No, Donald Trump Hasn’t Suddenly Gone Soft on ‘Global Warming’

“In shift, Donald Trump says humans may be causing global warming,” says PBS.

According to The Washington Post, meanwhile:

President-elect Donald Trump appears to be softening his tone on whether climate change is real and on his stated plans to scrap the recent multinational agreement to limit carbon emissions.

The name for this nonsense is “fake news” – as becomes clear when you read the transcripts of what President-Elect Trump actually said at his meeting with The New York Times.

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?

TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

ARTHUR SULZBERGER Jr., publisher of The New York Times: We do hear it.

So at this point, Trump is gently introducing the NYT‘s liberals to the concept that not everyone thinks the same way on climate change as they do.

Let’s carry on, shall we?

FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.

[laughter]

TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.

FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?

TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.

SULZBERGER: Not like this.

TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.

My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind.

Trump, it is obvious to anyone with half a brain, is taking the piss.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Trump at NASA: Hasta la Vista Climate Fraud and Muslim Outreach…

NASA’s top climate scientist Gavin Schmidt has warned President-Elect Donald Trump that the planet just won’t stand for having a fully-fledged climate denier in the White House.

Good luck with that one, Gavin. Or “Toast” as we’ll shortly be calling you…

Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), told the Independent:

“The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this.”

Unfortunately, Schmidt doesn’t feel so strongly on the issue that he is prepared to offer his resignation:

Asked if he would resign if the Trump administration adopted the most extreme form of climate change denial, Dr Schmidt said this was “an interesting question”. It would not cause him to quit “in and of itself”, he said.

“Government science and things generally go on regardless of the political views of the people at the top,” Dr Schmidt said. “The issue would be if you were being asked to skew your results in any way or asked not to talk about your results. Those would be much more serious issues.”

Schmidt’s principled position on skewing results is somewhat ironic given that skewing results is what he does best.

Last year a German professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert – a retired geologist and data computation expert – accused NASA GISS of having tampered with the raw data so extensively that it had effectively “invented” global warming.

As I reported at Breitbart:

He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

Ewert listed some of the trickery employed by Schmidt and his egregious predecessor James “Death Trains” Hansen to exaggerate the appearance of “global warming”.

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

This chart, comparing the satellite temperature records with Schmidt’s adjusted version, gives you an idea of the scale of the climate fraud being committed by NASA GISS.

Screen-Shot-2016-11-16-at-10.17.48-PM-768x577

Among Schmidt’s many outrageous adjustments are the ones he made to Iceland’s temperature data sets.

You can see – courtesy of Paul Homewood – what he did to the one at Reykjavik:

station-6

So long and slippery are Gavin’s tentacles that, it would appear, he has somehow persuaded the Iceland Met Office to accept these adjustments, where previously it had rebutted them. You can read the full story at Real Climate Science.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Milo: Well, Would YOU Let This Dangerous Radical Near Your Vulnerable Schoolchildren?

Milo Yiannopoulos has been banned from speaking at his old school, Simon Langton grammar in Kent.

Not by the teachers –  who were naturally eager to hear his views on Donald Trump, free speech and the alt right (quite topical at the moment…). Not by the children, more than 200 of whom had already signed up to hear his talk. But by a hitherto unknown section of Britain’s Department of Education called the “counter-extremism task force.”

So secretive is this “counter-extremism task force” that it is now denying responsibility for the ban which it effected.

Here’s the weaselly statement issued by the Department of Education:

When concerns are raised by members of the public following media coverage in advance of an event, the department would contact the school as a matter of routine to check they had considered any potential issues. The decision to cancel the event was a matter for the school.

Hmm. That isn’t what the teachers are saying. They wanted Milo to come, apparently, but were overruled by this mystery section of a government ministry which presumably – to judge by its name – was established mainly to protect children from dangerous terrorists.

It’s true that Milo does advertise himself as “dangerous”. But he is using the term ironically in order to mock the hypocrisy and hysteria of the regressive left – and its ludicrous belief that anyone who doesn’t share its political outlook must therefore be a fascist and a menace to society.

The real problem the liberal-left has with Milo – and I entirely understand this fear – is that he is so eloquent, charming, well-informed and articulate. They cannot rebut his arguments so instead they demonise him.

His recent encounter with Channel 4 newsreader Cathy Newman is a case in point. For the last few days, Cathy – an ardent feminist – has been crowing about all the tweets she has been sent congratulating her on having performed so well against this terrible person.

Here are some examples:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

It’s Tough Being the Only British Journalist Who’s Right about Everything

The Donald’s disbelief in global warming is not some wind-up stunt: it’s going to be a core part of his programme.

So I made £250 betting on Trump to win the presidency. It would have been more, except that every time I got close to topping up my stake, this boring, mimsy, responsible voice in my head kept saying: ‘Now, now James. Don’t be silly. All your sensible friends who know much, much more than you do about politics have been telling you that President Trump just isn’t going to happen.’

One of them was m’learned colleague Toby Young. Until recently we used to do a podcast together. Because it was partly aimed at a US audience, we’d usually chat about the presidential race and I’d go into my crazy spiel about why Trump was the only sane choice; and Toby would patiently explain how silly this was because Trump wanted to disband Nato and we’d probably end up with the third world war.

Toby has now got himself a proper job (working for an education charity), as have most of my journalistic contemporaries. Of late, I’ve begun to feel like the pilled-up, grey-haired rave casualty on the dance floor who hasn’t quite accepted that the party’s over. There I am, persuading myself that I’m the last of the breed, fearlessly relaying truth to power when all the rest have fled the field. But maybe the truth is — or so I’ve sometimes wondered in my darker moments — that I’m just a puerile contrarian raging against reality, when what I should really have done is embraced Remain and rooted for Hillary, like all my more sophisticated friends at places like the Economist, the Times and the Financial Times.

Instead, look at what happened! No, I can’t believe it either — it feels so weird and unnatural I almost want a rerun. Not only was I in the journalistic minority of being right about Brexit, but I was in the even tinier minority of being right about Trump. Maybe it wasn’t such a totally lunatic thing taking that contract with Breitbart, after all.

Breitbart, as you’re probably now aware, is the right-wing US website which can more or less claim ownership of Donald Trump’s victory. Until last week, they were derided by the left-liberal media as being quite beyond the pale of civilised discussion because of their shockingly rude stories about feminists and Islamists and Black Lives Matter activists. Even one or two conservative friends advised me that I’d be tainting myself by association with such a fringe organisation.

What I replied to these kind friends was: ‘One — you clearly don’t understand what’s happening to the media. Fat fees and fantastical expenses have gone. To earn a living you have to go where the money is. And increasingly that ain’t on what’s left of Fleet Street.

Read the rest at the Spectator.

 

Donald Trump Will Make a Much More Eco-Friendly President Than Hillary Clinton

Trump really needs to mention this point at his rallies, not just for the trolling, but also because it happens to be true.

Consider just one example: the hundreds of thousands of rare birds and endangered bats slaughtered in the US every year by the wind farms that Hillary Clinton applauds (and will no doubt go on subsidising) and that Donald Trump loathes (and will no doubt starve of subsidies and cause to become as extinct as the Dodo).

As the Daily Beast recently noted, Trump’s hatred of wind farms is probably the most consistent and long-standing of all his political convictions.

Trump does have a point. If you care about flying wildlife, bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes really are about the most pointlessly destructive form of power generation there is – as a series of recent studies show.

These ones specifically concern bats – one of the world’s most fragile species, carefully protected by large bodies of legislation.

And with good reason, as Oxford University ecologist Clive Hambler explains here:

Bats are what is known as K-selected species: they reproduce very slowly, live a long time and are easy to wipe out. Having evolved with few predators — flying at night helps — bats did very well with this strategy until the modern world. This is why they are so heavily protected by so many conventions and regulations: the biggest threats to their survival are made by us.

And the worst threat of all right now is wind turbines. A recent study in Germany by the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research showed that bats killed by German turbines may have come from places 1,000 or more miles away. This would suggest that German turbines — which an earlier study claims kill more than 200,000 bats a year — may be depressing populations across the entire northeastern portion of Europe. Some studies in the US have put the death toll as high as 70 bats per installed megawatt per year: with 40,000 MW of turbines currently installed in the US and Canada. This would give an annual death toll of up to three -million.

Why is the public not more aware of this carnage? First, because the wind industry (with the shameful complicity of some ornithological organisations) has gone to great trouble to cover it up — to the extent of burying the corpses of victims. Second, because the ongoing obsession with climate change means that many environmentalists are turning a blind eye to the ecological costs of renewable energy. What they clearly don’t appreciate — for they know next to nothing about biology — is that most of the species they claim are threatened by ‘climate change’ have already survived 10 to 20 ice ages, and sea-level rises far more dramatic than any we have experienced in recent millennia or expect in the next few centuries. Climate change won’t drive those species to extinction; well-meaning environmentalists might.

Like a lot of true nature lovers – as opposed to the environmental industry’s numerous watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside – Hambler is extremely concerned about the wind farm threat to wildlife.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Twitter Has Made Milo into Western Civilization’s Greatest Gay Hero Since Alexander. He’ll Hate That…

The main one is this: concede an inch of territory to the enemy and the enemy will destroy you. They are not reasonable. They are despicable. This is war.

If everyone on our side of the argument understood this we would have won this conflict long ago. Not only are we wittier, cleverer, better informed and more honest, unhypocritical and fundamentally likeable than the opposition – but we also have all the ammunition to win every battle we fight because reality has a conservative bias.

Unfortunately we have long laboured under a fatal weakness which has rendered all our advantages as of naught. Some call it “Cuckservatism”; others “a pathetic urge to be liked”; others “cleaving to the reasonable middle ground,” but however you anatomise it or describe it the result is the same. The enemy feeds on our weakness and gains in strength.

When you’re at Bastogne, surrounded by Nazis, the last thing you need is the guy twenty yards to your left abandoning his foxhole, allowing your entire company position to be outflanked. But this is what our own people do to us all the time.

Today, it’s our gallant comrade Brendan O’Neill’s turn to sell us short.

He has weighed into the Milo/Twitter/Leslie Jones debate and grabbed completely the wrong end of the stick with a piece entitled The Hounding Of Leslie Jones: Anti-PC Gone Mad.

Yep. Instead of recognising the business for what it is – a key battle in the liberal-left’s ongoing war on free speech – O’Neill has quixotically decided that the real villains of the piece are shady figures on the alt-right; and that the victim isn’t the innocent guy who got banned from Twitter, but the race-baiting cry-bully who engineered that ban.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Why It’s Great That the Dalai Lama Is Channelling Donald Trump

It’s even better, almost, than the Queen emerging as a closet Brexit fan.

If Donald Trump had said something like that (as of course he does all the time) half the world would have dismissed him as a malevolent, heartless, rabble-rousing troll.

But it’s much harder to do that with the Dalai Lama. The thing he’s famous for more than anything is really, really caring about stuff – the world’s poor and oppressed especially.

If you were to ask Benedict Cumberbatch or Juliet Stevenson or Kate Moss’s nearly-father-in-law Richard Curtis  or any of the other numerous members of the Wankerati who want to welcome more refugees into Europe what they thought of the Dalai Lama I can guarantee they’d have nothing but kind words to say.

In fact, it’s quite hard to find anyone who doesn’t like him:

The Dalai Lama, however, was recently named the most popular world leader, with over three-quarters of adults (78%) on average having a good opinion of him.

So when an all round caring nice guy [I went to his 80th birthday party at Glastonbury last year. Can confirm: he’s great. We sang Happy Birthday to him. Patti Smith gave him a cake. And he blessed us all] like the Dalai Lama says that Europe has a refugee problem it’s probably a sign that he has thought through the issue carefully and that he’s right, rather than a sign that he’s a secret Nazi.

Sure, as he makes clear, he cares about refugees:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Han Solo and Chewbacca Would Vote for Donald Trump and Nigel Farage

This is what I argued on BBC’s Daily Politics show yesterday in response to a New Statesman piece by left-leaning journalist Stephen Bush. According to Bush, the Star Wars series is essentially a celebration of “the left-wing values of solidarity and collective action”.

Hmm. The only bit of Bush’s convoluted thesis I agree with is where he describes Han and Chewie as “a pair of sole traders, equivalent to white van men.” Exactly. That’s why they vote for Britain’s nearest thing to the Tea Party: they are taxed enough already and just want to be left to get on with their lives, unencumbered by the depredations of the controlling monolith that is the Empire.

Given that Star Wars was written in the Cold War, I suppose the model for the Empire was the Soviet Union. Today, of course, its closest equivalent would be the European Union, only with one key difference: on their day, the Imperial Stormtroopers can be a pretty formidable and effective force, where  its EU equivalent – the European Army being proposed by President Jean-Claude Juncker – would be as crap as a platoon of transgendered Ewoks with their hands tied with rainbow ribbons and without the advantage of the forest which, as I dimly recall, is the only reason that stops them being as crap as they look.

Why would the European Union’s Imperial forces be as crap as a platoon of tied-up transgendered Ewoks with no arboreal advantage?

Well first because, unlike, say, the Fatherland or Blighty, a corrupt, amorphous, simultaneously insipid and toxic entity like the EU is not something for which any stormtrooper would consider laying down his life. And secondly because the German element would be too fat and pacifistic, the French would be too busy cooking five course lunches featuring ortolan and foie gras, the Italians’ AT-AT Walkers would only work in reverse, the Greeks would flog off all their kit to the Rebel Alliance, the Spanish would divide in factions and kill each other and the British just wouldn’t because we are NOT Europeans.

But I digress. There is really very little in Star Wars which offers much ideological comfort to those of a big government persuasion – big government being represented, after all, by a giant armoured orb, nudgingly named the Death Star, heralded with Wagnerian theme music – which crushes rebel planets by blowing entire civilisations including Princess Leia’s to smithereens and by tall evil men in black capes with advanced asthma or skin like a Gila monster’s.

There is, however, very much in Star Wars to suggest that ramshackle rebel alliances formed of shabby-looking, lovably eccentric, heroically determined social outcasts – see also: UKIP conferences; Tea Party rallies – may be our only hope against the growing tyranny of One Universe Government.

If you want a more sophisticated and involved analysis of why Star Wars is a Hayekian paradigm, here’s Zero Hedge’s Tyler Durden.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Neither Fox News nor Donald Trump Are Going to Come for You with an AK, Whereas…

If I wanted to follow their example and ramp up the ludicrous rhetoric, I might almost go so far as to say that these people are more dangerous than Islamic State.

Obviously I don’t believe that. But I do believe that this is exactly the kind of useful idiocy which strengthens the Islamists’ hand, not weakens it.

I personally think that Trump’s proposed Muslim embargo is silly, counterproductive, unjust and unworkable. But I’m still glad he said it because – as I suspect was his real intention – it so perfectly illustrated the massive gulf between where most ordinary people are on the subject of immigration and the Islamist threat and where our increasingly remote and complacent political class are.

If Trump’s proposals are “extreme” then how exactly would you categorise the current do-nothing policies being championed by most of the Western world’s political leaders from Barack Obama to David Cameron and Angela Merkel?

I’d suggest that policies which involve imposing tens of thousands of displaced citizens from Islamist hellholes like Syria and Libya on the reluctant populaces and creaking welfare systems of Western liberal democracies are about as extreme as you can get. They are, in fact, a form of tyranny.

This is why every time Trump says such things his popularity ratings soar. Some applaud him because he’s saying exactly what they believe themselves. Others – of which I’m one – applaud him because though we may disagree with the details of his policy, we’re so grateful to come across a politician – much as Nigel Farage is in the UK – who doesn’t mince his words, doesn’t hold the electorate in contempt, and is actually prepared to speak truth to (impuissant) power.

We have been here before.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Why Do I Call Them Bat-Chomping, Bird-Slicing Eco-Crucifixes….?

gull
Gull decapitated by a Brighton wind turbine: copyright Marian Cleary

I wonder what it will take before the world truly wakes up to the horror, the corruption, the expense, the pointlessness, the total wrongness-in-every-way of the wind industry. My guess – and it will happen – is the decapitation, by a rogue turbine blade, of an innocent passer-by.
Till then, though, we have photographs like this to send the mind boggling as to why anyone, anywhere can still be so purblind as to go on championing these bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes. What’s particularly interesting about this one is that it was taken in the constituency of one of wind power’s most fervent and tireless advocates, Caroline Lucas MP.
Here’s a picture of the Brighton Bird Chomper:

Brighton
Brighton Bird Chomper – copyright Marian Cleary

Marian Cleary – who Tweets as @soundwords – takes up the story on Twitter:

All quite horrific really. Been asked if it’s photoshopped. Nope. Was at Varndean College, Brighton.

The wind turbine was going bonkers so I was filming it with the clouds moving behind the blades.

I didn’t get the incident on film but then a guy called me over and said that the bird had been got.

Careful, Marian. You now run the risk that someone from the wind industry will claim you chopped off that gull’s head yourself, probably because you are in the pay of Big Oil….

Now it might have been interesting to ring up the RSPB for a reaction. But there’s no point because we know what they think already. As far as the RSPB is concerned, the many thousands of birds destroyed by wind turbines each year are acceptable collateral damage in the war on “climate change.” So committed is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Birds to renewable energy that it has actually teamed up with Ecotricity – the one run by Dale Vince – in a promotional deal to encourage more wind farm building. For chapter and verse, read my expose here.

But the birds and bats are the least of it, terrible though the carnage is. It’s the human cost, surely, which should concern us more.

Consider the plight of the communities in Canada, where the wind industry is even more aggressive than it is here. One Ontario resident, Esther Wrightman so objected to the Golgotha of 400 foot wind turbines being planned for her area that she created a satirical website mocking the wind developer NextEra energy. She even filmed them chopping down a tree with an eagle’s nest in it in order to make way for the turbines. How did NextEra – market capitalisation $32 billion – respond to her not exactly unreasonable objections? Why by suing the pants off her, of course.

Fortunately, thanks to the coverage it has been getting from Ezra Levant, Esther Wrightman’s story is becoming an international cause celebre – and the rent-seeking nasties at NextEra are getting the negative publicity they fully deserve.

So the anti-wind backlash has begun, of that there’s no doubt. In Australia, where resistance is especially strong, they’re holding a rally in the next few hours in Canberra to protest against an industry described by Alby Schultz MP as “the biggest government sponsored fraud in the history of our country”, so rife with “manipulation, intimidation, lies and cover-up” that there’s enough evidence to justify a royal commission. I wish I could be there at the barricades with my Aussie mates. Sounds like it’s going to be quite an occasion.

What I wish is that one of our MPs could be quite as outspoken as good old Alby. Chris Heaton Harris has fought a good fight, as have Owen Paterson, John Hayes, Peter Lilley and Glyn Davies. But they’ve all been hamstrung by the presence in the Coalition of ideological eco-loons like Ed Davey who, even now, despite the copious evidence against, persist in championing wind energy as the way forward. They’re further hamstrung by the Conservative party’s ludicrous policy fudge whereby, apparently, there is such a thing as a “wind turbine in the right place” and that this mythical beast includes all offshore wind developments.

Economically, of course, offshore wind makes even less sense than onshore, not least because it requires twice the subsidy, but also because, as most engineers privately admit, these sea-based turbines are disasters waiting to happen and are highly unlikely to stay up any length of time. And while we’re on this subject, what on earth is The Times doing shilling for Big Wind with this utter non-story about how Donald Trump is apparently threatening to cost “British SMEs dear” thanks to his opposition to an offshore wind development near his golf course in Scotland? The supposedly neutral source they quote for this story is The Carbon Trust, the government quango to which we taxpayers must contribute £44 million a year to enable it to dream up inventive new ways to cripple our economy with carbon emissions reductions schemes.

Yet another reason to vote UKIP, the only British party with a sensible policy on this green nonsense.