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.”
As Horner remarked in a 2010 Accuracy in Media Take AIM interview discussing his book, Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America, climate change is “the latest vehicle to organize society.”
“The left’s objective never changes, that is to ‘organize society’ in that creepy Orwellian rhetoric they’ve mastered,” he said. The threat of climate change, thus, is used to rationalize central planning.
Far-left activist Michael Moore tweeted in response to Trump’s executive order that “Historians in the near future will mark today…as the day the extinction of human life on earth began, thanks 2 Donald Trump.” The reception from The New York Times carries similar vitriol; an editorial describes Trump as “anti-science” and “strip[ping] America of its hard-won role as a global leader on climate issues.” This position as global leader was, of course, earned by former President Obama. The editorial is titled, “President Trump Risks the Planet.”
The media are overwhelmingly convinced of climate change’s veracity—or at least they claim to be—often abandoning objectivity in their reporting in order to defend climate science. The Washington Post defended the Democrats’ choice to testify before the House Science Committee last month, climatologist Michael Mann, as “clear and articulate but outnumbered by foes.” In contrast, the Post reports that at the hearing “political theater upstaged almost all productive discussion of science.”
The media have been complicit with radical climatologists such as Mann, calling anyone who opposes the climate change agenda a “skeptic,” a “denier,”—or worse. And it has become popular to compare energy companies to big tobacco, or hype that each year was warmer than the last. This is shaky science, at best.
“The warming trend is over,” said Horner in 2010. “It could resume, but it’s turned to cooling and is predicted to be cooling for several decades now.”
Horner’s comments hold true today. As Marc Morano points out on his Climate Depot website, satellite data indicates that we are in a temperature pause. “The fact that there has been no warming for the last 18 years is a massive blow to the credibility of climate science,” he writes. Other scientists point out that there is little statistical difference between the allegedly warmest years and other years: Morano quotes Dr. David Whitehouse as calling 2016 temperatures “statistically indistinguishable from 2015.” Claims that we are experiencing the hottest years on record are blatantly bogus, and rely on statistically insignificant temperature changes.
Obama’s own appointed undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy for the first two years of his administration, Steven E. Koonin, said that “The Obama administration relentlessly politicized science and it aggressively pushed a campaign about that politicized science.”
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, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.” He says that “Global warming really has become a new religion,” and that “We have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.”
Even if the Trump administration kept Obama’s commitments to climate change policy, such measures would have been unlikely to affect global temperatures. Yet the media lauded Obama as keeping the world safe from climate change.
“Addressing climate change has been a core goal for the president and netting the Paris climate deal is considered a critical part of his environmental policy legacy,” reported NBC News and Reuters in 2016, in a piece titled, “Obama: Paris Climate Accord Best Possible Shot to ‘Save’ Planet.” This is nonsense. It was just another phony Obama legacy item to check off his list that in reality is far more about the U.S. and other developed nations transferring $100 billion per year to developing countries that make no binding commitments. In addition, it would transfer significant regulatory powers to the UN and other international bodies, none of which would amount to anything measurable or provable in terms of tweaking the global temperature to reach some desired environmental utopian goal.
According to Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), “The Paris agreement also created a United Nations climate slush fund, largely underwritten by American taxpayers. In his final year in office, President Obama contributed $500 million from the State Department to this fund on two separate occasions. He did it without authorization from Congress.”
Obama will go down in history as the #1 worst president in american history anyone who proposes a Obama holiday needs sent the Sing Sing or rikers island or pelican bay for life and Obama needs lie in prison as well
Obama will go down as a bizarre individual who wasted hundreds of $ billions in a pretend exercise to control the earths thermostat via a trace gas that when abundant is very favorable to helping green the planet . The truth is he was trying to help the bag men that paid to get him elected . His claim that “climate change is the biggest world threat ” would be comical if not such a deplorable rip off of tax payers by a media backed over exaggerated fraud . People don’t retire in Antarctica for a reason and incidentally where did Obama get dropped off after leaving office in a great big carbon spewing jet? That’s right some place warm with golf courses carved out of desert and then on to another tropical destination .
Mr . Trump will not waste hundreds of $billions on the scary global warming fraud despite the whining from rent seeking conmen and political lobbyist’s . If he does good luck we will know he jumped into the swamp .
Amber, you know and I know that the human race favour warmer climes, but to the Gaia worshippers, it’s not about us. I expect that any species that has adapted to hostile climate did so for territory. Why does the Left discount adaptability and evolution while sneering at the book of Genesis? I know that they abhor competition, aggression, survival of the fittest. Anyone or anything that can’t handle 1 or 2 Celsius degrees over 100 years, in either direction ,is genetically challenged. Put them in zoos.
The Global Warming/Climate Change nut cases will say anything and do anything to try and force us all to live under their radical ideologies their already trying to force farmers and ranchers off their land so that can turn this private property in Wildlands as part of the radical WILDLANDS PROJECT or some idiotic idea called BUFFALO COMMONS preposed by a married coups(Frank & Debera Popper)why else do the declare a species ENDANGRED cut off the water over some stupid little lizard and many radical enviromentalists(Like former Interior secretary Burce Babbit)and UNSECO is also part of the plans DDT wasnt harming the birds as Carson claimed in his junk science book SILENT SPRING and the biggist contributer of HOT AIR/GLOBAL WARMING is the various eco wacko groups as well as GORE,DiCAPRIO and Useless Nations and just about every green nut we see opposing Fracking
The Warmists have aggressively pushed their agenda while the Deniers were pushed to the back of the MSM bus. The election of Trump and his “hoax” claim has kicked over a hornet ‘s nest. I hope that more scientists and journalists come out and help deprogram a gullible public.