Surprise: Trump was Once Concerned about Climate Change
Guest essay by Eric Worrall A number of stories have appeared recently, claiming that Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump’s position on Climate Change is inconsistent, because he used to support Climate Action. Apparently once you embrace the Climate faith, you are not allowed to become an apostate. Donald Trump once backed urgent climate action. Wait, […]
Excerpt: Donald Trump once backed urgent climate action. Wait, what?
As negotiators headed to Copenhagen in December 2009 to forge a global climate pact, concerned U.S. business leaders and liberal luminaries took out a full-page ad in the New York Times calling for aggressive climate action. In an open letter to President Obama and the U.S. Congress, they declared: “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”
One of the signatories of that letter: Donald Trump.
Also signed by Trump’s three adult children, the letter called for passage of U.S. climate legislation, investment in the clean energy economy, and leadership to inspire the rest of the world to join the fight against climate change.
“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today,” the letter tells the president and Congress. “Please allow us, the United States of America, to serve in modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our planet.”
In every conceivable way, the letter contradicts Trump’s current stance on climate policy. On the campaign trail, Trump has said he is “not a big believer in man-made climate change.” Last fall, after Obama described climate change as a major threat to the United States and the world, Trump said that was “one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard in politics — in the history of politics as I know it.”
The 2009 ad also argues that a shift to clean energy “will spur economic growth” and “create new energy jobs.” But these days, Trump contends that U.S. action to limit greenhouse gas emissions would put the country at a competitive disadvantage. In 2012, he went so far as to claim: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”…
Former Advisor to Aussie PM Declares UN climate agenda ‘more about Marxism than science’ – Laments World succumbing to ‘bogus science & catastrophism’
Maurice Newman has blasted the United Nations climate agreement reached recently in Paris. He says in a newspaper column that the UN is more about Marxism than science. Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP
Tony Abbott’s former business advisory council chairman, Maurice Newman, has criticised Malcolm Turnbull and Barack Obama for prioritising “collectivist visions” over “private choice” in relation to climate change.
Newman, who was not reappointed to the council by the Turnbull government, has accused world leaders of acting “like ancient druids pleading with the gods for good seasons” at the recent Paris climate talks.
Newman blasted the final Paris agreement, which aims to hold global temperatures to a maximum rise of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, saying there was “no empirical scientific evidence” to support the policy.
He lamented that “without a Tony Abbott in Canberra or a Stephen Harper in Ottawa, no world leader utters a peep in protest”.
A noted climate change sceptic, Newman has accused western capitalist societies of giving up on rational thinking.
“They embrace junk science and junk economics and adopt wealth-destroying postmodern pseudo-economics, which teaches that taxpayer subsidies can produce desirable ‘economic transformation’ and faster growth,” Newman wrote in the Australian.
“Pigs may also fly.
“Climate change has cowed once great powers into meekly surrendering sovereignty and independent thought to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva. From the White House to the Lodge, private choice now runs a distant second to collectivist visions.”
“But then climate change is not about credible scientific evidence,” he wrote.
“It has its roots in Marxism, and ultimately the Green Fund is presided over by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, run by Costa Rican MarxistChristiana Figueres.”
Newman warned the 1.5C target would be “relentlessly pursued” by the UN with the help of the media.
“The media, in step with the Green Machine, will bombard us with climate alarmism to the applause of the leader of the free world, Barack Obama, who says: ‘My mission is to make the world aware that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism.’ Really? That’s serious. Clearly authority, not common sense or science, now rules the world.”
Newman also accused the world’s largest emitter, China, of “adroit politics”, using climate change to act on its domestic air quality issues while promoting emissions …
The Republican Party is divided over whether to attack the science of climate change when opposing liberal policies.
Many of the most vocal Republicans say they have significant problems with the scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity is the main cause. The skeptics include presidential hopefuls Ben Carson and Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Capitol Hill chairmen Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.) and Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas).
But others in the GOP aren’t interested in litigating the science. They say it’s more important — and far easier — to show that Democratic climate proposals would be disastrous to the economy and kill jobs.
The split comes as more and more voters, particularly young people and minorities, say in opinion polls that they believe climate change is real and want action to fight it.
Democrats have lined up firmly behind that view, with President Obama set to implement carbon dioxide limits for power plants that amount to the most significant action yet by the federal government to fight climate change.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said that since science underpins climate change policies, it’s important to examine it in detail.
“We know that there’s an ideological obsession to advance on this global warming agenda,” said Sessions.…
Warmists Fret: ‘The Fraudulent Science at COP21 Exposed’ – Ignored ‘Critical links between climate change & agriculture’
Industrial, degenerative farming practices—which include tilling, deforestation, wetlands destruction and the use of massive amounts of synthetic and toxic fertilizers and pesticides—have stripped 136 billion tons of carbon out of the soil and sent it up into the atmosphere. Using the French government’s modest estimates, we can transfer, via enhanced plant photosynthesis, 150 billion tons of this carbon back into the soil in the next 25 years.
How do we achieve those numbers? All we have to do is help just 10 percent of the world’s farmers and ranchers adopt regenerative organic agriculture, holistic grazing and land management practices …”
For some reason, Greenpeace, 350.org and the climate movement think putting close to 100 percent of our policy and educational efforts into shutting down oil is our one last hope to stop climate change. This is madness. Can they really believe that fewer people will be driving cars in 2020 than in 2015? And don’t they realize that every new hybrid or 100 percent electric car in its making will contribute as much greenhouse gas emissions as would driving a five-year-old Toyota?…
Warmists want courts to settle climate debate – But ‘When You Need Courts to Settle Science, Then Science Isn’t On Your Side’
“The most important thing the courts could do,” he said, was to hold a top-level “finding of fact”, to settle these “scientific disputes” once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again. Furthermore, he went on, once “the scientific evidence” thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make “the emissions reductions that are needed”, including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.
Courts can use scientific evidence to make a decision in a case, but courts don’t define scientific facts. A judicial conference which calls on courts to settle a scientific debate is troubling.…
We also live with the fallacy that humankind has the power to fix any global warming problem. This is in the light of the success the world had in limiting chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerants and aerosols, in eliminating the hole in the ozone layer back in the 1980s. This belief that we as humans can control the environment is arrogance in the extreme.
The proponents of global warming would have the world belief that it controls its own destiny in terms of being able to control the environment. Is this living in true reality?
When we connect morality with truth, inquisitions, purges, and clampdowns on the unbelievers usually occur. This is where some global warming proponents can take us back to the ‘dark ages’ of science and understanding, to where the earth was once flat.…
The retired neurosurgeon, who is challenging front runner Donald Trump in the polls, told us he didn’t buy the notion that the climate effects are human-caused.
“I know there are a lot of people who say ‘overwhelming science,’ but then when you ask them to show the overwhelming science, they never can show it,” Carson said in an interview Tuesday with The Chronicle after his sold-out appearance at the Commonwealth Club. “There is no overwhelming science that the things that are going on are man-caused and not naturally caused.
“Gimme a break.”…