The Biden administration is reverting to Obama’s 2016 guidance until its new working group fully updates its work next year. Researchers, industries and environmentalists have begun to line up to advise the White House just how they think this number should be calculated. Biden’s chief climate advisor is Gina McCarthy, left over from the Obama administration and famous for killing two rivers. or at least the life in two rivers, one of them in Alaska, the other the mighty Colorado.
Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: “Clearly, the social cost of carbon is negative on its many fronts. Perhaps we should get paid for emitting it. It is responsible for up to 70% of increased food crop production (I guess they didn’t factor that in). It is greening the land and presumably the oceans. It is perhaps involved in slightly increasing global temperature above the frigid Pleistocene Epoch the Earth has been locked in for 2.6 million years, although there is no proof of this. It makes all plants more efficient in their use of water. It makes greenhouse production of food 30-60% higher than at ambient levels.”
Bloomberg Law: President Joe Biden has reactivated the Obama-era approach to estimating the cost of climate change, a move that will revamp environmental regulations by establishing a much higher dollar value for greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
A document published by the White House in the Federal Register on Friday re-installs the Obama administration’s interim values for the “social cost of carbon,” a figure that has been used to shape dozens of energy-related regulations. The Trump administration disbanded the interagency group responsible for the work and reduced the estimate to a small fraction of conventional values.
The social cost of greenhouse gases is an estimate of how much money the U.S. stands to benefit from avoiding each additional metric ton of emitted carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide, which are the three most important planet-warming gases. This measure is used in federal benefit-cost analyses to account for damage caused by fossil fuel, capturing impacts from pollution that aren’t reflected in the market prices for gas, oil, and coal. And of course, what the Biden administration used to eliminate the XL Pipeline and millions of jobs, unnecessarily.
Typically, an obscure economic measure of climate change, the social cost of carbon occasionally escapes academic journals to play a central role in federal climate policy. A federal court ruled in 2007 that the White House had to consider the costs of climate change in rulemaking, and President Obama convened an interagency working group to identify a measure grounded in data and the mechanics of strict federal guidelines.
The models underpinning the social cost of carbon have become something of a punching bag in economic circles, in part because of the particular sensitivity of their results to assumptions over how fast money loses value over time. Economists call this the discount rate.
What happened, I think, way back when we started looking at climate, and the first outrageous claims about climate catastrophe came out, was that the federal government, slightly alarmed, started offering grants and emoluments to university scientists interested in climate for authentic information. Well, grants meant new equipment, honors, prestige. There was a massive clicking on of the computers in the science departments. They put in what they knew for sure about the climate. They added their best information from their fellows in the specialty, and put in their best guesses, and hoped it all would result in major grants. It was the part they didn’t really know anything about and their best guesses that has caused all the trouble.
Christiana Figueres, the General Secretary of the IPCC, at a press conference back in 2015, admitted that the object of the whole climate change thing, was to rid the world of Capitalism. Information is not always straightforward, nor even truthful; and from it’s panicky origins, climate has always been a weapon, not a fact.
Here are two valuable videos you can order from Climate Depot, Climate Hustle One and Climate Hustle Two, to stream once or as a DVD to keep. Inexpensive and worth your time, Good for your kids too.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Junk Science, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation, Science/Technology, The United States | Tags: Gavin Newsom, Global Warming, Jay Inslee
Washington State is still smoky, some local fires, mostly I believe, smoke drifted north from California. Visibility is not normal, ( Rain forecast for Friday) but we’re told in Eastern Washington, across the mountains, visibility is about the length of a football field, at least considerably worse than here.
Our incompetent Democrat governor, Jay Inslee, follows in the steps of California’s incompetent governor Gavin Newsom, to proclaim the wildfires are because of global warming, and we just have to give up our cars, or at least switch to electric cars, and be kinder to Mother Earth so she doesn’t punish us for our fossil fuels. Which is all nonsense.
Sorry. Carbon Dioxide is not the control switch for the climate of the earth. The Sun is.
We had Ice Ages and Heat Waves long before we had gasoline powered cars, or even discovered fossil fuels. Native Americans did controlled burning, thinned out brush, and even cut down trees to keep their lands safe from fire. California is on fire because the governor has not funded the necessary cleanup, as is Washington State.
Lots more expensive when you have to pay lots of firefighters coming for high pay to fight the fires in our forests in our forests, but you can’t be blamed if it is the result of a global pandemic. Our respective governors, having never bothered to study up even slightly, accept as gospel the party line. Trump bad, Paris Climate Accord essential to save the Earth. Trouble is the scientists started making “models”to help them decide what to do, but they were too arrogant to grasp that they didn’t know enough to make viable models, because there is so much we don’t yet understand about the Sun and the Earth and the galaxy and the interactions between them.
The debate is over around climate change. Just come to the state of California, observe it with your own eyes a grinning Newsom told reporters while touring the fire-ravaged North Complex near Oroville. It’s not an intellectual debate, it’s not even debatable. The debate is over around climate change. Just come to the state of California, observe it with your own eyes,a grinning Newsom told reporters while touring the fire-ravaged North Complex near Oroville. It’s not an intellectual debate, it’s not even debatable.
Breitbart reported this morning:
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection said Thursday that the August Complex Fire has burned 471,185 acres in the Elk Creek and Stonyford area, surpassing the 2018 Mendocino Complex Fire, which burned 459,123 acres.
Six of the largest fires in California’s history have taken place in 2020. Cal Fire said 29 major wildfires are active and more than 3.1 million acres have burned in the state since the beginning of the season.
The National Interagency Fire Center said 102 large fires have burned a combined 4.4 million acres in 12 states in the western United States, resulting in some two dozen deaths in California, Oregon, and Washington.
In California, five people were killed in the LNU Lightning Complex, 10 were killed in the North Complex, and one each was killed in the CZU August Lightning Complex, August Lightning Complex, Tatham Fire, and Hills Fires.
So there you go, 19 people killed so far, but just blame it all on global warming. I grew up on 400 acres bordered by National Forest at about 4,000′. Many of our closest friends were Forest Service people, and others were loggers or ran lumber mills.
Bernie Sanders is using the current wildfires to push for a Green New Deal, of course blaming Trump who he says “rejects science and calls climate change a hoax.” Christiana Figueres, who was the General Secretary of the IPCC said at a news conference that the idea of Climate Change was the best weapon they had for destroying Capitalism.
You can natter on all you want about Global Warming, but if you had thinned the forests, rid them of dry brush, we would not have the forest fires of three states poisoning our air and blanketing us with smoke.
Filed under: Environment, Global Warming, Junk Science, Media Bias, News, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, Science/Technology | Tags: Climate Change, Global Warming, Junk Science
The big thing to remember in all climate writings and excess, is that the climate of the earth has been changing for millions of years. It has been far warmer in the past during the Medieval Optimum, when wine grapes grew in England and wheat in Norway, and society flourished. It has also been far cooler during cold spells, such as the Little Ice Age in the 1800s, remembered as “1800 and Froze to Death.”
Climate panics take place regularly, for there are vast numbers of pessimists out there who don’t bother to do their required homework, and get all excited when someone appears in a polar bear suit, or in the case of Vegans — eats meat. Sure that fossil fuels are the source of planet doom (and that Oil and Gas companies are not only rich (the bad are usually rich) but destroying the world with CO2 )emitted by our nasty habit of driving cars and so on and so on. To the contrary, CO2 is plant food, and is greening the world. to such an extent that it can be seen from space. It is feeding the hungry with bountiful crops.
I believe firmly that we are being dumbed down by the internet and social media. We are being taught that we are to be informed by snappy headlines or tweets, and do not pursue the entire subject for lack of time and energy. You have to read the whole thing, not just the headline. Tweets may be interesting. but are not intended to pass on knowledge. The danger of an ill-informed public is extreme.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, Education, Environment, Global Warming, History, Humor, Junk Science, Politics, Science/Technology, The United States | Tags: Global Warming, How Do We Measure, What's the Temperature?
This graph was published on January 2nd, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer PhD. Dr. Spencer runs the satellite program that measures worldwide temperatures, with Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. It’s the closest we can get to an official global temperature.
The 2018 globally averaged temperature anomaly, adjusted for the number of days in each month, is +0.23 deg. C, making 2018 the 6th warmest year in the now-40 year satellite record of global lower tropospheric temperature variations. The 2018 globally averaged temperature anomaly, adjusted for the number of days in each month, is +0.23 deg. C, making 2018 the 6th warmest year in the now-40 year satellite record of global lower tropospheric temperature variations.
To clarify, that’s 25 100ths of one degree, and 23 100ths of one degree. Run for the hills!
Temperatures didn’t use to be such a big deal. There were certain vocations where people cared about how cold or how hot it was going to be, so the orange growers, for example, could put out smudge-pots if it was going to freeze. Ships captains kept track. But when it gets to historic temperatures there isn’t much of a record. When Global Warming became a big deal, scientists started looking at temperatures seriously. The earth just does not have weather stations everywhere, and vast areas have no records at all. When we started paying attention, some of the reports from our official stations seemed off. Anthony Watts got his readers to take pictures of the government’s temperature measuring stations. Turned out that great many were next to air conditioning outlets, in the middle of reflective concrete walls, next to airport runways, in all sorts of places where the real temperature would be compromised by the location.
Looking back in history, If I remember correctly, there was a British clergyman who had kept his own records for many years. We have paintings of people skating on canals, and when the weather was extreme, people wrote about it. I mentioned ships’ logs, but as you can see, accurate records range from thin to non-existent. But we do know about the big trends — the ice ages, the Potato Famine, the Renaissance. When the crops were destroyed by the weather, people starved. When people have no grasp of the big picture, nor no sense of history beyond their own few years, they may be inclined to think they know more than they do, and assume that calling for a grand big program to solve the country’s problems is just what a very young, very green, very new congressperson should do. Uh huh!
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Environment, History, Humor, News | Tags: Global Warming, Makes the Trees Pretty, Not Much
Our very first snow of the season! It “feels like” 28º the weather service says. Wet, and won’t stick for long, but it makes the trees pretty, and it’s quite wooded here. (Douglas Fir and Cedar) When we have real snow, it’s a very big deal. Seattle is famously the city built on seven hills, but they plowed some of them down, and nobody counts anyway. My house has hills (down) in every direction, and I just hope that I have no need to go out. I grew up with lots of snow, usually 3′ to 6′, splendid sledding hill, and our own snowplow. Have been snowed in with a slide down around the corner. Here, in the past 30 years, it has rained on 24 of the February 3rds.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Energy, Environment, Freedom, Global Warming, Humor, Junk Science, Media Bias, Politics, Progressives, Science/Technology, The United States | Tags: Global Warming, Green New Deal, Progressive Policy Goals
Chicago and the upper Midwest are suffering under a cold wave. Top that off with power failures in Minnesota, and the media are reeling under assorted wind chill forecasts to find the scariest warnings. But they also somehow have to fit all that in with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s claim of global warming doom in only 12 years. That’s where it gets complicated.
In the middle of the cold wave, Ocasio-Cortez and Sen Ed. Markey are set to unveil legislation laying out a “Green New Deal” as soon as next week, according to Axios.
The Green New Deal is a set of vague, but broad progressive policy goals seeking to transform the economy in the name of fighting climate change. It has risen from obscurity to prominence since the November election, with Ocasio-Cortez, a rising progressive star, leading the charge. Democrats eyeing presidential runs — including Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris — are backing the general concept of the Green New Deal, which is sure to play a role in the 2020 primary.
They didn’t know the details but a draft legislative document circulating that describes the policy from O-C’s campaign website.
- That document includes a goal of 100% renewable electricity within 10 years (up from 17% today), a federal jobs guarantee for people working in the low-carbon transition, and universal healthcare.
- It’s light on details on how that would be funded and is also silent on whether the policy includes a price on carbon dioxide emissions, long considered central to climate change policy.
So perhaps it’s not too surprising that Democrats are urging their party to find someone, to primary AO-C before the next election. The party is not usually too excited to have green freshmen congresspeople proposing legislation and making speeches, and demanding attention. Kind of basic manners. They are supposed to be silent and learn the ropes first.
So we are now supposed to blame icy cold on Global Warming, or something like that. Renewable energy comes from hydroelectric dams. Wind and solar simply cannot produce the energy that an industrial state requires. Wind does not blow at the optimum speed to produce energy steadily. It blows in wafts and puffs, and sometimes in destructive gales. Wind turbines kill thousands of birds. Solar energy is too diffuse to be of serious use, and there are clouds that move across the sky, or just hang there for days as we in the Northwest know. Scientists simply reject the claim that renewable energy would supply the power needed.
Dr. Lubos Motl: “The actual main purpose of this term,”polar vortex’, is for the journalists to sound credible and convey a thesis about the climate that is absolutely idiotic.”
The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth rebukes fellow warmists on the polar vortex claims: “Frankly, it is a stretch to make that link…this is in a realm of weather – not climate.”
The climate has been warming and cooling for millions of years. The current slight rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has meant that the planet is greening and there is more food for hungry people. It has been a huge benefit to mankind, for carbon dioxide is a natural fertilizer for plants. The idea of carbon taxes is absurd, and those who have attempted to legislate such taxes have been promptly shut down.
For those who want to understand a little better, visit Dr. Roy Spencer’s website. He is the scientist who runs the satellite program that samples temperatures across the planet. You will find articles like” Global Warming 101″, and other helpful posts on the global warming background, as well as information about his latest book: Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People.
In the meantime, Bill Nye, (Science Guy) who is not a scientist, but has only an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, issued his latest warning: “The U.S. will have to grow its food in Canada. Agriculture in North America is going to have to move north.”
And the University of Wisconsin-Madison issued a new climate modelling study on January 28, 2019 that claims that ice fishing, hockey, skating and skiing on frozen lakes are endangered by “global warming” . The study states that such “iconic cold-weather past-times could become a rare winter treat” due to “global warming.” (Bad Timing!) So there you go.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Education, Environment, Free Speech, Freedom, Global Warming, History, Humor, Junk Science, Regulation, Science/Technology, The United States | Tags: Global Warming, Junk Science, Panic in the Streets
In a press release, the World Meteorological Organization said:
The long-term warming trend has continued in 2018, with the average global temperature set to be the fourth highest on record. The 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, with the top four in the past four years.’
The BBC and others picked up on that and said:
Climate change” Last four years are the ‘world’s hottest”
And the Guardian:
“Past four years hottest on record, data shows.”
As you can see a graph tells a very different story. The past decade has a climate change contribution but what elevates the past four years above the previous ones is an El Nino event, the strongest one on record. As we have said many time before an El Nino is not a climatic phenomenon, it is weather. What’s more, after its peak in 2016 the global temperature has fallen by around 0.4° C. The past four years being the warmest on record is true, but it has been primarily due to the 2015/16 super El Nino.
Warmest on record? Not exactly, the WMO got weather and climate mixed up. For the full commentary, go here.
It is fascinating that in the information age, when we supposedly have access to anything and everything in the way of information, it is so hard to figure out just what the truth is. What is not politicized, seems to be printed in sheer ignorance. Politics trumps Truth every time. We should make a little more noise about facts and truth. Google employees apparently wanted to ban any Conservative commentary, yet are happy to connive with the Chinese government in suppressing the freedom of China’s citizens to complete control. Apparently those who have spent their lives so far learning technology issues, have neglected to learn any history, or read the Constitution, or learn the nature of the free enterprise system.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cool Site of the Day, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, History, Junk Science, Politics, Science/Technology | Tags: Global Warming, Richard Lindzen, World Renowned Scientist
The Global Warming Policy Foundation
The 2018 Annual GWPF Lecture
“Global Warming for the Two Cultures”
8 October 2018
Richard Lindzen
…..A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold’ it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which id the scientific equivalent of :Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?…..I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question –such as. What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying Can you read? – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had.
It’s roughly 7 pages, admittedly a little long, but you will understand a lot more of the controversy and reality of the whole global warming issue. Unfortunately there are a lot of people in charge of states who don’t have a clue.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Domestic Policy, Environment, Global Warming, History, Junk Science, Media Bias, News, Science/Technology, The United States | Tags: Global Warming, Historic Hurricanes, Irma Jose and Katia
(Chicago, 1871. A city destroyed. Very low CO2.)
We are indeed watching historic hurricanes, but not in size or — destructiveness. Irma comes in only 7th in the list of hurricanes that have made landfall on the U.S. We had quite a respite from serious hurricanes, but now they’re back, but not because of global warming.
This year we have not only have almost instant coverage and constant updates, but we have film from the intrepid pilots who fly over the hurricanes. We have pictures from the Space Station and satellite pictures delivered instantly to your computer or cell phone.
But hurricanes are unpredictable. Irma was a Category 5, degraded to a 4, then a 2. Was supposed to go up the east coast of Florida, made a turn and is heading up the west coast, expected to hit Georgia and the Carolinas, then last I saw is turning west towards the more central states. Unpredictable.
Will more information make us brighter? Probably not. Irma pulled the waters out of Tampa bay, and some residents promptly went down to the shoreline to see the water pull so far back. STORM SURGE! A storm surge can be 12 or 15 feet above normal. All at once. One of the brighter souls suggested shooting this #*”! storm, and many thought that was an excellent idea, while officials shrieked no! no! the bullets can be blown right back at you. Looters are busy and busy being taken in. Some wag remarked — At least bookstores are safe!
For more serious and informed information, and a bracing dose of common sense, visit Climate Depot or Watts Up With That where you will find the silliness debunked and links to the comments of climate scientists who are experts in this stuff. Read the comments too:
With a period of low hurricane activity, people have forgotten how bad it can be, and they are scared that it’s all falling apart: Here’s Peter Brannen from the Guardian: “This is how Your World Could End.” And as a rebuttal, here’s the always sensible Christopher Booker: “Hurricane Irma’s numbers simply do not add up although the global warming brigade would like them to.”
Filed under: Environment, Global Warming, History, Junk Science, Media Bias, Science/Technology | Tags: Global Warming, Sea Level Rise, Seven Inches
Since the first Planet of the Apes movie, the image of the Statue of Liberty drowning in rising sea waters has been done and done and overdone. But images are powerful and that may have helped to make many people think that a global rise in sea levels is the most to-be feared consequence of global warming. Flooding Pacific Islands, environmental refugees, panic in the streets. If I remember correctly, Santa Barbara was going to paint a line on city streets to indicate the potential rise of waters.
Remember that Obama predicted a deceleration of sea level rise when he accepted the Democratic Party nomination in 2008. “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.” Some scientists have predicted an acceleration of ongoing global rise, while others insist stoutly that there has been no increase in the rise of sea level. Here is climate scientist S. Fred Singer to explain the complications.
The difficulty with projections of sea level rise is nicely illustrated by the IPCC. The initial estimates of its first assessment report (1990) showed a range of 10-367 cm for sea level rise in 2100. The second report published in 1996 narrowed the range to 3-124 cm. The third report published in 2001 showed 11-77 cm. The fourth assessment report published in 2007 showed 14-43 cm in draft form but changed it to 18-59 cm in the final printed version. As can be seen, the maximum SLR decreased successively as estimates improved. All these IPCC projections are very much smaller than the extreme values of about 600 cm (20 feet!) by activist-scientist James Hansen (and by climate multi-millionaire Al Gore) — which assume excessive melting of the Greenland icecaps.
If you pour yourself a glass of water and add some ice cubes, as the ice melts the glass does not overflow. Keep that in mind. If you add another handful of ice, the glass may overflow.
During the strong warming of 1920-1940 there was no SLR — indicating a rough balance between the opposing effects. In fact, scrutinizing the record, I can even discern a slight lowering of sea level, an over-compensation. Unfortunately, back then in 1997 we had no data on Antarctic ice accumulation; so the hypothesis was not publishable. However, now we do have sufficient data in support of such a scenario.
But if, as surmised, ice accumulation roughly balances ocean thermal expansion and contributions from melting mountain glaciers, why then is sea level rising? Another riddle requiring a solution.
The relevant clue comes from corals and from geological observations: It seems that sea level has been rising for the past centuries at about the same rate as seen by tidal gauges in the last 100 years. In other words, sea level was rising even during the colder Little Ice age, from about 1400 to 1850 AD. This provides further support for the hypothesis that the observed global SLR since 1900 is reasonably independent of the observed temperature rise. [It is also a killing argument against a widely quoted (‘semi-empirical’) theory that assumes rate of SLR is proportional to global surface temperature.]
Dr. Singer concludes that the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is not floating ice but like a mountain glacier—contributes more water to the ocean thus raising the sea level by about 7 inches per century. The melting will continue for another several millennia until the ice sheet is all gone (barring another ice age in the meantime), and there is nothing that we can do to stop this future rise. It is as inevitable as the ocean tides. Do read the whole thing. You will become an expert, able to dispel the anxieties of the true believers, and your own, if any. Learn how they measure, and how recent studies have clarified the picture. And no, even Obama’s valiant efforts had not the slightest effect.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Freedom, Global Warming, History, Junk Science, Media Bias, National Security, Progressivism, Regulation, Science/Technology, The United States | Tags: A Giant Deception, Global Warming, Is it Human-Caused?
Dr. Tim Ball gave a lecture on November 3rd in Vancouver, Canada. He explains, point by point, how we arrived at our present state, and just what the believers stand to gain from their deception.
If you are at loose ends on New Years Day, badly hungover, or just exhausted with a year of electoral campaigning and the Left’s childish reaction to not getting their way, you may enjoy this. Dr. Ball is an entertaining speaker, and funny. The subject is serious. the video is fairly long, but I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) had an op-ed in The Washington Post yesterday, largely reviewing the RICO Battle with the Tobacco Companies and comparing it to what he assumes is “a massive and sophisticated” scheme by fossil fuel companies (and their allies?) “to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.”
The Big Tobacco playbook looked something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; (3) relentlessly attack your opponents.
There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” We are carbon life forms. Carbon is one of the building blocks of life. We exhale carbon dioxide every time we breathe. We all supposedly learned that in High School Biology. So now we know who wasn’t paying attention. Trust me, my mother was a high school Biology teacher.
James Hansen is an atmospheric physicist who was from 1981 to 2013 the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. He was quite involved in the development and use of computer models as a method of understanding global warming. A paper of his in 2007 claimed that CO² levels above 350 ppm would be dangerous to humans, but we have long since passed 400 ppm and the increased carbon dioxide’s natural fertilization of plants has resulted in a vastly greening planet — helping to feed the hungry. Greenhouses keep their CO² atmosphere around 1200 ppm with happily growing plants and not the slightest ill effect on the nurserymen. Dr, Hansen has since gone full global warming activist, getting arrested at demonstrations. See the interview with Freeman Dyson just below.
What fascinates me is the extent to which Progressives appear to depend on talking points. Talking points are the Democrats’ version of these are the things we are voting for. You can tell if they are talking points when 3 Progressives in a row all make the same point in exactly the same words, and can’t argue the point in alternate words or thought.
You will find increasing efforts to portray those who are skeptical of the President’s position that Climate Change is America’s most urgent national security risk as gullible dummies paid for by the Fossil Fuel Industry Cabal. You will also find that those who are absolutely positive that the climate is warming out-of-control and leading to some climate Armageddon have never read any of the science, and don’t really understand the arguments at all. Senator Whitehouse is an excellent example.
American Elephants 
The WashPost ist buyed by Al Gore and his co-operates. That`s the real fight Pres. Trump has to fight against the fake news media. But Trump is a scotch fighter with german blood, he will stand this media storm. Scotchs have been fighting over hundreds of years against the normans, saxons and vikings on the british islands and Scotland is still standing until today. It is, in line with Ireland ( which is an island) and Wales the last bastion af the once great celtic nation.