It is painfully obvious what has happened in the Green Energy State (and DEI State). The Wall Street Journal editorial, California’s Climate Time for Choosing (January 10, 2025), subtitled “Sacramento tilts at reducing temperatures while its cities burn from failure to adapt to a variable climate,” fairly described the quandary of the (now) Smoke State.

“Democrats blame the L.A. blazes on the changing climate, which is a convenient excuse as citizens rage against the failures of state and local government.” Continuing:

The evidence doesn’t support the climate explanation since (among other reasons) California has had a dry climate and Santa Ana winds, even with hurricane-force gusts on occasion, for centuries. If the Democrats who run the state believe their own advertising, why not spend money in useful ways rather than on a green-energy transition to nowhere?

Ed. Note: This post was originally posted on January 19, 2017, with Donald Trump on deck to take the Presidency.

“Good news indeed! Energy cuts are easy cuts compared to the hard budget choices that lie ahead in the transition from statism and stagnation to a vibrant, coordinated, expanding entrepreneurial economy.”

Rome is not burning, but Joe Romm at Climate Progress is. “Will Trump go down in history as the man who pulled the plug on a livable climate?” he writes, with the subtitle, “The fate of humanity is in the hands of a denier who pledged to kill domestic and global climate action and all clean energy research.”

Really, Joe?

But Romm goes on to (usefully) report:

The Australian journalist Graham Readfearn notes that while you can’t find Trump’s original “100 day action plan” for energy and climate on the campaign website anymore, “it was archived by Wayback Machine”.

“The Master Resource people are whores of the fossil fuel industry. (Yes, that certainly includes you.)” – David Appell to author, March 5, 2014

If temperament and dramatis personae matter, the climate alarmists lose resoundingly to their scientific critics. I have gotten to know the quite reasonable, friendly Roy Spencer, John Christy, Craig D. Idso, Richard Lindzen, and other leaders of the so-called climate realist, global lukewarming school. And Marlo Lewis et al. (CEI); James Taylor, Sterling Burnett, et al. (Heartland); Craig Rucker, Marc Morano, et al. at CFACT; and many more on the advocacy side.

All of “us” know the difference between straight analysis and advocacy versus ad hominem argumentation. Our side is polite … but tough on naked pleas for government authoritarianism or civil disruption by climate alarmists/forced energy transformationists.…

“Funny thing. The climate alarmists’ favorite energies–wind and solar–have ruined the margins of nuclear to cause premature retirements and a lack of private funding for new construction. So the fossil-fuel haters in the nuclear camp find themselves victimized by the climate crusade. It sure is hard being ‘nuclear green’.”

Being active on social media with several thousand followers, I actively engage with my critics for fun and profit. I learn much, and those who have chosen to follow me (6,400+) might also. But I have also attracted scorn, some of the worst kind. My foes are typically wed to an energy dependent on special government failure. The ideological, deep-ecology, Church-of-Climate types spare little invective about how I am a threat to the future. Arguments failing, ad hominem often follows,

I employ plenty of analysis and link to a variety of sources.…