.
Most of the history I know and remember comes from my inspirational prep school teacher Mr Bradshaw. History was taught so much better in those days. It was all kings and queens, battles and dates, with no room for any of that nonsense like,‘Imagine you are a suffragette going to protest the oppressive male hegemony at the races. Describe how it feels to be crushed by the king’s horse.’
Nor was there any question that you were participating in some kind of collaborative learning experience. Your ‘master’ taught; you listened and learned — and occasionally made distracting jokes and got bits of chalk chucked at you. That was the deal and it worked very well. This was the tail end of the era defined by programmes like Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation: one still confident enough to imagine that there are such things as good and bad art, superior and inferior cultures, right and wrong judgments.
Yes. How could we ever have doubted it? All this freezing weather we’ve been having is, of course, yet another sign that global warming is real. And anyway, we shouldn’t take any notice of all this white stuff that is shutting down schools, making journeys impossible, and generally freezing our asses off. Rather, we should be focusing our attention on what’s happening way to the north where no one actually lives. Apparently.