TRUMP: "I am especially proud to be the first president in decades who has started no new wars."
Marc Morano: Thank you, Mr. President! You have achieved what few Presidents have when it comes to securing the U.S.'s national security. Your energy policies contributed greatly to achieving no new wars. Previous Presidents paid lip service to "energy independence" but during your administration, you not only achieved it, but you also went one step better -- you presided over an American energy renaissance that led to U.S. energy dominance!
In 2019, “U.S. energy exports exceeded imports for the first time since 1952,” the EIA reported. The EIA also reported, “In 2019, U.S. energy production exceeded energy consumption for the first time since 1957,” when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president. Trump's energy achievements were so off the charts that the last time the U.S. saw this kind of energy dominance was when Harry S. Truman was president in 1952!
Senator Manchin's 2010 campaign ad shotting Cap-and-Trade bill.
The senator who once put a bullet through the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill for a campaign ad will become an even more important gatekeeper on climate change this year. West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin will take over the Energy and Natural Resources Committee as soon as next week as his party promises to push increasingly ambitious ideas against global warming.
Manchin: "I am an all-in energy person. I want to use all the resources we have. My first and foremost thing on this Energy Committee is to do everything I can to maintain energy independence in the United States of America...I think Joe Biden understands that there is going to be fracking in this country if we are to be energy independent, and there is a better, cleaner way of doing it."
Morano: "It is amazing to me that everyone here believes that you can legislate in Pennsylvania -- a better climate by raising energy costs harming yourself economically, and turning over energy decisions to politicians lobbyists and activists who are going to join up with other states and try to dictate Pennsylvania energy policy."
"And this is the key, Pennsylvania has been the energy success story of America, you have led the way in our CO2 reductions if you really cared about CO2 reductions you would be embracing your fracking revolution you would be embracing Pennsylvania's energy legacy instead you're turning it over to a cap and trade carbon taxation scheme that's going to raise the cost of energy for Pennsylvania's have no impact not only on the weather, but it couldn't they won't even impact global CO2 levels in any way shape or form."
"We hear people like John Kerry and others warning of this national security threat of climate change, well what security dread is going to be, then to shoot ourselves and our own foot by hampering domestic energy production in Pennsylvania leading the way with fracking. What's that gonna mean we're going to rely on foreign sources of energy, we're going to have to go back to fighting Middle East wars to get oil and energy when there's no reason to when we're energy dominant for the first time since Harry Truman was president."
Rupert Darwall: Before Trump, Republicans were losing the energy war by not fighting it. “Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil,” President George W. Bush declared in January 2008. The transition from the Bush to the Obama presidency was well-nigh seamless in this regard. “We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy,” President Obama said in his first address to Congress.
“The last debate, I thought, was very good and focused everything. And you can see from the debate, that this is a very clear choice.
“Biden's campaign is terrified at the moment, because you have Ohio, Pennsylvania, all these energy producers, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan — all these states that rely on the energy economy... the campaign is terrified he'll be painted as an AOC squad member [like] Bernie Sanders.”
Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, and Narendra Modi will apparently gather in the Netherlands. There, along with Bill Gates, UN head Antonio Guterres, and personnel associated with the European Union, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, they’ll attend a climate summit hosted by the Global Center on Adaptation. ...
We’re told this summit "will launch a comprehensive Adaptation Action Agenda to kick start a transformational decade."
Donna Laframboise: "The chutzpah is astonishing. The global economy is in tatters. Billions face an uncertain future. Health care workers are exhausted. Yet this Clique of Self-Important People™ is full speed ahead, determined to impose its climate vision on the rest of us."
In the last 500 years only some 80 mammals are recorded as having gone extinct. In his book, More From Less, Andrew McAfee, a board member of HumanProgress.org, discusses how relatively rare recorded extinctions are – with some 530 across all species in the last five centuries. More importantly, he notes, the rate of extinction “appear[s] to have slowed down in recent decades; for example, no marine creatures have been recorded as extinct in the last fifty years.”
Matt Ridley, another board member and frequent contributor to this site, argues that despite the human population doubling in the last half-century, “the extinction rate of wild species, especially in the most industrialized countries,” seems to have fallen rather than increased. While absence of evidence isn’t the same as evidence of absence, and there might be millions of unrecorded species in the world’s oceans and tropical forests, the most aggressive claims rest on shaky foundations.
CNN: Jon Aars, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Polar Institute: "Polar bears are optimistic animals," Aars says. "It seems that they are quite resistant, and they are doing quite well despite the fact that they've lost a lot of their habitat." Despite the odds, Svalbard's polar bear numbers do not appear to have decreased in the last 20 years, he says.
Hulme: "January 12021, a new World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) climatological standard normal came into effect. The ‘present-day’ climate will now formally be represented by the meteorological statistics of the period 1991-2020, replacing those from 1961-1990. National Meteorological Agencies in member states are instructed to issue new standard normals for observing stations and for associated climatological products. Climate will ‘change’, one might say, in an instant; today, the world’s climate has ‘suddenly’ become nearly 0.5°C warmer. It is somewhat equivalent to re-setting Universal Time or adjusting the exact definition of a metre." ...
"So, what is the significance of the move to a new 1991-2020 WMO normal in January 2021? On the one hand, it is a pragmatic move to redefine ‘present-day’ climate for operational applications to that of the most recent 30-year period. On the other hand, it puts into play a third climatic baseline. Already existing is the ‘pre-industrial’ climate of the late nineteenth century and the ‘historic’ climate’ of 1961-1990, the latter about 0.3°C warmer than the former. And now there is the new ‘present-day’ climate of 1991-2020, in turn about 0.5°C warmer than the ‘historic climate’ of 1961-1990." ...
"Combining a climatic tolerance of 2°C—or indeed 1.5°C—with a pre-industrial baseline yields a very different climate target than, say, using a 1986-2005 baseline, the period widely adopted by IPCC AR5 Working Group I as their analytical baseline. The choices of both baseline and tolerance are politically charged. They carry significant implications for historic liability for emissions (La Rovere et al., 2002), for policy design (Millar et al., 2017) and for possible reparations (Roberts & Huq, 2015)."