The first indications of climate policy equivocation by the Trump Administration have appeared in the past week. It has also become clear that two members of the Trump family support the Climate-industrial Complex (CIC), as defined in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad. I had hoped for better, but this is not exactly unexpected. The CIC is an exceedingly well funded special interest trying to persuade the US Government to waste huge sums on a useless and damaging effort to “control climate change” primarily at the expense of lower income members of the population and the environment. Eradicating the CIC and its ideology is not an easy task, and the more equivocation the Administration shows the harder it will be.
Recent history shows this. My discussions with some of the political appointees at EPA convinced me that the George W. Bush Administration internally strongly opposed the CIC. But everyone from Bush on down played a very careful game of publicly trying to camouflage their views. This avoided a public fight with the CIC but fooled no one, of course, and contributed to the climate disaster during the Obama Administration by failing to deligitimize the CIC ideology; as a result, the Obama Administration was able to rapidly breathe new life into the CIC and did not miss any opportunity to support it both rhetorically and financially.
The Importance of the Long Term Demise of the CIC and Its Ideology
Although the Democratic Party’s capture by the CIC may result in long term problems for the Party, the Trump Administration has at most 8 years in office, and possibly only 4. And the last 2 of these 4 years they may or may not have a friendly Congress. If the CIC is not to regain its influence after its defeat in the 2016 election, someone who can be heard through the mainstream media (MSM) filter has to speak out forcefully during the short period that the CIC opposition may have to avoid the catastrophe that a CIC climate victory would constitute for both the US economy and the environment. A brave band of climate skeptics have done great service, but they have been handicapped by strong MSM opposition in getting their views heard through the MSM and the Democratic Party. What is needed is forceful statements by the Trump Administration as to what is wrong with the CIC ideology and actions to at least implement all of Trump’s campaign promises concerning climate, such as withdrawing the US from the so-called Paris Treaty.
The alleged internal sabotage of Trump’s stated intention to end US participation in the so-called Paris treaty by Mr. and Mrs. Kushner may prove to be a major loss to the skeptic cause, but attempts to hide the anti-CIC viewpoint of the Trump Administration will do even more damage, just as it did during the G.W. Bush Administration.
The first indications of the Trump Administration on this issue are not what I had hoped. EPA Administrator Pruitt, for example, was very careful to hedge his real views on the CIC even at a recent friendly conservative meeting. This may reduce the current conflict slightly but will not win the war. Even the major defeat of the CIC in the 2016 election will by no means finish off the CIC. Public statements by Administration spokespersons who can get press coverage opposing the CIC’s ideology would help a great deal since many aspects of the skeptic case are unknown to readers of/listeners to the very biased MSM on this issue.
I have not read his book, but Dr. Carlin seems like a genuine scientist. It’s how his mind must work. Accordingly he would recommend a scientific finding that climate change is false or at least grossly exaggerated or its uncertainties preposterously unacknowledged. This redounds to carlins credit. His recommendation is by no means wrong. It is what has been missing from the National Academy if Science, to its dishonor.
I instead think of this as a political problem rather than scientific. The science is ill founded, but the left does not care. They are using the claim of having profound scientific consensus to justify huge taxes and massive international government collaboration.
A problem for the Democrats is that this Al Gore led theology leads them no where useful. It only leads toward more taxes, debt, impoverishment, and reduced US prosperity. These intrinsic bitter yields will not make voters happy. So climate change theology contains the seeds of its own failure. it cannot thrive within a democracy.
It is merely a political agenda, not truly scientifically supported. It relies on bad science charitably or on fraudulent science or on the human follies that can beset groups of scientists who act like lemmings and conform to the wishes of King Gore.
I began to worry with President Trumps stand on the Paris agreement when I heard his daughter and her husband invited Al Gore to meet with President Trump. Last week I wrote President Trump when the WSJ wrote an opinion about wimping out on the Paris agreement encouraging him not to do it. I suggested he not do it in relation to what he promised us when he was running for President. Dr Carlin I included your paper on how bad the Paris Agreement and Dr. Franks video on why CO2 has little to do with either Global Warming or Climate change. I hope he reads and listens to both.
Then the news broke on President Trumps daughter and husband eliminating his comments in one of his speeches about the Paris Agreement. I then wrote President Trump a second letter and asked him to have his daughter and son in law review the material we sent to him.
I encourage each of us to flood the White house with letters asking The President to live up his commitment he made to us who voted for him.
You might include copies to the EPA administrator Mr. Pruitt and to Energy Secretary Perry
.
Appoint Somebody like ken cucinelli as a special prosecutor to investigate fraud by scientists and the fake news media. Look at their relationships. Get every email ever sent by climate change reporters for the New York Times. Look at who has invested in and propped up the long failing New York Times. Why is Carlos slim of Mexico investing in the times? does he oppose the United States building a wall to protect its border integrity?
The climate change fraud is the greatest hoax ever, because the hoaxers include the mainstream media. Without corrupt media champions, the bubble pops. Climate change is not real science. it is carefully orchestrated fraud and should be treated appropriately for what it is.
in the long run the epic farce and folly of climate change nonsense will become more widely appreciated, despite the best efforts of the New York Times.
Climate change is an intrinsically false theology and narrative. It will punish politically as it did during the last election. Most people could care less about climate change and the claims of intellectuals. Trump called it BS. He had that right.
Maybe it is smart politically if republicans allow a little climate change to remain. If climate change is destroyed this could liberate the democrats from the yoke of al gore. For the Left to be encumbered by supporting the political folly of climate change theology will facilitate more election thrashings in future. Sweet!
I like the idea of a criminal investigation for some practitioners of fraudulent science. the person should be clearly suspect of some malfeasance that the public can discern. Like dropping data plus taking millions of dollars in grants. convict the miscreants of a crime and this hurts the climate change credibility.
It achieves good outcomes, but politicians are spared disproving a religious faith.
Start with congressional hearings about dubious climate change science. Then congress can decide whether to recommend any climate scientists for prosecution. Question Michael Mann And other chumps in hearings. Refer the most convictable to the attorney general.
We are each processing the thinking of the kushners.
I am ok with the President respecting members of his family. The family is a smaller entity than a nation, but valuable too. They have grown up in liberal New York and they have not had your education and experience.