Week in review – policy and politics edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past month.

I haven’t had a policy/politics edition since Paris.  Things have been rather slow in this regard – surprisingly, climate change has been barely mentioned recently in the U.S. presidential campaigns.


The big news is the US Supreme Court decision to stay Obama’s Clean Power Plan until the various lawsuits challenging it are resolved in the courts.

The Atlantic: Did the Supreme Court doom the climate deal?  [link]

SCOTUS Halts Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Bloomberg’s free special report includes expert analysis. [link]

Why SCOTUS decision to freeze Pres. Obama’s signature climate regulation imperils the Paris deal: [link] …

Obama’s $10 a barrel oil tax to fund clean transportation system is bad idea, worse policy [link]

Obama looks to forge ‘climate-smart economy’ with budget [link]

The remaining GOP presidential candidates are starting to embrace climate change as real. [link] …

The Pentagon just issued marching orders on climate change: [link]

Pentagon Orders Commanders To Prioritise Climate Change In All Military Actions [link]


“Missing the Big Picture in Challenging Africa’s “Land Grab” Narrative”  [link]

“UN Makes 5 Million More Africans Homeless To Fight Global Warming”  [link]


2016: The year for China to shape the future of climate finance?  [link]

Finance for Climate Resilience in the Dawn of the Paris Era [link]

Davos Business Leaders No Longer Bothered About Climate Change  [link]

2016: The year for China to shape the future of climate finance?   [link]

Policy analysis

Let’s End the Peril of a Nuclear Winter – [link]

Who politicized the environment and climate change? [link]

Risk and Time in the Anthropocene: Why the #DoomsdayClock is Not a Useful Tool for Measuring Societal Risk  [link]


181 responses to “Week in review – policy and politics edition

  1. Pentagon marching orders on climate change. Saw that. The commander in chief is Obama, and we know where he stands. The military (quite appropriately) is forced to obey his directional decisions by the Constitution, Article 2, section 2.1. This is deeply ingrained in all military officers. Unless an order is in violation of Geneva conventions, you obey it. Period. I recall a question of that sort by the Army officer’s panel examining me for West Point/ Army ROTC full scholarship alternative. I passed. Otherwise a long convoluted story about university duplicity and lucky accidental outcomes.

  2. MSNBC is so used to misleading and disingenuous reporting they even botched up the article about the GOP candidates embracing climate change. A reasonable interpretation of the quotes by each of the contenders does not give a hint of warming up to the warmers. Kasich saying man contributes to climate change could cover a 1% contribution. The statements by each of the others leave enough wiggle room that only a wishful thinking reporter would be so naive as to believe his own headline.
    He hasn’t covered politicians long enough to sort out the subtext and code.

    • Whew, talk about hard work. Sniffing out some climatariat-friendly messaging from that GOP line-up took real journalistic courage. (I’m using “courage” in the post-modern sense, where it means “bleating and mooing from the middle of a large herd”.)

      • (I’m using “courage” in the post-modern sense, where it means “bleating and mooing from the middle of a large herd”.)

        I’m just a layman and a lurker here. I had to sign up to say that this is the best statement I’ve ever read in 20 years reading the internet.

      • CP: Here’s one more you may like: “The herd of independent minds.”

  3. After Australia axed it’s Climate Science Department … a political act I think … I picked up on this from a report on a paper about the Earth soaking up more water than expected.

    “But we’ll need a much longer data record to fully understand the underlying cause of the patterns and whether they will persist.”

    Translation: Don’t fire me!


    • Jim2,
      Rud has posted on this at WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/12/did-agw-slow-sea-level-rise/

      Zwally indicates about .23mm is being taken away.
      “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

      Makes me further doubt that Hay ‘balanced’ anything w/r/t SLR in her work.

      Seems a bit unsettled to me.

      • I would like to read the paywalled paper to see if it is another gift from the sources that keep on giving. It seems every couple of weeks the hole in the runaway SLR story keeps getting larger.

      • In the end it is the sea-level change that tells you Zwally is wrong, and the other 90% of scientists who have calculated Antarctic mass losses are correct. The skeptics don’t even prefer (or understand) Zwally’s methods, only his bottom line, which is in a minority of one in terms of sign.

      • Jim D,
        Just being the minority makes Zwally wrong? Karl’s the minority w/r/t pause, does that apply there also? This ‘new work’ by Reager w/r/t slowing SLR must also therefore be wrong. Others?

        Interesting theory, Jim D.

      • People have looked at Karl’s ideas and generally agree that the adjustment was overdue. Zwally, not so much.

      • Links? I’ve seen wait and see on Zwally, but rejection?

      • Lack of support. All the other independent studies had the opposite sign, so it doesn’t look good for him.

      • So no links, then. Just your opinion?

      • Zwally (Dec. 2015) cited by 10.
        Karl (June 26, 2015) cited by 62.

        W/o checking 72 papers, can’t verify which way the wind blows.

      • link, old news but,
        Like I say, his estimate is inconsistent with sea-level rise, so is Greenland melting faster than anyone thought, or what? He doesn’t say as far as I know.

      • Jim D,
        Looking at some of the citations some show as being b/4 the paper. This is current and from Nature.
        “Snowfall may be increasing ice across Antarctica as a whole and preventing short-term sea level rise, but local changes in the Amundsen Basin can result in catastrophic changes over long timescales. This is a perfect example of chaotic behavior, in which small perturbations can push a system into an entirely new direction that can be difficult to see initially or stop. Both perspectives, the short and long views, must be balanced when considering climatic changes, their impact on our global society, and what policies we develop in response to them.” http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/eyes-on-environment/shortterm_stability_and_longterm_collapse

      • Zwally’s work was using older data than many of the other studies, besides which his elevation would not pick up melting around the edges very well, which is where the loss is occurring, and it plain does not agree with what sea level is doing.

      • Well, the length of day says Zwally is on to something. The sea level rise should be increasing the LOD and that isn’t happening (or wasn’t until the El Nino). Mass must be getting shifted toward the axis.

        Which brings the credibility of the “consensus” that Antarctica is losing mass into doubt.

      • PA, are you questioning whether sea level is rising, or what?

      • Since Hay came out, Zwally calls into question .5mm per year and the dry soil calls into question .38mm per year. Another paper raised steric to 1.4mm, which would somewhat offset those two numbers.

        So Hay’s side benefit is doing fine, and Hay’s major contribution remains huge: 20th century SLR is 1.2mm per year and we now have an acceleration.

      • JCH,
        Great. But JimD says Zwally ain’t right so Hay can’t be either then, huh?
        (Being facetious as I still don’t say Hay’s wrong). But it can’t be all ways can it? Zwally being right supports Hay per you. Jim says Zwally can’t be right.
        Ah. Climate conversations.

      • The lower end of sea level rise estimates (1.2 mm/y) are compatible with the data if you assume some Antarctic build up.

        I’m surprised LOD based estimates aren’t higher (1.5-1.7 mm/y).

        The point is that Antarctic mass loss and higher sea level aren’t compatible. So Zwally is on to something. Which raises a question about the credibility of satellite sea level rise and the consensus on Antarctic ice mass.

        Length of day and moment of inertia are basic physics. Guessing at ice mass and sea level rise isn’t. The guessing can be wrong.

      • Hay was not about balancing the SLR budget. For a moment in time, with her result, it appeared to be balanced.

        Right now Zwally is an outlier, but I have no problem with accepting he could be partially right, or completely right. His most important finding is there is a large amount of melting on Antarctica.

        Karl is not an outlier.

      • Outlier was NOT the term Jim used. Karl is/was the minority (Jim’s term) and that’s reason enough for suspicion should the work flow counter to the theme (the world according to Jim). Just calling ’em like I see ’em.

        And the Hay balancing act came from your words. And here again, in this thread, you used it again : “Since Hay came out, Zwally calls into question .5mm per year and the dry soil calls into question .38mm per year. Another paper raised steric to 1.4mm, which would somewhat offset those two numbers.”

        I’m just trying to keep up while filtering out the agendas.

      • They were not really my words; they were the words of a NOAA scientist who regularly publishes on the SLR budget… Eric Impossibletospell.

        I thought I read Karl is already confirmed by the Met Office, and Trenberth is about to publish that OHC has been underestimated by 25%

      • Leuliette? Latest I can find is 2011 which is pre -Hay for a paper. Doubt it’s been ‘balanced’ based on Zwally since that’s so recent but who knows?

        In this: “In this analysis, the global sea level rise budget for 2005–2013 is closed . The sum of steric sea level rise and the ocean mass component has a trend of 2.8 to 3.1 ± 0.5 mm/a over the period, depending on the steric sea level dataset used. The rate is consistent with total sea level rise observed by Jason­1 and Jason­2 (3.0 ± 0.4 mm/a) within a 95% confidence interval. These rates represent the globally averaged changes in sea level and have magnitudes on the order of millimeters per year. The regional patterns of
        sea level change, however, are many times larger and can be extremely complex. Steric sea level change is the dominant contributor to the spatial trend patterns observed for total sea level (Figures 2 and 3).”
        (Most recent from NOAA: http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2014.pdf
        cannot be correct if Zwally is accurate on Antarctica, can it? The ‘mass’ portion would have to be off. {If I’m understanding})

      • He had a 2015 update that was linked in the Hay citations, but now it’s not.

      • Maybe Zwally threw off the equation? If ya find a link please pass it on.

      • Jim D

        Do something useful. Unsheath from the cover of darkness that paywalled study referenced in Danny’s link. The NASA press release intimates that SLR is found to be .7mm/yr less. But less than what. Without reading the entire paper it is unclear. The abstract doesn’t help much.

        You have a chance to score one for the home team. I’m too cheap.

      • Jim D | February 12, 2016 at 11:25 pm
        “In the end it is the sea-level change that tells you Zwally is wrong”

        So you know better than Zwally now, Jimbo?

        You’re funny!

      • It’s the ‘minorities’ ya gotta watch for (says Jim D). (Coulda resisted, but chose not to).

      • I said that wrong. The Leuliette 2015 is still linked, but it’s the abstract when it used to be to a PDF.

      • So far Zwally is in a minority of one. Science progresses with independent confirmation, otherwise you end up with the infamous one-paper syndrome of belief, and luckily science doesn’t work that way. Wait for independent confirmation, and then talk. It is a waste of time discussing just one paper that goes counter.

      • Jim D,
        That’s two: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10171606&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0954102015000644
        “Our results have important implications for wider East Antarctic if the current increasing sea ice trend continues.”

      • That is not an Antarctic glacier ice budget study by any stretch of the imagination. Keep looking.

      • Agreed. But it’s about the expanding (sea) ice. It’s only been just over a month so it may take a while.

      • Expanding sea ice is an observation, which makes it factual. Its cause can be argued to result from global warming, and there have been studies suggesting that.

      • Jim D | February 13, 2016 at 4:20 pm |
        So far Zwally is in a minority of one.

        This statement is incorrect. The studies of Munk’s enigma support him.

      • Isn’t that the Australian team that got stuck in the sea ice?

      • JCH,
        Apparently she was, but I don’t see the ‘team’ listed. Interesting discussion about the sea ice being an issue for the penguins also. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/9561161/Former-Lincoln-scientist-stuck-on-ice
        Seems like a lot of ice to me (if the penguins can’t handle it) , but that’s anecdotal.

      • Jim D, it is like this:

        Note that adding this total melt signal (GMSL rise of ~1.0 mm/year) to estimates of thermal expansion (GMSL rise of 0.4 ± 0.1 mm/year) and net anthropogenic storage of water on land (GMSL rise of −0.11 ± 0.05 mm/year) for the period 1900–1990 (10) indicates that the GMSL rate adopted by Munk (1) (1.5 to 2.0 mm/year) was too high when considering records from the first 90 years of the century.


        What they are arguing for is 1.3 mm/Y with massive melting and little thermal sea expansion. This isn’t a lot different than the other Munkers that argue for 1.2 mm/Y (a few argue for less).

        This study discusses the pre1990 period – the earth has sped up since then. After the El Nino it might actually hit zero anomaly – it hasn’t been zero since 1958. The 21st century anomaly is less than in the 70s, 80s, 90s.

        No matter how you slice it these studies are throwing the satellite SLR under the bus.

    • Of course, the part of Antarctica that’s a touch melty is more than a touch volcanic, as discovered by BAS radar more than ten years ago. (Ash sheet below PIG region the size of Wales, and still active down there.)

      None of this is disputed. Simply not talked about. A bit like those high levels of Antarctic sea ice and the lack of substantial SLR anywhere stable. Simply not talked about.

      Feel free to contradict me. I’ll just change the subject to cricket or gnocchi. See? I’m learning.

  4. Obama’s $10/bbl plan. This is territory which I could support if implemented in reverse. Current plan indicates a 5 year phase in. For me, if this plan was put in immediately and phased out as market forces increase the price per bbl then I could get behind a variation of the plan. And by variation, as the article suggests, supporting that which has private dollars in play does not require the need for supplemental dollars. Cutting edge energy storage, new alternatives sources, innovation yes.

    • Danny, phase out a tax! This is government we are talking about. Phase out is not something they know how or care to do. Otherwise we would have phased out the VA health system years ago.

  5. Pentagon Orders Commanders To Prioritise Climate Change In All Military Actions

    What lunacy.

    Military actions are local and specific.
    Global warming is global and nonspecific.
    How to make the DoD even more wasteful.

    • TE,
      I’ve seen this in more than one location but to simplify offering only one link: http://www.infowars.com/the-bizarre-explanation-for-why-the-u-s-has-avoided-bombing-isis-oil-wells/

    • The army, which is supposed to handle a war all year round, is ordered to:

      “The boring-but-important 12-page document issued in January tells the armed service chiefs and top civilian officials to identify how climate change will affect their missions, figure out how to manage any risks it poses, and factor those into their planning. It gives specific tasks to various Defense Department offices and regional commands, from determining how higher sea levels or longer droughts affect US bases to what new gear might be needed to work in a thawing Arctic.”

      Sounds like a total waste. It hardly takes any real life experience at all to understand that the result will be that each armed service chief will come back with a long and expensive list over gear that is needed to adapt to climate change. Lunacy.

    • There are actually some things the military needs to do. As the world slowly warms up, all uniforms need to get a tiny bit thinner, decade by decade. One way to do this is to make them out of clothe that slowly wears out.

      Another problem they’ll face is that as sea level rises, our surface ships will get slower because they’re designed for lower seas and thus will be sitting much deeper in the water. Some of our submarines may have to be redesigned entirely because they can barely break the surface as it is.

      We’ll also have to re-examine invasion plans for conflicts 50 years in the future, routing forces perhaps 50 or a 100 miles to the north so that the original plans’ climatic assumptions still hold true.

  6. Concerning the ruling by the SCOTUS, USA Today said, “All four of the court’s more liberal justices said they would have denied the petition filed by opponents of the plan and let implementation continue. That gave the court order an ideological slant.” How long will people continue to pretend that global warming is nothing more than a Left vs. right issue.

    • David L. Hagen

      Greens faced with nightmare scenario at the Supreme Court

      . . .there’s wide agreement that green advocates probably cannot turn to Congress for a solution to climate change if the court isn’t friendly. . . .
      “We definitely think that the Clean Air Act does not provide EPA with the authority to do what they tried to do with the Clean Power Plan,” said Dan Simmons, vice president of policy at the American Energy Alliance, a free-market group backed by fossil fuel companies.

  7. The Atlantic: Did the Supreme Court doom the climate deal? [link]

    “…the Paris Agreement, the first global treaty to fight climate change…”

    The Atlantic Monthly knows better. Any treaty where the USA is a party requires: “the advise and CONSENT of the US Senate” or so says our Constitution.

    So far, all that has come out of COP21 as far as the USA is concerned is Obama’s utterances, words, wishes and beliefs. Without Senate Consent, there is no treaty.

    What the Supreme Court has done is delay any EPA Clean Power Plan regulation until the next elected Congress and President.

    The Clean Power Plan is a sweeping piece of regulation with impacts for the here-and-now and way into the future.

    Obama has been acting as a king. The American People have an opportunity now to deliberate the issue and provide Congress and the next President, by voting for candidates that advocate one way or the other, a clear path to follow.

    The Supreme Court has given the issue some breathing room. How wise of them.

  8. So far we have had The Washington Times, The Daily Caller and Info Wars cited on this thread. That tells me everything I need to know about the people here.

  9. Who politicized the environment and climate change?
    The article does not actually answer that question. I blame Cheney and Gore.

    • Why blame Cheney? I know your being politically correct to include him with Gore especially since he is so unpopular. I can’t remember two words he said about climate change. I know he is iconoclastic for demonization of oil but I have never known him to champion personally against climate change. I think Gore has the distinction of cause celeb along with his Nobel Prize. That should tell you something right there the ENTIRE AGW community has to share the prize with one man.

    • Don I was banned from ATTP because I was rude to Richard Betts.

    • The global warming issue was politicized from the outset.
      From the Hartwell paper:
      “So, a distinctive characteristic of the climate change debate has been of scientists claiming with the authority of their position that their results dictated particular policies; of policy makers claiming that their preferred choices were dictated by science, and both acting as if ‘science’ and ‘policy’ were simply and rigidly linked as if it were a matter of escaping from the path of an oncoming tornado.”
      Also the one-sided response of opinion makers was a factor.

    • Richard Tol,

      I thought the article conveyed some interesting factual information, but it failed to locate those facts within any theoretical or narrative context which would make them intelligible for the reader.

      The author’s conclusion was: “So who politicized the environment? Ultimately, voters have.” That explanation falls flatter than a pancake.

      What was woefully absent was mention of the moral dimension, which is the heart and soul of politics. As Jonathan Haidt notes in The Happiness Hypothesis:

      But the most important lesson I have learned in my twenty years of research on morality is that nearly all people are morally motivated…

      [W]henever groups come together to make a sustained effort to change the world, you can bet that they are pursuing a vision of virtue, justice, or sacredness.

      Haidt expresses the view that conservatives are more interested in transcendenal Kantian ehtics and a strong state to enforce those ethics. Liberals, on the other hand, are more interested in utilitarian Benthamite ethics and individual liberties which are free from state interference and control.

      [L]iberals are experts in thinking about issues of victimization, equality, autonomy, and the rights of individuals, particularly those of minorities and noncomformists. Conservatives, on the other hand, are experts in thinking about loyalty to the group, respect for authority and tradition, and sacredness….

      Liberals are right to work for a society that is open to people of every demographic group, but conservatives might be right in believing that at the same time we should work much harder to create a common, shared identity.

      “Moral diversity (opinions about controversial political questions),” Haidt goes on to observe, is eschewed equally by both liberals and conservatives, which complicates achieving what Benjamin Franklin called a “United Party for Virtue.”

      Haidt’s observation seems fairly realistic when it comes to traditional religion, notions about the nation and national security, abortion and what goes on in the bedroom. However, when it comes to global warming, the roles seem to be reversed, with the liberals taking the more transcendental stance and calling for a strong, powerful global government to enforce its moral mandate. What needs to be explained is how this reversal of roles came to be, something Brian Black, the article’s author, is silent on.

      In order to simplify things, I have created a graphic which shows the moral taxonomy as explained by Black, even though he himself never locates his facts within any moral context.

    • Well, it is pretty clear what happened.

      The Republicans up through the 80s were focused on solving real environmental problems.

      The eco/liberal/regressives used the laws to block projects, slow down development, drive out manufacturing, and basically gum things up and make everything more expensive. They continually push for tighter regulation whether or not it is economically justified.

      This leads to a really strange situation where real problems are ignored and virtual problems that are politically handy are pursued vigorously.

      The left found ways to profit from environmentalism and found the fear and concern they that could generate by exaggerating potential harm politically beneficial. It gives them a lever to pry away at individual rights, and expand the size of the government and their span and control of the population.

      Let the government control the people is a bad idea. Period. This is putting the horse on the rider. The only way to resolve this is to downsize government and force regulation to be economically justified using solid objective analysis.

  10. It goes to credibility. If there are other sources available then good, break your neck to find and use them. Being reliant on the Washington Times – a newspaper that has become a byword for lies – invites the reader to form an opinion about the validity of the citation before even reading it. Why invite that?

    • Redbbs,
      The source of the Times article came from Dr. C. To check further, I searched google using: “Pentagon orders commanders to prioritize climate change in all military actions” and there are dozens of sources. Primarily far right publications, but there none the less.
      So finally, I went to the source: “Integrating Climate-Related Impacts Into Planning

      To reduce the national security implications of climate change, combatant commands are integrating climate-related impacts into their planning cycles, officials said. The ability of the United States and other countries to cope with the risks and implications of climate change requires monitoring, analysis and integration of those risks into existing overall risk management measures, as appropriate for each combatant command, they added.

      The report concludes the Defense Department already is observing the impacts of climate change in shocks and stressors to vulnerable nations and communities, including in the United States, the Arctic, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America, officials said.”

      If this turns out to not be acceptable, not sure what else can be done.
      Doesn’t seem too far fetched.

      • Note, I used the links on this that I spotted from my twitter feed, not detailed search or assessment was conducted. My objective (as always) in the week in review is to point to some topics, stimulate some discussion, and hopefully achieve some illumination through thoughtful comments or additional links.

        DoD is observing the impacts of extreme weather, which has little to nothing to do with human caused climate change, as per the IPCC

    • Notice that little red bvds doesn’t actually say what in the Wash Times cited report is an alleged lie. He obviously would be happier on those echo chamber sights that only tolerate views expressed that informed by the Huffypo and Wash Post NY Times left-wing propaganda bureaus. Little Red Rascal.

      • “sites that only tolerate expression of views that are informed by” lefty rags

        We had an extended cocktail hour this evening.

    • redbbs,

      Meet your mirror image here:

      Stanton Brown | February 9, 2016 at 3:16 pm | Reply

      as soon as I saw that Judith was relying on Michael Moore, I just shook my head.

      Seriously, Judith.


      Or here:

      Don Monfort | February 9, 2016 at 12:12 am | Reply

      Wow, Judith! You couldn’t find any accounts that are more biased, inflammatory or toxic than those?….

      Pathetic research effort and jumping to conclusions, on this one. Very unscientific and un-objective. Lazy too.


      Or here:

      Stanton Brown | February 9, 2016 at 9:30 pm | Reply

      Unfortunately, the most interesting part of this whole thread comes down to the sources that Judith chose to use. Either she knows the massive credibility problems with using Moore and Vox, or she doesn’t. Interesting and telling either way.


      If you want to get down and waller in the mud, you can certainly find that sort of action on this blog.

      But on the other hand, if you’re looking to rise above the Jerry Springer mindset, you can find that too.

      • Yes, Glenn Stehle, She did only present one side of the story. She either didn’t know there was another side (If you watch or read MSM there is no other side) or deliberately chose to ignore it due to her own values or political preference. Either way, it did make for a bad review and kept me in the dark. I had heard there was another side and would have suspected anyway but since I actually didn’t know for sure I took what she showed at face value. If Michael Moore doesn’t make one suspicious nothing will.

      • You should stop the putzing, glenny. Little red bvds is making the criticism that certain sources should not be cited, regardless of whether they have got it right or not. I made a specific criticism of the specific content from the sources that Judith used to set up the discussion for that post. She didn’t include a link to anything resembling a professional journalist’s account of the story.

        You are not berry bright, glennnny.

  11. This is for the little red bvds rascal:


    Best analysis I have seen on the SCOTUS decision and the prospects for the continuation of the Obama EPA’s CPP power grab. Here’s the beef:

    “In developing the CPP, the EPA worked very hard to insulate the plan from legal attack, but serious legal challenges remain.

    The biggest legal question about the CPP is whether the EPA has the legal authority to impose these regulatory requirements on existing power plants under Section 111(d) in the first place. The reason for this question is that Congress erred when enacting what is now Section 111(d) when revising the CAA in 1990. Specifically, Congress enacted two separate revisions to Section 111(d) in two separate parts of the 1990 CAA amendments. The language that is currently in the U.S. Code says that EPA cannot use 111(d) to regulate air pollutants that are “emitted from a source category” regulated under Section 112, and power plants are subject to regulation under 112. The EPA argues, however, that this is not the proper text of Section 111(d), as either a) the wrong language was put in the U.S. Code, b) the 1990 revisions, read properly, actually allow such regulation or c) the conflicting statutory language creates an ambiguity that the EPA has resolved by interpreting the language to allow for such regulation. This is an aggressive argument, and if the courts reject it, there is no CPP.”

    I suspect that the recent decision rendered by the five non-left loon SC justices signals that the CPP power grab won’t survive SCOTUS review. And with the WH under new management next year and the community organizers gone back to street-level rabble rousing….

  12. Don I agree that it’s too much to hope that you and fellow travellers would object to a Washington Times citation but I hope all would object to an Info Wars citation (deployed by Danny Thomas) on any site let alone a science site.

    • Redbbs,
      What’s this post called? Policy and POLITICS.
      I don’t even know why you’re so up in arms about the info site. I’m not familiar, it just happened to be a link. Maybe you can educate me.

    • The little fella is lost.

      You are on the wrong blog, little red bvds. You want realclimate, or kenny wotts rice’s echo chamber. Just get your little self moving along and keep turning left. You’ll find them.

    • Are you more upset that infowars was cited or that infowars sometimes reports hard news more or less accurately, as in this case?

  13. BTW Don redbbs is an acronym for Red Belly Black Snakes. Red Bellies laze in the sun in large coils in my Sydney garden. Nothin’ to do with my politics.

    • You are little red bvds to me. Are you going to do anything here besides complain about people informing themselves from a variety sources, some not on the little left-wing loon drone approved reading list? This ain’t Animal Farm here, bvds.

    • Red Belly speaks with forked tongue.

      • Little red rascal speaks out of the flap at the back of his little red bvds. Most likely kenny wottsup rice kicked him out of his echo chamber for being boring and contributing nothing but useless yammering.

  14. Australia is leading the world in firing climate scientists. Science’s loss is Uber’s gain. Gentlemen, start your engines! They’re off!

    • The Donald calls NOAA climate scientists into the Oval Office, next January:

      • The U.S will be first in firing climate scientists. Second to none! Make America great again!

      • Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of guys. One way to break up the logjam in climate science is cut the head off the global warming climate science monster.

        If believing in global warming didn’t improve job security there wouldn’t be a consensus. Firing the US top climate scientists is a good place to start. Unbelievers and heretics should be appointed as the directors and administrators of NOAA. People that view using CGAGW to fiddle with the climate data or using UHI contaminated data for global temperature indices is simply wrong. That will send a message that belief in global warming and won’t guarantee job security.

        If Trump terminates the global warming program and limits NSF Climate Science funding to natural climate science and the benefits of more CO2… This will send the message that belief in global warming won’t you that next grant.

        And then he can start with GISS…

    • No way, Don. I’m not getting into a car with one of those plonkers at the wheel.

      • Don’t blame you, moso. You got enough danger there already, driving on the wrong side of the street.

  15. Don I apologise for my previous post. I was wrong to assume that you would be appalled that Info Wars was used as a citation on your favourite science site. I promise to never over estimate your judgment, intelligence or sense of decency again.

    • You need to button up the flap in your little red bvds. They have a saying in Jamaica: Monkey climb too high, show him tail.

      I have not read the Info Wars account of the Obama-Jarret bombing campaign. I get most of my info about that from friends and former colleagues in the military and intelligence communities. Have you actually read the Info Wars account? If not, why don’t you read it and then come back and tell us what lies it contains and we can discuss it. Try to contribute, instead of being so freaking useless and gratuitously annoying.

    • redbbs


      Is the ‘info wars’ link legitimate here? Yes, probably as this is the policy and politics edition. In that respect it tends to go off in different directions to the science based materials and also helps Denizens to not continually repeat themselves on often well worn topics :)

      Info wars is a web site I had never heard of before, I think the original concern over the story when it first appeared elsewhere was that the US was not bombing ISI* oil wells because of worries over causing ‘climate change.’

      However what was originally said actually appears to be concerned with ‘environmental’ damage. The nature of this concern is spelt out in this article from politfact.


      ‘environmental’ seems to be a very broad usage of the term and the story in itself seems to be of little consequence when viewed in context

      In Broader terms however, I think I would criticise Obama for failing to recognise Isi* for the fundamental threat to the west that they are. He has allowed a many headed hydra to grow that is poisonous in the extreme. Delaying so long will make it much more difficult to defeat them


  16. Randal O’Toole at Cato …

    For most of Obama’s years as president, he has opposed raising the gas tax. Now, in his last, lame-duck year, he is proposing a $10 per barrel tax on oil. Since a 42-gallon barrel of oil produces about 45 gallons of gasoline, Diesel, jet fuel, and other products, this is roughly equal to a 22 cent per gallon gas tax, well above the current 18.4 cent tax.

    The distinction between Obama’s oil tax and a gas tax is that the oil tax wouldn’t go into the Highway Trust Fund, where up to 80 percent goes for roads and 20 percent goes for transit.


  17. “actionable science” for DoD?

    This borrows from military “actionable intelligence”.

    Adjectives associated with “actionable intelligence” include: specific, credible, and imminent

    But with respect to climate change, the effects of carbon dioxide are, like the well mixed gas itself, diffuse and quite non-specific. Even if subsequent secondary change related to warming were to occur, it would be reflected in a marginal change in the statistics of events which already occur. But such statistics are non-specific.

    Credible? the models can scarcely get temperature correct and observations so far do not validate climatic change.

    Imminent? The Pentagon is instructed to embrace as true the imaginative state of 2100. These theories are certainly not validated. Part of intelligence includes the present “situational awareness” which does not include adverse “climate change”.

    One of my favorite military jargon terms is OBE: overcome by events. When changes make a particular problem irrelevant or feature obsolete, no further action is necessary because it was OBE.

    Well, climate change will be OBE by 2100 not because of government crusades but because of trends that have been apparent for decades: technology alone relentlessly improves the efficiency of energy use, economic development and the invention of ‘the Pill’ changed fertility rates. These factors alone describe the falling CO2 emission rates in the developed world.

    One last definition of actionable intelligence is information that is directly useful without going through the intelligence production process. In other words, something to which a lay person can apply common sense.

    Evidently, grunts will have quite an advantage over brass.

    • “One of my favorite military jargon terms is OBE: overcome by events.”
      My understanding is that it was originally a State Dept. abbreviation for “Overtaken By Events”

  18. WTI crude has been trading below $30 in the past week (front month futures). The spot price has also dipped below $30. There is a $10 year out contango, meaning there is market pressure for crude to go to storage.

    OIL 29.02
    BRENT 33.36
    NAT GAS 1.97
    RBOB GAS 1.0331

  19. Per Primaries: because it’s not climate, it’s the economy -nothing but.

  20. A increased tax on gasoline isn’t inherently bad – if the proceeds were to go to such things as improving poor and declining US transport infrastructure.
    The highway tax is a disaster – the exact equivalent of Proposition 13 California property tax caps – in that it doesn’t scale up vs. inflation over time.
    However, if the proceeds instead go to ever more ridiculous alternative energy/transport scams, that I do not support.
    Electric vehicles don’t work well – expensive and unreliable. If efficiency is truly what matter, then lets subsidize scooters and motorcycles with their own lanes and transport infrastructure.
    Ride sharing and autonomous passenger cars – also a gigantic scam. A ride share vehicle spends 50% to 100% more time on the road per equivalent passenger transport than an individually owned vehicle. Studies such as the one performed by Seattle also show that on call ride sharing doesn’t save the passenger time either – the average amount of time spent waiting to be picked up is identical to taxis. The only difference is the greater certainty – which in turn is offset by the lower actual transport capability of the vehicle/driver.
    In the Seattle study, taxis were able to achieve 5 rides an hour citywide at peak – representing their peak capacity whereas ride shares barely could break the 2 rides per hour.

  21. The purpose of the military is to protect the country from foreign enemies (US Constitution). The climate is not a foreign enemy.

    The Obama regime is a clear-and-present danger to the military (and by extension the country) because vital resources are being squandered on just plain stupid policies that have virtually nothing to do with the mission of the US military.

  22. It totally sucks that eviro-whaacckko’s are running the EPA.
    From the article:

    The Supreme Court’s decision this week to halt President Obama’s sweeping climate change regulation for power plants is causing environmentalists and experts to wonder whether they need a backup plan.

    The Obama administration has repeatedly said, both before and after the judicial stay was ordered, that it does not have a Plan B if the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan gets overturned.

    Officials insist that a backup plan isn’t necessary because once the high court hears the case, it will find that the rule is well within the boundaries of the Clean Air Act and the Constitution.
    “We remain confident that when this is given its day in court, it’s going to be upheld on the merits,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters.

    “Plan A’s a good one, and I don’t want anyone to think it isn’t,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in January.

    But the unexpected move by the Supreme Court nonetheless caused a jolt among environmentalists, reminding them that the nine justices at the Supreme Court might interpret the law differently than they do.

    “The Supreme Court took unprecedented action, so of course it makes everyone pause and reevaluate,” said John Coequyt, global climate policy director for the Sierra Club.


  23. Tony, the folly and downright stoopidity of Obama & Co.’s Iraq-Syria-Libya-Arab Spring-Iran nuclear…. policy is enormous and almost unfathomable. Whose side is this guy on? Seriously.

    I just read the Info Wars story and the one from politifacts you cited. There is a good amount of judgemental editorializing in the Info Wars piece, but they don’t pretend to be reporting straight news. Politifact attempts to hide their bias and their editorializing. The Info Wars account contains all the relevant facts. The major difference is that Info Wars points out that Obama only took the ISIS oil business seriously, after the Russians shamed him by bombing the crap out of the oil-truck pipeline to our allies in Turkey.

    • Don

      Obama has been virtually invisible over the last eight years as the leader of the western world, perhaps he didn’t get the memo explaining his responsibilities?

      It’s the Russians who are making all the running and there will also be some quiet diplomacy from the Pope and the Russian Orthodox church leader. Fascinating that this is th first meeting of those incumbents in a thousand years.

      They realise the seriousness of the savage dismantling of the western heritage in Syria and iraq and the butchering of Christians. How can any leader stand by and see such places as palmyra wiped off the map. Obama has been sitting on his hands and control has slipped from his grasp.

      Will hilary be any better? Her record is not good but She seems the most likely next President notwithstanding your fondness for Trump. I do agree though that he would stand up for The US and the west better than the current incumbent and hilary. But a President? I don’t see it.


      • Tony, the Peronista Pope and the Cyrillic Pope will have about zero influence over what happens to Christians in Syria and other Islamic lands where they are being persecuted.

        Putin is running the show now and the purpose of his intervention is to further his own Neo-Stalinist self-aggrandizing Neo-Soviet aspirations. KGB Putin doesn’t care what happens to the Christian ants or the Muslim ants on the ground, as long as he wins.

        It didn’t take very long for his WWII style city busting area bombing to have a profound effect on the fighting. The Sukhois don’t return from sorties with bombs still hanging from their wings due to environmental concerns, or collateral damage niceties.

        I am not fond of Trump. If he falls apart, which seems less likely every day, I will get behind somebody else.

        I didn’t give Trump much thought, until he purposefully and boldly made himself the center of attention. Call me old fashioned, but I am impressed by competence, audacity, confidence and determination. And $BILLION$ available for self-financed campaign.

        I started to take him seriously and paid attention to what he actually said and the reactions of the folks, instead of being swayed by the hysterical knee-jerk attacks from the political left including the mainstream media, from his squeamish squealing primary competitors and the limp Republican establishment. Trump is rolling over all of them.

        Go to youtube and watch The Donald deliver “the speech” to a crowd of tens of thousands. He is packing them in and winding them up. All kinds of people. He is pushing the right buttons.

        Hillary Clinton has big advantages and even bigger problems. Some of her perceived advantages are problems. Her vast experience is a story of mediocrity, lies and bumbling. Anybody who has ever had a security clearance knows that she is guilty of national security negligence, at the least. I know for sure that the FBI wants to drop the hammer on her.

        If I had to make a big bet now, I would put the money on Trump to win it all. But he is not asking me for money. That’s what I like most about that bombastic rude little rich rascal. (He will start smoothing out his style and polishing up his act for the general election.)

      • Given the doubts floating around Trump’s allegiance, I think Hillary (or maybe Obama or Pelosi) should make a public statement that Trump is not planted by the Democrats. That should do it for Trump.

      • Little yimmy is panicking. Canada is not so bad, yimmy. Willito will sponsor you.

      • Eventually the billionaire donors will figure out that Trump lives for money and all they have to do is collaborate to buy him out, and he will leave quietly and happily with an extra billion or so to his name. If that happens, you heard it here first.

      • You are delusional, yimmy.

      • Trump would be the delusional one, as would be his supporters. He can and should be paid to step down. That’s the best play the donors like the Kochs have at this point because their campaign money goes to waste while Trump stays in the lead.

      • What planet do you come from, yimmy? Tell the truth this time. We won’t turn you in. Swear. Anyway, it’s catch and release, until next year under The Donald rules.

      • Don

        There is very little I would disagree with in your response except the zero influence. This is a once in a thousand year meeting. The Russian orthodox leader has the ear of Putin who himself is a catholic (of sorts) and sees himself as the spiritual successor to the Holy Roman Emperor.


        Obviously the Catholic Herald has a bias but the basic story has appeared in other outlets. As leader of 1.3 billion catholics the Pope directly or indirectly has the ear of a lot of powerful and influential people. So quiet diplomacy is the key word but it is undoubtedly going on and I would lay greater money on its effectiveness in due course than Obamas efforts.

        The US has the opportunity to seize back the agenda but I doubt it will under the current incumbent or Hilary Clinton. Trump would get involved but I have no idea of the position of the other Republican candidates on this matter.


      • Actually, I said “about zero”. Come on Tony, Putin isn’t religious. He is using the Church to manipulate the congregation. Purely political power stuff. Oldest trick in the book.

        Putin is a murdering KGB heathen and if we ever find out how much he has siphoned from the Russian economy, he will very likely be recognized as the biggest plunderer in history.

        If the Cyrillic Pope had any influence with Putin, he had it before this historic meeting with the Peronista Pope. Putin is going to do what Putin feels like doing, unless somebody stops him with really painful economic sanctions that will cause domestic chaos, or the application of actual force or a credible threat of force.

        I don’t see the prospects for any of that as being very likely from any of the current Pres. candidates. Hilly&billy can try that reset button thing, again. Bernie could tell Putin about his uplifting honeymoon in the good ole USSR. He must have slides. Some Republicans sound firmer than our current wimp in chief, but I wonder if they would take the risks and walk the walk. I don’t think they can expect to get our “allies” to get on board with decisive action. Hell, we don’t do anything decisive against North Korea, Iran, ISIS, and other outlaw gangs. Don’t get your hopes up on the spiritual guys with the pointy hats and the quiet diplomacy.

        An Isreali special ops friend of mine gave me a T-shirt years ago that I still have. Silk screen of Uzi with the caption:


      • Don

        The old adage ‘talk softly and carry a big stick’ hardly applies to Putin, he is much more suited to that T shirt. Sadly the current US president only seems interested in the first part of that adage. Perhaps he doesn’t like Sticks? I suspect Trump would. Or at least he would know the purpose of a stick.

        At the moment Putin is doing all the running with the two pointy hat guys quietly whispering to the crowd.


    • Mr Monfort
      I’m it sounds that you got Vladimir Putin wrong there.
      He needs a naval base in Mediterranean, his big hope was Montenegro (you probably never heard of it), but the nano-state is about to join the NATO (if referendum is affirmative). Russians have already declared it as a hostile act, when the NATO sent the invitation to MN to join. Siria is not a best solution, but there is no alternative, but why get involved in horrible warfare going on there?
      Oil price fall has ruinous consequences for Russian economy, but if country is at war the falling ‘standard of living’ protestations of the plebs on streets of Moscow may sound just a touch unpatriotic. As far as sanctions are concerned, contrary to the general opinion, at this moment in time they are working in the Russian favour, but that is another story.

      • Vuk

        Putin, amongst many other leaders, political and in the realm of climate, are well aware of menckens adage as a cloak for their activities

        ‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
        H. L. Mencken’


      • You are confused, vukey. None of what you said is inconsistent with what I said.

        Maybe you could point out where I mentioned or implied anything contrary to Putin wanting a port in the Med., settling for Syria, current sanctions, oil price, Montenegro in NATO..blah..blah

        I spent some time at NATO HQ, so I am actually familiar with the acronym and the operation of the organization. Been to Montenegro, when it was part of FRY. Got that T-shirt. Nice women.

        Don’t you have some sunspots to count? Are you an iron core kind of guy, vu-kookie?

      • Mr. Monfort
        Tank you for your kind note. The well intentioned Americans or Russians are always welcome in MN.
        with best regards

      • “Tank” me? Freudian slip?

        You’re OK. Peace and happiness to Montenegro.

  24. This week’s Week in Review – policy just missed Sheldon Whitehouse’s tin foil hat speech:

    • Puts Naomi in a snarky mood:

    • Scalia was a great man, and gave much of his life in service to his country. Hats off. May he rest in peace. My personal thanks for his service.
      It’s up to ‘the President’ to appoint his successor. Then up to the Senate to ratify, or reject. Timing does not come in to play. I cannot imagine the Honorable Judge Scalia would want it to work out otherwise as the business of the country is more important than any one person. Ties do not move things forward. (Note: no suggestion made here as to the preferred replacement.) http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987116/scalia-supreme-court-tie
      The SUPREME Court is in place to rule above the lower courts.
      “One of the Court’s functions is to establish uniformity of Federal law across the country by resolving conflicts between decisions of different lower courts. National Crisis Unlikely

      That function is impeded when the Court deadlocks 4 to 4, a situation that can also occur when a justice disqualifies himself because of a conflict of interest. Any conflicts on the legal issues among lower court rulings in different cases are left unresolved until another case raising similar issues come along.” http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/05/us/tie-vote-what-happens.html

      • The Supreme Court has been a political football since Roosevelt. This, in the end, throws the entire future of the country into the hands of the 2016 elections.

        Unless, of course, the current president declares a National Emergency and cancels the elections. In which case, there’s a tied Supreme Court to fail to overrule him.

      • I think you underestimate Scalia’s intelligence and commitment to the Constitution, Danny. He knew the score better than anyone else.

        No reason for the Republicans to approve another Obama nomination of another Justice who will reliably vote based on “progressive” ideology. Bork anybody Obama sends up. They will all be handpicked to protect and extend the Chosen One’s ignominious usurper legacy. This is a chance for the people to have a say in the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. In the meantime, 4 to 4 will do just fine.

      • Don,
        I no way do I underestimate Scalia. He was brilliant.
        But I don’t expect there to be a meeting of the minds on this one. “The people” did make a choice, he’s in office now and has a right/obligation to make a nominee. Also, “the people” have voted in to office a group of folks in to the senate. They have their own obligations/rights. My perception is your ‘belief’ is that a republican will hold the office of president next January. This may be so, but may not. Also, there are a number of senatorial seats up for reelection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016).
        You may not get what you wish for. The senate is the decider. Indeed, they can hold things off but that’s not a reason for a candidate to not be nominated. And as the decider, the current orientation is known and the futures’ cannot be.
        Obama can put up a nominee, and it’s the job of the senate to ratify or reject. It’s how the process works.
        We have sufficient stagnation in our system as it is. Why inject more?

      • If it looks like the Senate will try to delay things, and McConnell has tipped his hand already on that, there is the option of a temporary recess appointment to fill the seat until an appointment is approved.

      • Recess appointment ain’t gonna happen. Congress will surely hold pro forma sessions till the election. SCOTUS has already disallowed appointments during three day recesses.
        Have not been able to discover what would occur with cases with current stays (I.E. EPA). “Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay” (does this stand if one of the five passes away?) http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1
        Fully expect the senate to delay, but that is no reason for the sitting president to not fulfill his constitutional obligation.

      • Try to pay attention to what I actually said, Danny. I don’t care if Obama sends up a reliable “progressive” ideologue for nomination. I expect him to. I said to Bork any and all Obama “progressive” minions. Obama will not send anybody that can not be trusted to do his bidding and vote the party-line. It’s the prerogative of the Senate to approve or disapprove. If the folks don’t like 4 to 4 for the time being, they can express their displeasure with the Senate when they VOTE. I am guessing they are not happy with the Obama usurper. Let the people vote on this one.

        Little yimmy is dreaming of a recess appointment. Been tried recently, yimmy. Court slapped down the kang.

      • Maybe we do agree then Don. But don’t I recall you saying: “Need to put this off till new management in WH.”? Impression was you wanted Obama to not nominate. I should have asked to clarify.

      • Don,
        Someone else was thinking like I was, but have to give the h/t to WUWT for finding the article: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/scalia-death-how-will-the-supreme-court-change-219256
        For your consumption.

      • The current recess ends Feb 22nd, so they need to dash back quick if they want to stop him.

      • JimD,
        Only one need ‘dash’ back: Pro Forma–While any Senator or Representative present can open and preside over a pro forma session, the attendance of other members is not required. Indeed, most pro forma sessions are conducted before nearly empty chambers of Congress.
        Think anyone lives in D.C.?

      • That would be an act of desperation, but I guess they would be desperate.

      • Precedent can come back to bitcha Jim: ” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented any further recess appointments. Bush promised not to make any during the August recess that year, but no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007. As a result, Reid did not allow adjournments of more than three days from then until the end of the Bush presidency by holding pro forma sessions.[15][16]”

        Desperation isn’t a good look for anyone, is it?

      • I bet the Republicans were saying it was immoral back then.

      • Jim D,
        It goes back further, so the response to your comment would have to be (based on the evidence) likely not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule

      • Obama never does what I would want him to do, Danny. I wonder what would make you think I would expect, hope, or even dream that he would not nominate somebody, no matter how futile the attempt.

      • You are desperate, disingenuous, and delusional.
        Really making a spectacle of yourself here, yimmy. The Senate controls the process, on this one. Eat your little chicken heart out.

      • One of the most likely nominees was approved 97 to 0 the first time Obama nominated him to the bench, so right now there are at most three senators who did not vote for him the first time, and none who voted against him.

      • The Republican Senators would have to be crazy to give this lamest duck community organizing Constitution buster the SC Justice he wants. He should start sending them in, 3 at a time. Line em up and Bork them all. Elections have consequences. Congress got some powers too.

  25. Just finished watching RAUCOUS Republican Presidential debate. The pundits seem to think Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio were the winners. Bad nite for Trump

    • I didn’t watch. My guess is the pundits are going to be ignored by the masses.

    • Trump insisted on blaming W for 9/11 instead of Bill Clinton, and blaming W for Iraq instead of Obama. That didn’t fly in that crowd.

    • Some in the audience were hand picked by the (establishment) RNC. From the article:

      Groover said the Republican National Committee gives a lot of tickets to supporters. He said more are then allocated for the state party to distribute among the county chairs.

      “I didn’t have hundreds of tickets. I had a couple of dozen tickets,” said Groover.

      Groover said he gave tickets to supporters, including elected officials, who work hard for the party.

      “You’ll have a good mix of people who are donors, people who are donors and workers, and people who are just workers,” said Groover.


    • From the article:

      LEXINGTON, Va. — A gymnasium full of college students here on Saturday did what a former Republican Party chairman, a former vice president and a former speaker of the House who addressed their mock convention would not: predict the Republican nominee for president.

      And they did so with bravado, perhaps characteristic of their nominee, predicting that Donald J. Trump, the business tycoon who has never held elected office, would win the Republican nomination with more than twice as many delegates as the runner-up, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

      For a political culture awash with polls and punditry, the mock convention at Washington and Lee University offers one of the most meticulous and intriguing predictions of its kind, having successfully forecast the nominee of the party not in the White House in 19 of 25 attempts, including all but two since 1948.


    • Trump did a great job getting Bernie Sanders votes tonight and making the republican party look act like whinging yentas. The republicans are not smart enough to nominate John Kasich, the only adult on the dais.

    • Trump is carving a different slice from the electorate. He is more to the Left than most of his supporters know. Increasing taxes has always been a no no in the primaries. His base gives him a pass because he gives the middle finger to establishment Republicans who have disappointed much of the right. He hits the sweet spot for many blue collar men, including Reagan Democrats from years ago. They believe they have been getting the shaft for decades as Manufacturing jobs as a % of workforce has been declining since 1944. Union membership in private sector has dropped since 1955. Labor Force participation rates among men have dropped since 1948. A lot of men feel under siege, culturally and economically. Trump taps into that anger. He can say things and have positions that would have deep sixed any other Republican in years past. No more. His supporters love him precisely because he is so unPC and anti-establishment.

  26. Venezuela sits on top of billions of barrels of oil, yet … from the article:

    Caracas (AFP) – Venezuelans are accustomed to severe shortages of cooking oil, diapers and other staple products. But those hoping to buy what they could find got a new unpleasant surprise this week.

    They found malls dark and shuttered under a government electricity rationing regime.

    “This is madness, this is not the solution!” said Nataly Orta, 48, at the locked gate of the Lider mall in eastern Caracas.

    “It’s a drastic measure that will only create more unemployment and worsen an economy already in crisis.”

    Authorities ordered more than 250 shopping centers to find other sources of power from 1:00 to 3:00 pm and again from 7:00 to 9:00 pm, for the next three months.


  27. A comment dropped into the moderation bin.

  28. “Who politicized the environment and climate change?”

    A Swedish socialist and his cohort.
    European socialists are at the core of this scam. It is a scam, to force socialist ideals on the world. The “science” is the driver.

    Now this culture drives itself.

    Obama (socialist) and the Head of the Paris summit (another socialist) agreed to make it non binding to bypass democracy. (classic socialist thinking)

    This scam is a leftist authoritarian movement. Intellectual bean counters and the banks want the new economy after taking all of the money, then taking all of ours via bailouts.

    The banks are still mostly risk with no way out of the mess they created. Especially true in Europe. This new economy is essential for them. Add to that the line of rich entrepreneur quangos waiting for massive subsidies to float their ventures.

    Gore literally scraped the algae from this cash cow and made 200m

    Pachauri, look at his contacts and history, oil banks renewable..

    This is nothing but a socialist driven fraud.

    Now I have no problem with a socialist society, but I have every issue with the socialist top down authoritarian politics, because they want a dystopian future, not for them, for everyone else.

    In their eyes everyone must be austere and closely watched to make sure they are being good socialists. The socialist technocracy has arrived.

    Plus the EU imports hundreds of billions worth of energy from outside, they want to change that.

    This is the biggest scam to face humanity and it has utterly destroyed the reputation of the scientific community in the eyes of so many people.

    Thankfully there have been the few to remain true to the science, like Bob Carter amongst others.

    History will remember Schmidt Mann and Karl for what they are, self delusional individuals with massive egos and 0 integrity