Close window | View original article
After Mr. Trump's well-advised withdrawing the United States from the ill-advised Paris climate change agreement, the New York Times made much of Mr. Trump's history of doubting all the apocalyptic warnings about the coming climate disaster. Ignoring the many predictions of disaster that haven't come true, the Times wrote:
As a businessman, President Trump was a frequent and scornful critic of the concept of climate change. In the years before running for president, he called it "nonexistent," "mythical" and a "a total con job." Whenever snow fell in New York, it seemed, he would mock the idea of global warming.
"Global warming has been proven to be a canard repeatedly over and over again," he wrote on Twitter in 2012. In another post later that year, he said, "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." A year later, he wrote that "global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!" ...
He cast it [his decision to withdraw] largely in economic terms, arguing that President Barack Obama agreed to a bad deal for Americans that would handcuff the economy and put the United States at a disadvantage against its international competitors.
Mr. Trump was certainly correct in saying that the deal as negotiated by Mr. Obama would put us at serious economic disadvantage; that's why European leaders were so upset when he said the United States wouldn't pay the billions of dollars Mr. Obama had promised. Indeed, the German car industry is already demanding that their government loosen environmental regulations or else they won't be able to compete with America:
"The regrettable announcement by the USA makes it inevitable that Europe must facilitate a cost efficient and economically feasible climate policy to remain internationally competitive," Matthias Wissmann, president of the German auto industry lobby group VDA, said in a statement on Friday.
"The preservation of our competitive position is the precondition for successful climate protection. This correlation is often underestimated," Wissmann said, adding that the decision by the Unites States was disappointing.
Translation: Kneecapping yourself only works if everybody does it.
Even while excoriating President Trump's decision, the German newspaper Der Spiegel states that German climate change programs have made electricity a "luxury good" whose costs fall disproportionately on the poor.
This year, German consumers will be forced to pay 20 billion euros ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over 3 billion euros. Even the figure of 20 billion euros is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit.
It's a total hoax, just as Mr. Trump said. German electricity users were promised that theyr sacrifices would help Save the Planet, but all this hugely expensive greenery is having the opposite effect that was promised suffering electricity users:
Germany's energy producers in 2012 actually released more climate-damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in 2011.
What a hoax! Mr. Trump is right about the economics of climate
change, as he made
clear in his speech, and as the reactions
of world
leaders unintentionally prove. What's fascinating is that he entirely avoided
the question of
whether climate change is real or caused by human activity.
Despite being hammered by the media ever since, his spokespersons have
also refused to express an opinion on this subject, which makes it
pretty much the only controversial subject our President declines to
discuss, on Twitter or otherwise.
So... what about the hoax? Is climate change, a.k.a "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW), a.k.a. whatever else they want to call it once the previous name attracts too much ridicule, a hoax? At this point, what difference does it make?
Given that Mr. Trump has decided to save our taxpayers billions of dollars by exiting this one-sided agreement, the precise details of his views of climate change don't matter. We thought it might be helpful, however, to explain how Mr. Trump approaches his Twitter account. One of the most useful things said about him during the campaign was, "His enemies take him literally but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously but not literally."
Consider his tweet about the Obama Administration wiretapping him. The media heaped ridicule on him, but they didn't understand that Mr. Trump was not saying that Mr. Obama had grabbed a toolbox, crawled into the basement of the Trump Tower, and personally attached wires to Mr. Trump's phone. He meant that the Obama administration's appointees in our intelligence agencies had spied on his people for political purposes.
At the time, Obama Administration holdovers were accusing Mr. Trump's campaign staff of colluding with the Russians to throw the election to Mr. Trump.
We've never understood why anyone would think Mr. Putin would lift a finger to elect Mr. Trump over Hillary. He knew that bribing Hillary to let a Russian company buy our uranium supply cost a mere half million dollars in speaking fees to Bill. Knowing he could easily meet her price and already had an established mutually beneficial relationship, why wouldn't he want her in charge?
In any case, the Democrats would not simultaneously argue the contradictory claims that the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russians and also that Obama had not wiretapped Mr. Trump's people - unless the MSM let them get away with it. It soon turned out that Susan Rice had indeed asked the NSA to fill in the name of an American who was recorded in a conversation with the Russian Ambassador. Mr. Obama lowered the classification level of this transcript so that it could be seen by many people in his outgoing administration. Sure enough, someone leaked this information and embarrassed Mr. Trump, just as the Obama administration had hoped.
On May 21, 2017, some of the first salvos in the ongoing investigation of Russian meddling in the US Election were revealed.
U.S. intelligence officials learned about contacts between President Donald Trump's campaign associates and Russian officials last year, sparking concerns that the Kremlin could try to cultivate people close to Mr. Trump, former CIA director John Brennan testified Tuesday.
Our spooks were concerned enough to involve the FBI - which means, by definition, that this sworn testimony shows that when Mr. Trump tweeted that the Obama administration was spying on him and his campaign staff, he was telling the straight, unvarnished truth. They really were, honest and truly - not that our MSM will ever admit it.
What's worse, it also shows that, just as the Obama administration illegally weaponized the IRS to attack Mr. Obama's political opponents, he and Susan Rice weaponized our intelligence agencies to attack Mr. Trump. This should worry anyone regardless of their political views.
Climate change itself is not a scam, as Mr. Trump and every other sane person knows very well. Climate has always changed - the Vikings ranched cattle in Greenland and there were vineyards and wineries in England when it was warmer than it is now, and any map which shows worldwide continental shelves will show that the sea level has gone up and down over time.
Fighting climate change the way our modern warmists want to force us to, as Mr. Trump said, is nothing but a taxpayer ripoff, a hoax, and a scam. Given how our elites have abused all the vast powers they've already been given, what sane person would want to let them put a chokehold on our entire economy? Choosing another path is absolutely required if we're ever to have a chance to "Make America Great Again."