“For proponents of fuel-neutral, consumer friendly, pro-taxpayer energy policy, the new administration has done an excellent job of staying focused and not trying to compromise in a game where compromise is really not possible…. The Trump Administration can only help itself by staying on message, not compromising, and playing offense in the climate science debate.”
The climate-alarmist media can only report on the opposition’s effective strategy and messaging. “The nominees for the Department of Energy’s undersecretary positions are singing the same tune with their views on climate change,” reported a recent feature in ClimateWire, a news publication of Energy and Environment News. 
And so it was: DOE science undersecretary nominee Paul Dabbar and DOE energy undersecretary nominee Mark Menezes provided identical answers to written questions from members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
And they were hardly controversial–but just what the Church of Climate did not want to hear.
“I believe the climate is changing. Some of it is naturally occurring.”
“I believe a strong, vibrant economy is the best way to mitigate any impacts from climate change.”
“I believe that the climate is changing and that we have some impact on it.”
America First Energy, Climate Policy
Trump’s America First energy policy, surely a highlight of his first year, was supported by Menezes in the same hearing. “I support energy development on Native lands, including Alaska Native lands,” he wrote. “If confirmed, I will be a strong advocate for energy development on such lands.”
Remember what the new President said on the campaign trail:
“American energy dominance will be declared a strategic economic and foreign policy goal of the United States.”
And in his promised 100-day plan as President, which included “rescind[ing] all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.”
Climate Alarmists Getting Defensive
For proponents of fuel-neutral, consumer friendly, pro-taxpayer energy policy, the new administration has done an excellent job of staying focused and not trying to compromise in a game where compromise is really not possible. With a strong intellectual case, the Trump Administration is effectively pushing the Church of Climate into a debate that they do not want to have.
Instead of doing something about the “problem,” the forced-energy transformationists find themselves confronting the inconvenient truth of the problem itself being problematic. In a previous post on a very biased New York Times article claiming settled science, I raised six questions that the forthcoming red team-blue team climate debate sponsored by US EPA can consider:
These are exciting times. The Trump Administration can only help itself by staying on message, not compromising, and playing offense in the climate science debate.
 Umair Ifan, “Nominees Submit Identical Answers on Climate.” ClimateWire, August 16, 2017.