We all take note here of the Trump executive orders since his inauguration, and while I am not optimistic about Trump, welcome them nonetheless. He has removed us from the Paris Accords once again, and this time has gone after the endangerment finding, that goofy piece of agitation propaganda that set the stage for a host of administrative rulings shutting down fossil fuel activities that benefit all of us. In brief, that ruling says that CO2 is a pollutant. Such a grievous outcropping was the result of years of stage-setting by the people behind the climate change hoax. It was set in stone when a sitting president told an outrageous lie as follows: Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.
Obama tweeted that.
Presidents lie all the time – it’s right there on the job application: “Are you prepared to use all of the status and prestige of high office to tell egregious lies? If the answer is “Yes,” you have just a shot. If the answer is “YES!!!”, and you are young and handsome and well-spoken and able to control a forum, we’ll make you president. We’ll even dummy up a fake education and change your place of birth to make it happen. The job requires at its very soul a complete lack of character. Only exceptional criminals need apply.
Trump is no one’s savior. I doubt he’s even a billionaire. He made his living as a wrestling promoter, and why bother with that lowly profession if you’re sitting on a mountain of money? For some reason having to do with prescient knowledge of a possible future for us, his name appeared on buildings he most likely neither built nor owned. His tax returns were kept secret (if he even filed them). He’s not an honest man, nor one to fight a battle on principle. Like all presidents, he’s just an actor.
So why is he now taking on the climate change crowd? It is, I can assure you, neither principle nor scientific knowledge that advances his activities. It is something else, a change on high by powerful people who perhaps realize they have overplayed their hands.
It could be some insidious plan to advance the Climate Change cause by a more circuitous route. Perhaps they will come back at us through the courts, sealing our fate. One cannot know what evil lurks in the hearts of men, and we do not live in a constitutional republic. What do they call it when we are ruled by courts?
However, there is cause for rejoicing even as false leaders lead. Dr. Michael Mann has been taken down. Roger Pielke has summed it all up nicely on his Substack called The Honest Broker in a piece called “In Bad Faith“. That saves me a bunch of work, though I did set out to read the court documents. They go on and on, and knowing the conclusion, I skipped to the car chase.
Anyone who follows Climate Change knows that pundit Mark Steyn, along with a lesser one, Rand Simberg, lost a legal proceeding in a DC court wherein Mann was awarded $1 million in punitive damages for harm to his reputation. Such damages were supposedly caused by written words published by Steyn and and Simberg (the latter via National Review). The magazine was released from the lawsuit after expenditure of over one-half million in legal costs. Steyn fought on, and the jury verdict against him was so egregious that I thought surely the trial was the Sandy Hook of Climate Change, a show trial in a kangaroo court. I followed the proceedings, and while Steyn (needing better counsel) eloquently scored points in the verbal jousting, the final verdict, nonsensical, was a shot across the bow of science and jurisprudence. My heart sank that day, feeling that we cannot win even as we own the science, are of sound character, and are cognizant of facts.
Amazingly, on appeal, the same DC Court that heard the original case and verdict has ruled as follows:
- Mann’s award of $1 million is reduced to $5,000. Steyn’s lawyers sought that amount, knowing that a judge cannot overturn a jury award for damages, only amend it.
- Mann and his two attorneys were found guilty of supplying false evidence to the jury, exaggerating any damages Mann might have suffered at the hands of Steyn and Simberg. Mann has been ordered to reimburse all legal fees incurred by the defendants on the basis of this bad faith. Those fees easily exceed $500K for National Review, and god only know for Steyn and Simberg.
Huh? That don’t happen, not in my world. There is no justice in the justice system. What’s up, doc?
There are several possibilities, outlined above, but I’ll add another: Dr. Michael Mann is a bad actor, and hardly fit to be the poster child of the Climate Change movement. I cannot speak to his basic honesty beyond what is on display in the court’s ruling, but like Greta Thunberg, Time Magazine’s person of the year in 2019, they seem to want to slap us down, insult us, and inflict hopelessness upon us. Demoralization followed both that silly magazine cover and the court case. Now there’s been a reversal, a change of course.
But why? Well, for one small thing, they were losing. Most people don’t know what the IPCC is, and are only vaguely aware of planted stories about a “boiling” planet that fly in the face of a perceived reality. Even the least attentive drunk in a bar argument can see through such propaganda.
The IPCC sponsors climate models, over thirty of them, all wrong and even goofy in factual predictions, and yet these models are the basis for governments around the world formulating policies that harm humanity.
Will that change as a result of this open chastisement of some bad actors?
Probably not. It is just a change of course, I fear.
Piece of Mindful 
Meanwhile, the goal of “climate neutrality” until 2045 is being written into the GG, the law acting as German constitution. By the old parliament, after the election (!), democracy at work, abolishing itself, there is no necessary majority in the new parliament to undo the deed, and the constitutional court will ensure climate efforts in the future. There it is, the plan foreseen in the article.
Another tale, we just learned using justice for politics is not for everyone. A family judge has been senteced for perversion of justice because he protected children from mask mandates during the ‘rona times.
LikeLike
That is a baffling turnaround.. maybe it fits into the Mathis thesis about a planned fail of the left and effort to build up support for Trump/ MAGA. The horrible unfairness of the original Steyn verdict, maybe part of adding to general distaste for climate change activists – among conservatives and independents especially. Just like the art vandalism. But the Steyn affair probably only followed by news junkies and a minority of the public.
Anyway, all to drive sentiment to the right – now he’s in, so they can quietly(?) wave a wand and take down the stage sets.
LikeLike
The left is a planned fail followed by the right. All the time the wealthy are accidentally accruing more wealth and power. None of these scams are there to last forever. Most of the old religions are long gone, almost no one believes king’s are messengers of the god(s) anymore. All of the borders have been redrawn over and over. What is moral and immoral changes all the time.
Yes there are long term plans but they are all temporary. There can be scams just for income or things more long term.
The number one thing I’m watching is population growth, or lack of it. If the population doesn’t grow our Lord’s will probably want (need) to extract more from each individual (easily done for now, just move them slowly from inferior systems to superior ones, progressing well). But what comes next? Is there a guide set in stone somewhere proposing a limit to the numbers of ‘real people and Lord’s allowed’, not useless eaters. How many can there be above the peasants? 500 million perhaps, each feeding off of what 20-100 workers?
The size of the earth is limited and serious colonization of other lands seems as unlikely as colonisation of the great southern continent back in the 1600s
Im sure there are ideas out there, maybe even plans in place but I think it’s an interesting time.
LikeLike
All I know is there are millions and millions of rednecks they will have to kill off before they can seriously think about ending fossil fuels. And I’m betting millions of angry rednecks trumps a handful of ivory tower assholes. Being completely serious. Can you imagine if you actually tried to shut off the flow of gasoline from the pumps in America? It would many times worse than Mad Max.
So to the utopian dreamers who are trying to legislate climate change, I say good luck sucker. Because all those rednecks are heavily armed, well trained, and angry.
That’s why i don’t worry too much about this nonsense.
LikeLike
Well I guess those rednecks will just have to get with the program. Love it or leave it! lol
LikeLike
All these things have a slow and slightly frog-in-a-pan-of-water effect. They are not coming for our ICE’s just yet, but will make owning one less and less attractive. Vaccines, especially COVID, are impacting us, though there is no news on the subject. Population is trending the wrong way. These people think long-term, and I am a Montanan, fully cognizant of rednecks, as discouraged by the state of humanity as anyone. I’ve got a full sense of mixed emotions.
LikeLike
Adding – when I first read your headline and first line, I thought it was going to be a much wider ranging piece about what the tenor of his first months portend. I’m interested in both climate change and the Steyn case but, I have to admit, not nearly as much as I am in wondering about the bigger overall direction, and what the “true” narrative could be among all the false ones on offer…
I am more than usually at a loss to feel confident in my own interpretation, or general idea of the drift of things. I vacillate (and even oscillate) between wildly opposed and conflicting “narratives”.. who can say? Ab has posted some useful links to new (to me) voices – viz, Martin Vrijland and “Phoenician hunter.” But I can only add their worldviews as interesting hypotheses, I haven’t yet fully explored them or lived with them long enough to test and judge them.
Mathis has said little of late on the big picture of Trump 2, and admitted some befuddlement himself on one recent post. IPS, fakeologist chats, everyone goes on about as before without addressing what to me feels like a potentially new signal about the true underlying machinations. Of course one of my hypotheses is that all of that is shambolic and portends nothing much – but it’s not doing well in the betting pool at the moment.
all this to say, if anyone wants to write an article about THAT, I’m all ears (or eyes)
LikeLike
Mark, by the way thanks for staying on top of climate change. When I said I can’t take the climate changers seriously, it’s because they are so cult-like, and frankly stupid, that I its quite impossible to use reason with such people any longer. And also there is a large number of pragmatists still around that have no use for climate change policies. For example, the entire northeast of the USA would be uninhabitable, due to the need to use oil or lots of energy to heat the houses. I mean seriously, are we going to depopulate the entire northeast? At this point I don’t care, I am getting out of there soon enough. Just want to sell off my stake and leave.
LikeLike
Also, I left my first comment when i was out at a local watering hole, and there was a NASCAR race in the background. I went to a Nascar race once, a terrible experience because of breathing the exhaust fumes all day – wasn’t my choice, stupid girlfriend at the time.
Anyhow, as Miles has mentioned, if they were really serious about climate change wouldn’t they ban auto racing today? Even I have to say auto racing is incredibly boring and pointless, so whats the holdup? When they ban it I will take the climate-tards more seriously.
LikeLike