Conservatives Must Strongly Support Trump On Climate Change

by Tom Harris

Donald Trump Wins
Conservatives Must Strongly Support Trump On Climate Change
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

USA –  -(  President-elect Donald Trump’s opposition to the global warming alarm is a refreshing change from the Obama administration’s naïve and hugely expensive crusade to lead the world to ‘save the climate.”

Not only has Trump been right on the money in his descriptions of the sub-prime science underlying the scare. He also clearly understands that there is little chance the developing world, the source of most of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions, will follow the US lead anyway, as it strives to lift billions out of poverty.

These nations don’t even have to. There is an “out” clause for developing countries in the United Nations treaty on which the Paris Agreement is based.

Trump has started out well. First, he appointed Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and chair of the Cooler Heads Coalition, to head up the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team.

Climate Deniers Wanted
As one of the ‘climate criminals’ targeted by activists in wanted posters across Paris during the December 2015 UN climate conference, Ebell is no stranger to controversy.

As one of the ‘climate criminals’ targeted by activists in wanted posters across Paris during the December 2015 UN climate conference, Ebell is no stranger to controversy. He has faced up to aggressive global warming campaigners for years on television and radio, in newspapers and public presentations, and in his advocacy for solid science and affordable, plentiful, reliable energy.

Next, Trump selected Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to run the EPA. Like Ebell, Pruitt is a climate realist.

He wrote in the National Review in May of this year, “Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged – in classrooms, public forums and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.”

Climate activists are outraged that such people will now have significant influence over America’s, and indeed the world’s climate, environment and energy policies.

Craig Rucker, Executive Director of the Washington DC-based Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, sums up the reaction to Trump’s appointments: “The sheer panic and harsh criticism emanating from the Left, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, only validates that he must be ‘saying and doing all the right things.’’

Despite listening to people from across the political spectrum on these issues, even meeting with former Vice-President Al Gore on Tuesday, it seems unlikely that Trump will change his mind on climate change. Yet, conservatives cannot afford to withdraw from the fight and simply assume that things will continue to go their way after Inauguration Day.

After all, Trump has not been a consistent opponent of global warming hysteria over the years. He was a registered Democrat from 2001 to 2008, and a major donor to the Clinton Foundation, which identifies climate change as its first “issue area.”

In 2009, Trump, along with Ivanka, Donald Junior and Eric Trump, signed an open letter to President Obama and Congress supporting “measures to control climate change,” even though doing so is a physical impossibility.

The letter, published in the New York Times December 6, 2009, implored:

“Please don’t postpone the Earth. If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”

So, like former Canadian prime Minister Stephen Harper, who campaigned for office as a climate skeptic, but changed sides after being elected, Trump could end up again supporting climate alarmism if realists don’t strongly support his current policies … and hold his feet to the fire if he waivers.

Already, climate activists and their allies in the scientific community are working hard to change Trump’s mind on global warming:

November 17: An open letter signed by thousands of women scientists was released.

They claimed to fear that “scientific progress and momentum in tackling our biggest challenges, including staving off the worst impacts of climate change, will be severely hindered under this next U.S. administration. Our planet cannot afford to lose any time.”

Yet, the 2013 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) cited hundreds of research papers published in leading science journals, demonstrating that today’s climate change is nothing to fear. In particular, they concluded that “neither the rate nor magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lies outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history.”

Current climate change is so slow – 1.5 degrees between 1880 and 2012, according to the United Nations – that we have plenty of time to properly consider alternative points of view on this complex topic.

November 30: The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released an open letter it had coordinated to Trump and Congress. The 2,300 scientist endorsers worried that, without adequate research resources, “we will be less prepared to limit the impacts of increasing extreme weather.”

This too is misleading.

As the NIPCC report explained: “The commonly held perception that twentieth century warming was accompanied by an increase in extreme weather events is a misconception fostered by excessive media attention, and has no basis in facts.”

December 6: Over 800 energy and earth science researchers signed another open letter to Trump, urging him to “take immediate and sustained action against human-caused climate change.”

The letter is riddled with mistakes. Besides the UCS extreme weather blunder, they erroneously labelled plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide as “carbon pollution.” They claim the science backing the scare is “unequivocal,” a claim that is irrational in any scientific endeavor and especially one this immature.

They said that “virtually all climate scientists” disagree with Trump, an assertion easily disproved by the NIPCC reports; dozens of open letters and other documents endorsed by leading climate experts; former space scientists, engineers and astronauts with The Right Climate Stuff group; and a statement by 31,487 American scientists expressing extreme doubt about manmade climate cataclysms.

The Global Dangers of Trump’s Climate Denial
The Global Dangers of Trump’s Climate Denial

Backing all this up is the continuous global warming drumbeat from mainstream media. The National Geographic Society provided a good example in “The Global Dangers of Trump’s Climate Denial,” in which it erroneously claimed that “Trump’s stance on climate change runs counter to physical evidence [and] near-universal scientific consensus….”

To counter such reporting, Trump must promote solid science to justify his position. In particular, the president-elect must be convinced to make full use of reports such as those of the NIPCC to demonstrate that much of what activists say about climate change is simply wrong.

Otherwise, history may repeat itself – and like Harper and both President Bushes, Trump may yield to the aggressive climate movement. That would be a disaster for the United States, and indeed for all nations that rely on a prosperous America for freedom.

Republicans … and what is left of moderate Democrats who care about working class Americans … must get behind EPA Administrator nominee Scott Pruitt.

He is truly a leader who has the character, wisdom, legal skills and understanding to lead the EPA in a new, more constructive direction.


About the Author:
Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Can you point me to the website for the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)”? I see articles referencing the org, but can’t find the actual org to find out more about it, such as where it gets its funding. An important consideration when looking at any study to understand context.

John Hauserman

I just watched a program on climate change a few days ago I do not remember the name of it or where it was. I only saw about the last ten minutes of it. The premise of it was based on the idea that 95% or so of scientists agree on climate change. And the point of the program was it only takes ONE scientist to disagree and be correct to blow all the other scientists opinions out of the water! And all of the preparations based on the 95% are a waist of time, money, and energy. Sounds like… Read more »


There will always be some disagreement among scientists- I doubt you’ll ever see a 100% consensus- but most of them do believe we are in some sort of warming period. I do believe that too many people are trying to legislate expensive laws based on their emotions rather than looking at the problem rationally. Crippling the economy is not going to halt climate change.

Larry Brickey

Climate change is real. There is a natural change happening but humans are pushing it faster and farther than it would otherwise go. The science is real, not fabricated. Those who deny are mostly those whose money will be affected negatively. There is money afoot on both sides. Science requires money to move forward. Denying companies spend money to post false science. I have seen the results of GW in my life. Places I’ve lived in the north are changing. So are other areas. Just take a look and don’t confuse weather with climate.


You, Sir, are either a dupe of the moneyed classes who want a global tax on the consumption of energy (which will go into their pockets and which has nothing to do with supposed ‘Global Warm…” err, “Climate Change”, yah, that’s it! ) or an idiot.

While I do not know you, I’m betting on the latter.

It’s called ‘weather’. Do a little research on solar cycles.



Call it what you like, “global warming” or “climate change”, the facts do not lie. Global temperatures are rising and the weather is changing. What is causing this? We do not know for sure. I think it is time to look at the facts and work together to adapt to a changing climate. That does not mean I think we should enact laws that force us into expensive green energy policies but I do think we should continue to work on lessening our carbon footprint in a sensible way. Things like more fuel efficient cars are a good start, as… Read more »

The Mechanic

“Stop U.S. Implementation of the UN’s Paris Climate Deal” Click link: In Paris last December, representatives of 196 nations participated in the Conference of the Parties 21 (COP21), the annual gathering convened by the United Nations for the past 21 years. The delegates expressed unanimous agreement about the need for a comprehensive accord to deal with their highly questionable claims about rapidly rising temperatures threatening the Earth and all of mankind. Four months later, leaders of 175 countries met at UN headquarters in New York, where they signed the accord reached in Paris. Secretary of State John Kerry participated… Read more »

Gees Mill

The hysteria over Trump’s cabinet picks has become ridiculous. I’m not a climate scientist just as most others are not either and I have had to restrain myself from engaging any of the hysterics in comment and discussion boards online. While I realize people are actually fearful for the future I hope that this lunacy will subside. I’m wondering if this election will prove to people that perhaps the federal government and in this case the executive have obtained too much power. If an election that doesn’t go as expected by many Americans can so “destroy” our country perhaps the… Read more »

The Mechanic

You’re 100% correct Gees, The liberal bias in higher education has resulted in the “Dumbing Down of America” !!!!


Reads like the researchers are more about the money than results. Let them form non-profit organizations and continue their research tax-free, both to citizens and themselves. They can get their money from donations from the kooks who think they can control this planet. I’m not interested.