After Trump Re-elected, Media Expects Climate Armageddon
Apparently the world is about to end following Donald Trump’s election win, so we thought we should say goodbye
In case you missed it, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States and the alarmist crowd has told us this time it’s over, for real.
The Guardian wailed:
“Trump has pledged to wage war on planet Earth – and it will take a progressive revolution to stop him”.
And Scientific Communism shriek-mails:
“A second Trump term will be devastating for curbing climate change: he has vowed to promote fossil fuels, weaken pollution regulations and reverse Biden administration climate efforts.”
Although just in case the world doesn’t end we at CDN plan to carry on, including reporting on why we weren’t surprised the climate emergency crisis thingy didn’t bring voters out to stop Trump.
As Roger Pielke Jr. put it, “There is no such thing as a ‘climate voter’”.
Robert Bryce chimed in that:
“While this race was about many things, one issue lurked throughout: climate policy.
And the results clearly show that the Democratic Party is woefully out of step with mainstream voters on energy and climate policy.”
Most Americans do not actually believe there’s a crisis, because all this supposedly worsening weather that sealed the deal for Kamala Harris was far more visible in the pages of the New York Times than outside their windows.
Which actually means that while the American government might throw less money at anyone claiming to be able to fix the weather with their magic beans, the net impact on the world of the change at the top of the Executive Branch will be less than “devastating”.
So they’ll keep whining, and we’ll keep rebutting their unreasonable claims.
Slightly less hysterical outlets took the same view. David Gelles in The New York Times “Climate Forward” lamented the morning after that:
“It’s perhaps an understatement to say that the election of Donald Trump will seriously complicate international efforts to combat climate change.”
Or, we add on substance as well as a general opposition to weasel words like perhaps, “Perhaps not” since they weren’t going anywhere anyway.
It’s a mark of just how vital the United States remains in world affairs that, The Australian notes:
“Anthony Albanese’s chief climate tsar has declared Australia’s ‘job’ to drive down emissions and power up a cleaner economy has become “even more urgent” following Donald Trump’s win”.
Though how exactly Australia could take up any of the supposed slack if Trump does indeed wage war on the Earth isn’t clear, especially since, that story immediately continued, “as the Prime Minister refuses to commit to a 2035 target before the federal election.”
Or, we imagine, have any idea how to hit one afterward should he win by concealing his radical and ill-advised aspirations.
Which brings us back to what really happened in the American election, on climate and beyond, and why the underlying economic and political realities suggest that Trump’s victory won’t really affect U.S. emissions because neither party could or would rein them in sharply.
In many non-Democratic people’s view, including many on the left, the Democrats’ obsession with climate helped prevent them from developing sensible economic policies that might again connect them with those at the bottom of society, formerly the “working classes”, that they think they represent as though it were 1934 not 2024.
But in our view this whole climate thing, including the notion we recently ridiculed of evangelicals for climate turning out for Harris in meaningful number, is part of a woke matrix that is deeply detached from the lived experience of most Americans, especially those who cannot afford luxury beliefs.
On election night NBC reported that according to their early exit polls:
“Asked to choose among five issues, 34 percent of voters said democracy mattered most to their votes, while 31 percent said the economy. Abortion (14 percent) and immigration (11 percent) ranked as the next-most-important issues, while just four percent named foreign policy.”
And what’s not on their list? Right. A whole new kind of don’t ask, don’t tell.
As for the impact of partisanship on results rather than rhetoric, we give the final word to Chris Martz, who wrote:
“Dear climate scientists,
🪶 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑑
𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝑁𝑒𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡
𝑂𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑂₂ 🪶”
And illustrated it with a chart of the “Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2” readings from 1987 to 2004, coded red with Republicans in the White House and blue with Democrats, showing an absolutely consistent upward line regardless.
See more here climatediscussionnexus
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Howdy
| #
Life as it is currently known on this planet has reached it’s limit. Trump is just one of the (visible) indications of that. It’s a movement that is increasing across the world, and one only need look to see it.
Have faith – things will go the way they are meant to go in spite of Humanity’s failings, though at a slow speed.
All part of the learning curve isn’t it…
Reply
VOWG
| #
The climate will change as it has changed for millions of years. The planet will revolve around the sun until doesn’t, and life in whatever form will continue until the planet is a cold dead dry rock like Mars.
Reply
Steve Titcombe
| #
Bur Mars has a lower Gravity than Earth and so couldn’t maintain it’s atmosphere.
Although Earth’s atmosphere has lost most of it’s Hydrogen and Helium over time, the rest of our original atmosphere has been unable to escape into space.
It was the ‘energy budget’ imbalance that was caused while the early Earth was establishing and lifting it’s atmosphere above the Earth’s surface that now accounts for the “33K difference”.
Now that Earth’s atmosphere has long been established, Earth’s ‘energy budget’ balance has been restored but now Earth’s atmosphere (but not specifically the LWIR-active gases within it) holds all of that ‘historically imbalanced’ energy and it is this energy (as as mostly kinetic energy at the near surface height whilst mostly gravitational potential energy at the tropopause) which keeps the average near surface temperature at 288K and it is the atmosphere which allows this kinetic energy to flow quickly from the ever-moving day-side to night side surface and hence reduce the temperature extremes across Earth’s surface.
Reply
VOWG
| #
There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine and the planet is no exception, a slight decrease in solar out put and we are kaput. There are countless ways that earth could become a dead planet.
Reply
Steve Titcombe
| #
Bur Mars has a lower Gravity than Earth and so couldn’t maintain it’s atmosphere.
Although Earth’s atmosphere has lost most of it’s Hydrogen and Helium over time, the rest of our original atmosphere has been unable to escape into space.
It was the ‘energy budget’ imbalance that was caused while the early Earth was establishing and lifting it’s atmosphere above the Earth’s surface that now accounts for the “33K difference”.
Now that Earth’s atmosphere has long been established, Earth’s ‘energy budget’ balance has been restored but now Earth’s atmosphere (but not specifically the LWIR-active gases within it) holds all of that ‘historically imbalanced’ energy and it is this energy (as as mostly kinetic energy at the near surface height whilst mostly gravitational potential energy at the tropopause) which keeps the average near surface temperature at 288K and it is the atmosphere which allows this kinetic energy to flow quickly from the ever-moving day-side to night side surface and hence reduce the temperature extremes across Earth’s surface.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Steve,
Venus has less mass than the Earth, has no magnetic field, is exposed to stronger solar winds and yet has an atmosphere 90+ times bigger than the Earth’s. The rotation of Venus makes daytime almost a year long (similar to arctic areas) and yet there is little temperature difference between day and night because of the high winds moving the atmosphere around the planet. I think you need to find an alternate explanation.
Herb.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy, Steve, VOWG, and Herb,
Herb, “you need to find an alternate explanation” and pay attention to the other comments. I haven’t yet read the article but I doubt Steve is commenting about what he learned from it beside that the article, with all its words, did not explain what he had already learned by his study. VOWG wrote “There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine” and that is correct but gas atoms and small molecules are in consta whtnt perpetual motion. Which is why the earth’s atmosphere is losing helium atoms and hydrogen molecules to space, or to Jupiter because its much greater mass (gravity). And from where did these gaseous helium and hydrogen come? From the very, very hot Sun which is being heated nuclear fusion which makes the larger and larger particles of the other elements.
I do not plan to begin reading the long, long article because I doubt so many words can be SIMPLE.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi guys and other readers,
I finally read the article and find that the article said nothing relative to the SCIENCE OF ATMOSPHERIC CLIMATE CHANGE which I considered your comments to be. And I could understand and agree with nearly everything which I read.
But let’s us keep discussing the SCIENCE which I considered your comments to be about; especially about what Steve wrote.
Have a good day
Reply