“Scientists behind a bombshell new report revealing global warming to be worse than ever are now worried that the Trump administration may try to change or suppress it because it contradicts the president’s denialist agenda.”
Or so the New York Times has claimed. And also, in its wake, papers including the London Evening Standard and the Guardian.
This is worse than mere #fakenews.
This is #fakenews with icing and cherries on top, rings on its fingers, bells on its toes, a specially commissioned foreword by Al Gore and a rave review (“I love these lies. I could not have written better ones myself”) written from hell by the tormented shade of Josef Goebbels.
No, actually, it might even be worse than that.
First, the New York Times initially claimed — before being embarrassed by the Daily Caller into a retraction— that this draft report from a National Climate Assessment by scientists from 13 federal agencies had “not yet been made public.”
Nope. As even some of the scientists who had contributed to it had to admit, draft versions of this report had been available on the internet for months.
A top EPA official has resigned, supposedly in protest at the direction the Agency has taken under President Trump.
Or — as we climate realists prefer to put it — #winning.
Elizabeth “Betsy” Southerland had worked at the EPA for thirty years. But on Tuesday she resigned from her post as director of science and technology in the Office of Water, claiming “the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth.”
Just what incredibly good news Southerland’s departure is can be best be appreciated by reading her farewell letter.
It’s supposed to be her Parthian shot — a damning indictment of the decline of a once-great institution under the wicked Donald Trump and his sinister henchman, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
But, actually, it tells you rather more about the weird, reality-denying mindset which prevails among the inhabitants of the swamp which Trump is busily trying to drain.
On my Delingpole podcast this week we solve one of the great political mysteries of our time: how did President Donald Trump get to be so totally darned amazing on the environment, energy and ‘climate change’?
My guest Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is pretty sure he has the answer.
(Few people know more about the climate scam than Horner. He witnessed the green blob’s slimy machinations at first hand during his brief tenure as a lawyer at Enron where he was shocked to see activists from green pressure groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists round a table with oil industry representatives from BP etc, all conspiring on the Baptists and Bootleggers principle to perpetuate and exploit the great Global Warming Swindle. This was in the days of the Clinton/Gore White House: the Green Blob has been feeding on the US taxpayer for a very long time.)
So Horner – who sat on the Trump EPA transition team – has the perfect insider perspective to explain what’s going on in the White House.
Horner understands the magnitude of Trump’s achievement so far. Even Trump announcing his plan to pull out of the UN Paris climate agreement required immense determination and moral courage. After all his decision wasn’t only resisted by the usual Democrat suspects and green lobbyists: it also came up against stiff opposition from key members of the Administration, among them, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Economics Advisor Gary Cohn.
In fact, argues Horner, probably nowhere in DC is the swamp more heavily defended by the liberal politico-media establishment than the EPA and the climate change industry.
Bill Nye has a new nickname. It’s not as snappy as his old one, “the Science Guy,” but it’s a lot more accurate. Nye wants all the old people to die, preferably sooner rather than later, because they stand in the way of his holy mission to save the planet from climate change.
Climate change deniers, by way of example, are older. It’s generational. So we’re just going to have to wait for those people to “age out,” as they say. “Age out” is a euphemism for “die.” But it’ll happen, I guarantee you — that’ll happen.
Perhaps he could have some help from his zany colleague Marcello Arguello, a stand-up comedian who writes scripts for his Emmy-nominated [lol] show Bill Nye Saves The World.
Arguello apparently shares his enthusiasm for some kind of old peoples’ cull, as she recently confided to her friends on Twitter in the wake of the Congressional baseball shootings.
She subsequently deleted the tweet but expressed no regrets for the sentiment.
Elsewhere in his LA Times interview, Nye was given space to rehearse many of his favorite straw men arguments about climate change.
Like the one about climate skepticism being the same as not believing in the moon landings:
Those of you out here who want to deny humans landing on the moon, if you’re into that — look at the amount of paper NASA generated. You couldn’t afford to fake that much paper! I’m not kidding, you guys. It’d be prohibitively expensive. There’s warehouses full of documents, of specifications and drawings and engineering drawings and so on — just that alone would overwhelm you as a faker.
And the one about people who aren’t “experts” being incapable of forming an intelligent opinion about climate change:
Only the abolition of property rights can save us now from the horrors of ‘climate change’, argues an Australian academic.
Dr. Louise Crabtree, a researcher at the University of Western Sydney, makes her claim in a piece for the leftist academics’ favorite online watering hole, the Conversation, titled“Can Property Survive the Great Climate Transition?”
Her question is, of course, purely rhetorical. No, apparently, it can’t:
If our cities are to become more resilient and sustainable, our systems of property need to come along for the ride.
We might also need to start thinking about our claims not being static but dependent on the web of relationships we are entwined in, including with non-humans. Some say that First Peoples might have a grasp of property dynamics that is more suited to the times we are entering.
So, making cities green might be the easy part. It remains to be seen whether property law and property systems are up to the task of transition.
This might sound like obscure, pseudo-academic, sub-Marxist gobbledegook. As indeed it is.
It would be nice to console ourselves that this dangerous thesis was written by a left-wing research student of no account.
Unfortunately, as Eric Worrall points out at Watts Up With That? there are people who take this woman’s lunatic redistributionary jottings seriously.
Her bio may raise the question—are we actually paying for this?:
Louise was awarded her PhD in Human Geography from Macquarie University in 2007 and has been with Western Sydney University since 2007. Her research focuses on the social, ecological and economic sustainability of community-driven housing developments in Australia; on the uptake of housing innovation in practice and policy; on complex adaptive systems theory in urban contexts; and, on the interfaces between sustainability, property rights, institutional design and democracy. Her recent and ongoing projects focus on two practical areas funded by a series of competitive research grants—community land trusts and participatory mapping methodologies. Both are being used to simultaneously foster social innovation and equity outcomes on the ground, and explore and build theory on multi-stakeholder governance, decolonisation, property law, resilience and citizenship.
New York Magazine has just broken the world record for the scariest, most catastrophic, hysterical exercise in extravagant climate doom-mongering in the history of the universe.
Here are just some of the horrors that await us, according to David Wallace-Wells in his 7,000 word compendium of climate terror, titled The Uninhabitable Earth.
No more Bangladesh – or even Miami!
Most people talk as if Miami and Bangladesh still have a chance of surviving; most of the scientists I spoke with assume we’ll lose them within the century, even if we stop burning fossil fuel in the next decade.
A sixth mass extinction killing about 97 percent of us, probably…
In fact, all but the one that killed the dinosaurs were caused by climate change produced by greenhouse gas. The most notorious was 252 million years ago; it began when carbon warmed the planet by five degrees, accelerated when that warming triggered the release of methane in the Arctic, and ended with 97 percent of all life on Earth dead. We are currently adding carbon to the atmosphere at a considerably faster rate; by most estimates, at least ten times faster. The rate is accelerating. This is what Stephen Hawking had in mind when he said, this spring, that the species needs to colonize other planets in the next century to survive, and what drove Elon Musk, last month, to unveil his plans to build a Mars habitat in 40 to 100 years.
Pretty much everywhere hotter than the Middle East is now.
As Joseph Romm has put it in his authoritative primer Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know, heat stress in New York City would exceed that of present-day Bahrain, one of the planet’s hottest spots, and the temperature in Bahrain “would induce hyperthermia in even sleeping humans.” The high-end IPCC estimate, remember, is two degrees warmer still. By the end of the century, the World Bank has estimated, the coolest months in tropical South America, Africa, and the Pacific are likely to be warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century.
Mass kidney failure [no really!]
In the sugarcane region of El Salvador, as much as one-fifth of the population has chronic kidney disease, including over a quarter of the men, the presumed result of dehydration from working the fields they were able to comfortably harvest as recently as two decades ago. With dialysis, which is expensive, those with kidney failure can expect to live five years; without it, life expectancy is in the weeks.
No more hamburgers…
It takes 16 calories of grain to produce just a single calorie of hamburger meat, butchered from a cow that spent its life polluting the climate with methane farts.
Tangier Island in the middle of Chesapeake Bay, about an hour’s boat ride from the Virginia mainland, rises only a few feet above the waterline and has been slowly eroded by the sea since it was first colonized in the 1600s. Now its 500 remaining residents are desperate for federal support because it is on the verge of disappearing.
But when they asked for support from Donald Trump to help them build a wall – a sea wall, this time, to hold back the eroding waves – it prompted a barrage of hate from outsiders. Their crime, apparently, was to blame the island’s plight on natural erosion and not rising sea levels caused by man-made climate change.
The president’s call triggered other calls to the island – but these were different. Some condemned the people here for seemingly agreeing with the president’s controversial view of climate change. He has called it a hoax.
One business received a message that said, “You voted for Donald f***** Trump haha oh god I hope your whole f***** island sinks.”
“It was disheartening and it was upsetting,” said Laurie Thomas. She works for the town and said one man called to say that she and the people on the island deserved to die.
Their other crime was to be the kind of independent, hard-working, honest, all-American types – Tangier Island harvests more of the bay’s prized blue crabs, 13 percent, than any other town in Virginia – who inevitably voted for Donald Trump.
Eighty-seven percent of Tangier Island’s residents voted for the Donald. He noticed and in June spoke to the mayor James “Ooker” Eskridge who drew the president’s attention to the island’s plight.
“We need help from the erosion. If it was just sea level rise that we were worried about, we would be in good shape,” Eskridge said.
Help looks like a rock wall. One was built on the island’s western side in the 1980s and the erosion there stopped. Now, they say their only hope is a wall around the entire island—costing an estimated $20 to $30 million, which they don’t have.
They’d like Congress to approve the money and Mayor Eskridge thinks President Trump could help cut through all the red tape.
“He’s gonna cut back on the time it takes to do studies for these projects — we don’t have that time to play with,” Eskridge said.
He thinks if Mr. Trump told Congress he wanted to save the island, it would be saved.
Oh – and the islanders are, of course, right to blame erosion and not “climate change” for their island’s plight.
Much of recent global warming has been fabricated by climate scientists to make it look more frightening, a study has found.
The peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician looked at the global average temperature datasets (GAST) which are used by climate alarmists to argue that recent years have been “the hottest evah” and that the warming of the last 120 years has been dramatic and unprecedented.
What they found is that these readings are “totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
That is, the adjusted data used by alarmist organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office differs so markedly from the original raw data that it cannot be trusted.
This chart gives you a good idea of the direction of the adjustments.
The blue bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted downwards to make it cooler; the red bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted upwards to make it warmer.
Note how most of the downward adjustments take place in the early twentieth century and most of the upward take place in the late twentieth century.
Germany has ‘massively weakened’ its climate action plan for next week’s G20 summit in Hamburg in order to appease Donald Trump.
According to a shocked report in the green, EU-linked propaganda outlet Climate Change Newsthis represents a disastrous cultural surrender which
“….shows the degree to which the German presidency has bent to the will of the Trump White House.”
In public, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel has been talking tough on climate change, promising to put it at the forefront of the G20 summit and making none-too-subtle swipes at any world leaders out there who happen to dissent from her position.
Without naming him, Merkel appeared to lament U.S. President Donald Trump’s uncertainty about human-induced climate change, saying, “We can’t, and we won’t, wait until the last person on Earth is convinced of the scientific evidence for climate change.”
Behind the scenes, however, it would appear that Merkel’s negotiating teams have been bending over backwards to tone down the climate action plan and avoid an embarrassing rejection by Donald Trump.
This can be seen by comparing the two draft climate action plans for the summit, one from March and the revised one from May. According to Climate Change News, American negotiators have watered it down considerably.
“The US massively weakened the language in the energy part of the action plan,” one source with knowledge of the negotiations said. “It pushed for references to so-called ‘clean’ fossil fuels and made it less explicit that the energy transition has to be built on energy efficiency and renewables.”
“It also provided cover to some other G20 members – such as the Saudis and Russia – to weaken some climate sections of the document, including the pledge to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.”
Here are some of the elements which have been removed from the original draft:
A 2025 deadline for the end of fossil fuel subsidies
References to the risk of “stranded assets”
A call for “the alignment of public expenditure and infrastructure planning with the goals of the Paris Agreement”
A push for carbon pricing
A commitment to publish mid-century decarbonisation blueprints by next year
A pledge to develop a “profound” climate plan for multilateral development banks
Seven references to the UN’s 2018 review of nationally-determined contributions
11 references to the 2050 mid-century pathway for net zero emission
16 mentions of infrastructure decarbonisation
In other words, this represents the most massive victory for climate rationalism and energy realism – and a crushing and humiliating defeat for the global green blob.
It’s also a spectacular vindication of the Trump presidency.
As I argued in December last year before the inauguration, Trump had the potential to become a climate super hero: the one man on earth with the power to turn back the tide of green lunacy which has swamped the planet for last four decades.
The Green Blob’s tentacles extend everywhere: into our kids’ classrooms (where they are brainwashed with environmental propaganda); into our universities (where whole departments have now been hijacked by green junk science—because hey, that’s where the money is); into the mainstream media (most of which repeats, unquestioningly, the spurious claims of impending eco-disaster put out by environmental activists and publicity-hungry university departments); into business, which now wastes billions on environmental compliance and billions more on energy costs artificially inflated by the almost entirely unnecessary government-mandated drive for renewables); into government (where few politicians, even now, have the nous to appreciate that they have been sold a pup and who still continue to inflict more “sustainable” initiatives on their hapless electorates); into the economy, where jobs have been killed and growth blighted by measures designed by eco-fascists on a self-admitted mission to destroy Western industrial civilisation; into the environment, which has been ravaged by the very things we’re told are supposed to help save it—from bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes to those forests in the US which have been chopped down to create wood-chip biofuels to be burned at Britain’s Drax power station to the rare-earth minerals mined in appalling conditions in China to make wind turbines; into the cost of living (inflated by green taxes, regulations and tariffs), where in some cases people have been driven into fuel poverty and an early death because governments like Obama’s have caused electricity prices “necessarily” to “skyrocket” by mandating renewables over cheaper, more reliable fossil fuel.
This insanity has been allowed to prevail, largely unchecked, for over four decades. While enriching a corrupt few, it has caused misery to billions. It costs the global economy at least $1.5 trillion every year in “decarbonisation” expenditure which serves no purpose other than to give virtue-signallers a warm glow of self-righteous satisfaction.
And no major politician, anywhere in the world, has had either the courage or the conviction to deal with it.
Yes there have been a few wobbles on the way, including some resistance even from within his own administration. But though the battle is far from won, what’s clear is that Trump really means what he says about making America’s energy economy great again. (And undoing the disastrous legacy of the Obama administration).
What happens to its projections when the taxpayers of the world tire of being milked to subsidise renewables?
I do find it odd that I’m so often having to write about the science of global warming, species extinction and ocean acidification because, though I’ve certainly acquired a pretty useful base knowledge over the years — superior, I’m guessing, to 97 per cent of scientists — it’s really not my main interest. What fascinates me far more is the way the faddish preoccupations of a few green cultists have somehow come to dominate our entire culture, corrupting the intellectual current, suborning institutions, crushing dissent — much as Marxist, fascist and Nazi ideologies did in the 20th century, only with rather more widespread success.
Let me give you a recent example of this: an article from the June Quarterly Bulletin of the Bank of England, titled ‘The Bank’s response to climate change’. Nothing wrong with the premise: it is indeed part of the Bank’s statutory duty to ‘identify, monitor and take action to remove or reduce risks that threaten the resilience of the UK financial system’. The problem, argues energy editor John Constable in a critique for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, is the inexcusably one-sided way in which the bank has handled it. The report’s focus is directed almost entirely towards the risks posed by fossil fuels. So we learn lots about the droughts, floods and storms that may be caused by ‘man-made climate change’.