Let’s not get too excited just yet about reports that President Trump has made up his mind to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement. We don’t know the terms and conditions. It is entirely possible that what we end up with is a fudge, designed to appease both warring factions in the administration but actually resulting in a muddled cop out which pleases no one.
Still, let’s look at the upside. The greenies are going postal:
The U.S. will be removed from Angela Merkel’s Weihnachtskarte list.
The U.S. may become the victim of further weaponized handshakes and other typically Gallic “your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries” insults from prepubescent Mummy’s little tough boy President Macron of France.
The U.S. presidential administration may become subject to further awkward rifts between those who want a “seat at the table” in Paris – Tillerson; Jared Kushner; Ivanka; Gary Cohn; Rick Perry – and those who want out.
The U.S. may add to “global warming” by 0.3 degrees C, causing the world to boil and melt or, if not that, then at least provoking much bitterness and resentment among all the countries that haven’t yet quit Paris even though they’d all secretly like to.
What we do know is that the climate gravy train is trundling on regardless. And that as far as the U.S. climate negotiators are concerned, the current president might still just as well be Barack Obama.
“If he were standing here, he would tell you that he feels much more knowledgable on the topic today,” said Trump’s economic advisor Gary Cohn, referring to the president’s position on climate change and the Paris agreement.
Well if that’s the case, it’s certainly no thanks to Cohn – whose advice on these matters is about as sound, reliable and unbiased as that provided by Grima Wormtongue – slippery henchman of the evil wizard Saruman – to King Theoden in Lord of the Rings.
Cohn wants Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement. Of course, he does. As an ex-Goldman Sachs man Cohn is a fully paid up member of the $1.5 trillion-a-year Climate Industrial Complex. It was Goldman Sachs – along with Enron – which pioneered the carbon trading schemes that helped enrich enviro-troughers like Al Gore. If the global warming Ponzi scheme ever collapses – and it will – then many of Cohn’s friends and former clients stand to lose millions in crony-capitalist “investments” currently propped up by Obama-era regulation which Cohn and his cronies are desperate to keep in place.
This also explains Cohn’s extraordinary recent attack on the coal industry – “coal doesn’t even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock” – and his risibly dishonest claim that solar and wind power can help the U.S. become “a manufacturing powerhouse.”
It’s extraordinary firstly because it is in direct and explicit contradiction of Trump’s election trail promises to bring back jobs in the coal industry.
And it’s extraordinary secondly because it is in direct contradiction of observable reality, viz: there is no economic case for wind (or solar) – inefficient, expensive energy which is heavily reliant on taxpayer subsidy. For Trump’s Economic Advisor (!) to claim otherwise is at best irresponsibly misleading, at worst a flat-out lie.
Should Donald Trump hamstring the U.S. economy, rip off the consumer, despoil the landscape, give succour to America’s enemies and promote junk science – all in order to keep a “seat at the table” with people who despise him and think he’s an idiot?
To some people – including several senior members of the Trump administration – the answer isn’t immediately obvious. Which is why this week both a leading U.S. scientist and a number of top Senate Republicans have had to urge the president to see sense and ignore the siren voices urging him to stay in the UN’s Paris climate agreement.
The 20 top Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have signed a letter warning the president that remaining in Paris “would subject the United States to significant litigation risk that could up-end your administration’s ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan.”
Meanwhile, the distinguished physicist Will Happer – long mooted as a possible Science Advisor in the Trump administration – has argued that staying in Paris will not only be pointless but will be a betrayal of Trump’s election promise to voters that he would pull out.
Climate policy, however, poses a grave threat. Yes, those who engineered the Paris Agreement will be upset if the United States withdraws. Withdrawal will also outrage the many who profit from climate alarmism. But remaining in the Paris Agreement will not sit well with many of those who voted for Mr. Trump in part because of his campaign promises to withdraw from the agreement. These voters rightly perceived that the agreement would benefit a privileged international elite, at the expense of the common people of the United States and of the rest of the world.
You might think that such interventions ought to be unnecessary. President Trump is, after all, an avowed climate skeptic who has already taken several important steps towards tackling the Green Blob, most recently by promising to eliminate “nearly $1.6 billion in international programs aimed at promoting green energy and fighting global warming.”
Among the targets on his hit list: the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund (GCF), which hands out money for programs to adapt or mitigate global warming; the Clean Technology Fund and the Strategic Climate Fund – saving $239 million; and the Global Climate Change Initiative, saving U.S. taxpayers $362 million.
But Trump is still wavering over the Paris climate agreement, which senior members of his administration, including Jared Kushner, daughter Ivanka, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are urging him not to quit.
Anyone puzzled by the fact that the former CEO of Exxon is supporting an agreement totally opposed to the company’s business model and shareholder interests really needs to read this eye-opening piece by Steve Milloy.
Finally, just when we were beginning to fear it couldn’t get any worse, Muslim leaders have taken a stand and said: “Enough is enough!”
Yes, the Islamic Society of North America – the largest Muslim organization in the U.S. – has affirmed its commitment to combating climate change. It is going to divest itself of all its investment holdings in fossil fuels.
China is on the verge of unleashing an energy revolution which will destroy pretty much forever the green argument that “we are running out of fossil fuel.”
At the heart of this revolution is a miracle substance, sometimes known as “flammable ice”, made up of deposits of frozen gas concentrate in the ocean bed. The substance – methane hydrate – is incredibly energy intensive: according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration one cubic foot of flammable ice holds 164 cubic feet of regular natural gas.
According to one conservative academic calculation, Earth’s conventional reserves of natural gas hold 96 billion tonnes of carbon. Earth’s reserves of oil contain 160 billion tonnes. Earth’s reserves of coal contain 675 billion tonnes: Taken together, 931 billion tonnes of fossil fuel. But Earth’s methane hydrates contain 3,000 billion tons of carbon.
Or more. Methane hydrates are found at larger and larger volumes the deeper you drill. ConocoPhillips drilled 830 metres for its field test at Prudhoe Bay. At this level, you calculate the reservoir of methane gas in the hundreds (100s) of trillions of cubic feet (tcf). Drill deeper and you calculate reserves in the thousands (1,000s) of trillion cubic feet. Drill deeper still and you calculate reserves in the hundred-thousands (100,000s) of trillion cubic feet. Earth’s reserves of this resource could theoretically reach millions (1,000,000s) of trillion cubic feet.
Though methane hydrate is not a newly discovered phenomenon – various countries are researching its potential including the U.S. and Japan – China’s announcement via its state media agency that it has made a “major breakthrough” in successfully collecting the frozen fuel means that it is one step closer to being used commercially.
This won’t be good news, long term, for the U.S. shale gas industry.
When President Trump visits the Vatican next week, he will be transformed by the radiant wisdom of His Holiness, the Pope, into a fully fledged climate change believer.
Or so – somewhat optimistically – the bishop in charge of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academies of Science and Social Sciences has claimed.
Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, the Academies’ chancellor, said in an interview:
They will come to an agreement, since the president claims to be a Christian, and so he [Trump] will listen to him [the Pope].
Actually, you can bet your bottom dollar that this won’t happen, not least because the Pope’s views on climate change are in many ways profoundly unChristian.
This was why the Pope’s 2015 encyclical on environmental issues Laudato Si was so controversial. It bought into the extreme environmentalist view which sees mankind as a blight on the planet rather than a blessing, and sees the industrial progress which brings jobs and prosperity as a curse.
Last night in London I took part in a debate staged by the How To Academy on Trump’s 100 Days.
I was on the pro side with journalist Melanie Phillips.
On the anti side of the debate were the Guardian‘s Jonathan Freedland and a flakcatcher from the Clinton era called James Rubin.
Let me tell you the bad news first: Trump derangement syndrome is everywhere, at least as bad in London as it is in the US.
To listen to my debate opponents you would have imagined that the US had recently elected to the presidency a cross between It the Clown, the Boston Strangler, Dr Strangelove and Alger Hiss. I’m fine with a bit of extravagant rhetoric but there were several moments where both Melanie’s and my jaw dropped at the outrageousness of the charges levelled by Freedland and Rubin at the Trump administration.
By what stretch of the imagination, for example, could former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn be described as a “foreign agent”? This was the phrase used by Guardian man Freedland in his speech and it got many laughs from the audience – Trump: the guy so bad he actually has Russky spies in his administration. But if the case against Trump is really such a slam-dunk as his critics seem to imagine, then surely there’d be no need so grotesquely to exaggerate his flaws?
With Freedland and Rubin acting up like snarky kids – and don’t get me wrong, they were good at it: sharp, quick, punchy, witty and relentlessly below the belt – I found myself forced into the unwonted position of having to play the grown-up.
This threw me slightly. I’d brought along my MAGA baseball cap and my Trump camouflage t-shirt – in order to tease the mainly liberal-leaning audience. But you can’t simultaneously play the clown and chastise your opponents for their puerility.
So I tried to keep my line on Trump as straightforward and honest as possible: I don’t expect you to come away from this evening loving him; I’m just asking you to admit that he speaks for a constituency in the U.S. which for too long has been ignored, that the hysteria surrounding him is overdone, that he has many good points to counter his bad points, that he may yet prove great and, though it’s too early to judge how great, he’ll definitely win a second term.
Now here’s the interesting and curious thing: Melanie and I “won” the debate. (The audience remained overwhelmingly anti-Trump – as they would, being metropolitan liberal pinko types – but we had swung it so that whereas only 14 were in the pro-Trump camp at the beginning we had swelled that number to a magnificent 33 by the end)
I was surprised by this because the Freedland/Rubin duo were the better debaters and raised many more laughs. But perhaps I shouldn’t have been. Perhaps what I was witnessing was a glimmer of hope that we are approaching peak Trump derangement syndrome.
Scott Adams has gone full-on climate denialist in his latest Dilbert strip, causing liberal heads to explode.
Some of his old fans just aren’t happy at this betrayal of The Cause:
it’s a shame to see this as I used to think he was very funny. The Way of the Weasel was an awesome book.
it could be dementia – that is a thing that happens to people
On Scott Adams, his comic strip and thought processes have pretty clearly jumped the shark
The man has become a dangerous idiot.
I guess 30-ish years of minor fame and a little bit of pussy took his brain for a ride.
No doubt it is an accident of the pen. But the “climate scientist” in the cartoon bears more than a passing resemblance to Michael Mann, globally renowned inventor of the “Hockey Stick” and winner – or so he used to claim till he got rumbled – of the Nobel Prize.
As Homer would say, this cartoon is funny because it’s true. In fact it sums up pretty much everything the layman needs to know about the state of climate “science” and how it abuses the public trust.
So, it starts with truths which are widely accepted – “the basic science of physics and chemistry”.
Then – like a street magician or a confidence trickster – it slips quickly from the realm of evident truth into a world of illusion: “We put that data into dozens of different climate models and ignore the ones that look wrong to us.”
Anyone who questions this groupthink is labelled a “science denier.”
Donald Trump is not a fan of wind turbines, as he has hinted occasionally on Twitter.
But there’s a very powerful lobby which would like us to see wind turbines as being clean, eco-friendly and vital for the planet’s future. So if President Trump is to crush this bloated, parasitical industry as it deserves he’ll need some serious fire support.
This piece by Matt Ridley is a big help. It convincingly demonstrates that wind turbines are even more of a monstrous stupidity than any of us had hitherto imagined.
It starts with a quiz, whose answer may surprise you:
To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.
Yep. All those views blighted; all that wildlife sliced and diced; all those billions of dollars of subsidies wasted – in order to produce a form of power so inefficient and triflingly irrelevant that it still supplies not much more than 0 per cent of the world’s energy consumption.
Nationwide, wind provided 5.6 percent of all electricity produced in 2016, an amount of electricity generation that has more than doubled since 2010. Much of the demand for new wind energy generation in recent years has come from Fortune 500 companies including Home Depot, GM, Walmart and Microsoft that are buying wind energy in large part for its low, stable cost.
But then, so many and varied are the half-truths, distractions and outright lies put out the wind industry that in any other sector half of these reptilian scumbags would be behind bars by now for selling a false prospectus.