Cheers! Trump Is Dismantling the Obama ‘Climate Change’ Agenda
The leftist mainstream media are outraged that President Donald Trump appears to be sticking to his campaign promise to “cancel” U.S. participation in the Paris climate accord. The headline in The Washington Post is “Trump’s energy review blocks Group of Seven from consensus.” Politico’s headline is “Trump’s climate demands roil U.S. allies.” This follows Trump’s recent actions to rescind the foundation of Barack Obama’s climate change obsession.
Once again President Trump is being called a radical, when he is, in fact, restoring common sense to government policy. As Forbes reports, Trump’s recent seven-page executive order “lays the groundwork for rescinding” Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which is currently “suspended by the Supreme Court while a Washington appeals court considers its fate.” While Obama was known for his executive overreach (he lost in the Supreme Court more than any other president, including a record number of unanimous defeats), Trump is scaling back government interference in the marketplace that had been justified in the name of battling climate change.
“And so what President Trump did was he instructed the EPA to begin the process, through the regulatory process, of undoing something that should have been done through the legislature but wasn’t,” argues Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Chris Horner in a recent radio appearance. “This is the meta issue for the left,” he added. “It gives them what they have been demanding in the name of so many things, in the name of saving the planet.”
…
ClimateDepot.com is an indispensable website that keeps track of all relevant global warming news, and provides both sides of the debate. One very useful service it provides is the names and quotes from environmentalists, including former “warmists”—global warming believers—such as physicist Freeman Dyson: “An Obama supporter who describes himself as ‘100 per cent Democrat,’ Dyson says he is disappointed that the President ‘chose the wrong side.’ Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn’t face an existential crisis. Climate change, he tells us, ‘is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?’”
Then there is Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: “Global warming is a non-problem,” he argues. “I say this to Obama: Excuse me,
Trump eyes climate skeptic for key White House environmental post
President Donald Trump may tap a vocal critic of climate change science to serve as the highest-ranking environmental official in the White House.
Kathleen Hartnett White, who says carbon emissions are harmless and should not be regulated, is a top contender to run the Council on Environmental Quality, the White House’s in-house environmental policy shop, sources close to the administration told POLITICO.
White House officials brought White in for an interview late last month, according to a person familiar with the hiring process, and Trump met with White at Trump Tower in November when she was under consideration to lead the Environmetal Protection Agency.
In an interview with POLITICO in September, White proposed establishing a “blue ribbon commission” to relitigate climate science, underscoring her unorthodox belief that the science showing human-induced climate change is unsettled.
The commission, she said, would develop an “alternative scientific methodology” to the IPCC, whose usefulness she said has “reached its peak.”
If nominated, White would likely be an advocate within the administration of reopening the foundation of Obama’s climate change agenda: EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” a scientific conclusion that greenhouse gases constitute a threat to public health or welfare.
Trump told an industry-backed think tank last year that he will “review” the endangerment finding, a potentially difficult task given the scientific consensus on the issue. Any withdrawal of the finding would be challenged by environmentalists in court.
…
Analysis: Climate ‘Science’ Built On Pillars of Sand
Real science is founded in the “scientific method.” It relies on data, experimentation, falsification of a hypothesis and reproducibility. “Science” that isn’t reproducible is black magic, superstition, witchcraft, coincidence, Oracle’s riddles, and Soothsayer’s visions. Climate “science” isn’t founded in the scientific method, it instead rests upon the pillars of:
- Peer Reviewed Literature
- Scientific Consensus
- Professional Science/Academic Organization support
- Computer model “evidence”
- A hypothesis
- This is a real “science”
Listen to any Congressional Testimony by Michael “Hockeystick” Mann, and he will rattle these off as if he was auditioning for an auctioneer’s job. The Mann deserves an Oscar more than he deserves his “Nobel Prize.”
My impressions from the hearing were not positive. Mann spoke for almost half of the time and boldly asserted the most extreme alarmist positions and factoids (quoting from my own notes): “devoted his life to science [about himself]”, “few individuals who represent tiny minority [about other three witnesses]”, “scientists continuously challenge each other [implying he is a scientist]”, “extremely broad agreement on the basic facts,” 97%, “climate change is real, human caused, and has heavy impact”, “fingerprints of human-caused climate change on extreme events”, “anti-science forces launched a series of attack on scientists”, “time for republicans to put away doubts and focus on solutions”, “discourage investigations of climate scientists,” and “support by multiple national academic societies.”
Everything Michael Mann says is practiced, focus group tested, tightly controlled and intended to win the hearts and minds of the American voter. It has absolutely nothing to do with science, and everything to do with funding, policy, and politics. The talking points are widely distributed to all the left-wing support groups, so everyone is singing the same toon (Must watch video of when simply reciting talking points can go seriously wrong). For climate realists to win his fight, they have to master Mann on the field of politics, not science. Winning the scientific battle, and losing the political battle, is losing the war.
To win the political battle, climate realists must topple the pillars of sand that are supporting Michael Mann’s arguments. Fortunately, most of these pillars of sand holding each other up, so toppling one topples others as well.…
Eugenics: When Scientific Consensus Leads To Mass Murder
Eugenics: When Scientific Consensus Leads To Mass Murder
http://www.thegwpf.com/eugenics-when-scientific-consensus-leads-to-mass-murder/
Eugenics, the notion of improving the genetic quality of the human race through selective breeding, is a dark stain upon science’s past. It is a prime example of how science can be misused to support nefarious ends. Eugenics is most commonly associated with Nazi Germany, where poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous, homosexual, and Jewish people (among countless other groups) were murdered by the millions in an effort to purify the populace and create a master race. But we must not forget that eugenics also has a prominent legacy in the United States, one which began well before the Nazis sowed their own, much darker history. When scientific research made clear that traits are heritable and passed on from parent to offspring through genes, individuals in society began wondering how these findings could be applied to humans in an effort to improve our species. This notion, originally opined by Sir Francis Galton in the 1860s in the United Kingdom, soon spread to the United States. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, prominent Americans including Alexander Graham Bell, Margaret Sanger, and even Theodore Roosevelt expressed support. By the 1920s, eugenics was a genuine movement. As author and pediatrician Paul Offit describes in his new book, Pandora’s Lab, Hundreds of colleges taught courses on the subject. It appeared in the majority of high school biology textbooks. There were fairs, meetings, and advertisements. The nationwide campaign convinced citizens and legislatures – forty-one states eventually prohibited marriage by those deemed feeble-minded or insane, and a few states even instituted policies of forced sterilization. It was Virginia’s law on forced sterilization that eventually reached the Supreme Court. The case, Buck v. Bell, argued ninety years ago, pitted the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded against one of its patients, Carrie Buck. The colony’s superintendent, Dr. John Hendren Bell, wanted to sterilize Buck. His lawyers argued that Buck was a “genetic threat” to society. Buck’s lawyer argued that she had a right to procreate which was being violated. The Court sided 8 – 1 with the colony. The majority opinion, penned by the legendary justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, seems like it originated from a dystopian work of science fiction: “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it …
Scientists Reveal How Man-Made Global Warming Is Created Via Data Manipulation, Dismissing The Sun
Fake Warming + A Neglected Sun = Man-Made Climate Change In late 2015, Soon, Connolly, and Connolly (hereafter SCC15) published a comprehensive (101 pages) analysis of how the modern anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm has been constructed.
Source: Scientists Reveal How Man-Made Global Warming Is Created Via Data Manipulation, Dismissing The Sun…
New ‘global warming’ documentary seeking to ‘dispel pseudo-scientific scaremongering’
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/robson-pellerin/the-environment-a-true-story…
Climate ‘Science’ is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof
Point 1) Climate Science started with the conclusion that man-made CO2 causes warming, and then set about to find anecdotal evidence to support that claim. Evidence of this is that none of the computer models can demonstrate that relationship, nor do any properly run experiments. Additionally, conflicting data like the N Pole losing ice and the S Pole gaining ice is simply glossed over, and the focus is directed towards the observation that favors the conclusion. Lastly, only the “adjusted” data sets show warming. If adjustments are made for the heat island effectand solar radiation, there is no notable warming. Long-term, consistent, continual thermometer data show no warming either.
Point 2) Climate “science” is extremely hostile towards anyone that is critical, and the hostility is well documented. This hostility is so endemic to the climate alarmists that they verbally smear opponents during congressional testimony, and put their smears in writing. 
Point #3) Uses vague jargon to confuse and evade. Real science uses terms like “scientific method,” “rejecting the Null at a 95% confidence level,” “R-Squared of 0.80,” “experimentation,” “conclusion” and back everything with numbers. Climate science uses terms like “computer model/simulation,” “consensus,” “scientific organizations agree, and “peer review.” Climate “science” is run more like a popularity contest than a real science.
Point #4) Climate “science” makes grandiose claims that go beyond the evidence. The endless “tipping points” that have come and gone, as well as the “100% of warming is due to man” claim, are evidence of this. The most damning evidence however at the IPCC computer models. The computer models quantified the grandiose expectations, and they all failed.
Point #5 Cherry picks only favorable evidence, and relies on testimonials and or weak evidence. Ironically, the best examples of this are also the best-known arguments the climate alarmists make. The N Pole is losing ice, but it is largely due to natural forces. The S Pole, that isn’t impacted by these natural forces is actually gaining ice. The other example if the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier that is disappearing due to sublimation, not warming.
Point #6) Uses flawed methods that are not repeatable. The “Hockey-Stick” is the greatest example of this. This critical piece of “evidence” used to support the AGW theory used manufactured, researcher specific …
Like Trump, Vladimir Putin Says Climate Change Not Man-Made
Russian leader Vladimir Putin on Thursday said climate change was not caused by human activity, as the White House announced that President Donald Trump would decide by May on continued US participation in the landmark Paris Agreement limiting global carbon emissions.
Source: Like Trump, Vladimir Putin Says Climate Change Not Man-Made…
Scientist tells Congress: Obama science czar ‘put a target’ on my back due to ‘my heretical view’ on climate
Hearing – Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method
US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
March 29, 2017
Full Congressional Statement of Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. here:
In early 2014, not long after I appeared before Congress, President Obama’s science adviser John Holdren testified before the same Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He was asked about his public statements that appeared to contradict the scientific consensus on extreme weather events that I had earlier presented. Mr. Holdren responded with the all-too-common approach of attacking the messenger, telling the senators incorrectly that my views were “not representative of the mainstream scientific opinion.” Mr. Holdren followed up by posting a strange essay, of nearly 3,000 words, on the White House website under the heading, “An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr.,” where it remains today.
I suppose it is a distinction of a sort to be singled out in this manner by the president’s science adviser. Yet Mr. Holdren’s screed reads more like a dashed-off blog post from the nutty wings of the online climate debate, chock-full of errors and misstatements.
But when the White House puts a target on your back on its website, people notice. Almost a year later Mr. Holdren’s missive was the basis for an investigation of me by Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Grijalva explained in a letter to my university’s president that I was being investigated because Mr. Holdren had “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change.” He made the letter public. The “investigation” turned out to be a farce. In the letter, Rep. Grijalva suggested that I— and six other academics with apparently heretical views—might be on the payroll of Exxon Mobil (or perhaps the Illuminati, I forget). He asked for records detailing my research funding, emails and so on. After some well-deserved criticism from the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, Rep. Grijalva deleted the
letter from his website. The University of Colorado complied with Rep. Grijalva’s request and responded that I have never received funding from fossil-fuel companies. My heretical views can be traced to research support from the U.S. government.
But the damage to my reputation had been done, and perhaps that was the point. Studying and engaging on climate change had become decidedly …
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. Tells Congress: ‘I experienced an organized effort of delegitimization’ for climate dissent
Hearing – Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method
US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
March 29, 2017
Full Congressional Statement of Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. here:
My Recent Experiences Where Science Meets Politics
Despite publishing many peer reviewed papers on a wide range of climate-related topics with colleagues around the world and having my research included in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC),1
I experienced an organized effort of delegitimization by members of Congress and the White House, supported by their political
allies in the media and in well-funded advocacy groups. These efforts were successful in that they resulted in me re-orienting my academic career away from climate-related research.
Here are some specifics of my experiences over the past few years:
Several months after I testified before this committee in December, 2013, the White House posted on its website a 6-page essay by the President’s Science Advisor,
John Holdren, which claimed falsely that my testimony before this committee was “not representative of mainstream views on this topic in the climate-science community” and was “seriously misleading.”2
Science advisor Holdren’s false claims were put forward even though my testimony was drawn from and consistent with the most recent reports of the IPCC. I have for decades supported the scientific assessment process of the IPCC and did so explicitly in my 2013 Congressional testimony.
One year later, Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) opened a formal investigation of me and six other professors (three of us are testifying here today). In his letter to my university’s president, Mr. Grijalva justified the investigation of me by relying on the science advisor’s false claims: “John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change,” and cited Dr. Holdren’s essay on the White House website.3
In his letter, Mr. Grijalva introduced another false implication — that I, and the other academics, had “potential conflicts of interest and failure to disclose corporate funding sources.”4 Mr. Grijalva’s letter cited Exxon Mobil and the Koch Foundation as possible sources of undisclosed funding that I may have received.
The communications director for the House Natural Resources Committee explained how we seven academics were chosen to be investigated by Mr. Grijalva: “The way we chose the list …