President Trump was partly responsible for the California fires because he ‘denies’ climate change. At least that’s what liberal California would have us believe.
The latest alarmist to make political capital out of the fires is California Governor Jerry Brown, who on Sunday – in the wake of celebrities including rocker Neil Young and talk show host Jimmy Kimmel – sought to pin them on climate change.
Brown called California’s recent battles with massive wildfires “the new abnormal.” He added: “Scientists and the engineers and the firefighters all tell us forest management is one element’’ to control them, but warned governments must address “a whole range of actions” to address a problem he said may cost “billions” of dollars to tackle.
“Managing all the forests everywhere we can does not stop climate change — and those that deny that are definitely contributing to the tragedy,’’ Brown said. “The chickens are coming home to roost. This is real here.” He advised that governments and officials need to be “pulling together in these tragic circumstances and thinking wisely,’’ while being “collaborative.’’
Governor Moonbeam, like many California liberals, has been mightily irked by the president’s claim that the fires were mainly down to the negligence and incompetence of the state’s authorities:
No one suggests that he is a perpetrator, but pipe bombs as a tool of political intimidation do not arrive unexpectedly.
Yes, that’s right, David. “No one” is suggesting that the president was personally responsible for creating all those “pipe bombs” for the simple reason that anyone who did suggest such a thing would rightly be classed as insane.
Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not hand over sums like $38.4 trillion without doing a bit of due diligence first. (That sum, by the way, is how much the IPCC insists the world must spend – $2.4 trillion per year over the next 16 years – if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. It’s the equivalent of the half the global economy.) And as it turns out he is more than right to be suspicious.
An Irish woman has withdrawn the “pussy hat” knitting pattern which she had posted online as a service to fellow female protesters preparing for President Trump’s visit to Ireland in November: woke activists had pointed out to her that some women have penises, not vaginas.
I won’t be making pussy hats. I’m deleting the pattern I posted. I am really sorry for upsetting people, I’ve read, listened and learned and while it was not intentional it was thoughtless. I will make some hats with yellow roses instead.
And, boy, is the political and media class taking this aphorism to extraordinary extremes in the case of the late Sen. John McCain!
To hear all the plaudits being lavished on this apparent paragon, you’d imagine that he was the greatest president America never had.
And it’s as bad on this side of the pond as it in the U.S.
One virtue-signaling politician, a British conservative MP called Tom Tugendhat, has actually petitioned for the NATO headquarters to be renamed after McCain.
According to Tugendhat, “There can be no more fitting tribute to his career and the values that Sen. McCain espoused — but also no better message for NATO to send at this time of global tension — than to name its new headquarters building after the American statesman.”
Really? Do Tugendhat or any of the other commentators queuing up to praise McCain actually know anything about the man, beyond his carefully cultivated propaganda myth as the heroic flier and POW who wouldn’t buckle?
Malcolm Turnbull has been ousted as Australia’s Prime Minister and replaced by his former treasurer Scott Morrison.
It follows a week of turmoil in Australia’s Coalition government over the carbon dioxide emissions reduction scheme – known as the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) – which the fanatically Turnbull was trying to foist on a country largely dependent on fossil fuel.
Though Turnbull is a member of the Liberal party – Australia’s conservatives – his politics are very much at the squishier end of the spectrum. An arch-globalist, nicknamed the Honourable Member for Goldman Sachs (where he was a partner), Turnbull is fairly typical of the centrist, ideology-free conservatives who have tended to make the running in western politics in recent years. Indeed, when he first entered politics he seriously considered representing Australia’s Labor party (the socialists) rather than the Liberal party (the conservatives).
Turnbull did not get off to a good start with Donald Trump. Shortly after the President’s inauguration, the two had a sticky phone conversation in which Trump refused to go along with a plan previously agreed with Obama whereby the U.S. was supposed to accept from Australia up to 2,000 economic migrants (mostly from Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan). Trump described it as a “bad deal.” Turnbull subsequently was caught in a leaked tape mocking Trump and his mannerisms and mocking his alleged ties to Russia.
At least there is if you believe studies like The Republican War on Science (Mooney, 2005), Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere (Gauchat, 2012), and ‘Not for all the tea in China!’Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations (Nam et al, 2013).
But there’s a wrinkle here and you may have guessed what it is.
The conservative thinkers in Britain and the U.S. I most admire are the ones who can complete a sentence on the achievements of Trump’s presidency without ending it “but personally, I find him deplorable.”
I admire these mavericks because they are so brave, clear-headed and rare.
It takes courage to speak up for Trump in a climate where even conservative publications like my own beloved Spectator run pieces like this – ‘Trump’s presidency has imploded – in less than two years’ and this – ‘Trumpworld is spinning out of control’.
It also takes a certain career-suicidal cussedness. In the UK I cannot think of one newspaper or publication – not one, even among those supposedly on the right – which has given a fair and balanced assessment of Donald Trump, let alone a favourable one.
So if you happen to think, as I do, that Trump is shaping up to be one of the truly great presidents, no commissioning editor is going to welcome your contribution as the intriguing, considered viewpoint which might shake the readers out of their complacency.
The Clean Power Plan – designed to be the centerpiece of his presidency-defining mission to combat climate change – has been watered down to the point of irrelevance by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In December 2017, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit information from the public about a potential future rulemaking to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing electric utility generating units (EGUs), commonly called power plants.
On August 21, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule which would establish emission guidelines for states to develop plans to address greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. The ACE rule would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA’s authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect.
The ACE rule has several components: a determination of the best system of emission reduction for greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants, a list of “candidate technologies” states can use when developing their plans, a new preliminary applicability test for determining whether a physical or operational change made to a power plant may be a “major modification” triggering New Source Review, and new implementing regulations for emission guidelines under Clean Air Act section 111(d).
As Daily Callerreports, the idea behind the Clean Power Plan was to implement Obama’s carbon dioxide emission reduction commitments made when he signed the Paris Climate Accord.