Trump made 10 key statements on policy yesterday.

Three directly linked to Climate Science (3 out of 10 on his first day in the job is significant):

Lift restrictions on mining coal and drilling for oil and natural gas.
Remove any Obama-era roadblocks to energy projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline.
Cancel U.S. payments to U.N. climate change programs and redirect the money to U.S. water and environmental infrastructure.

Two indirectly linked but almost certainly having an effect. Less greenies in the government and less of them popping out into nice green lobbying jobs after - Clinton was going to expand the relevant budgets significantly.

Freeze hiring for the federal government to reduce payrolls, although the military, public safety and public health agencies would be exempt.
Ban White House and congressional officials from becoming lobbyists for five years after they leave the government.
Announce plans to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico or withdraw from the deal.

Linked to that (or the likely driver) is that Trump will become more isolationist so will need more energy independence for the US.

So what are the predictions for OFFICIAL Climate Science?

Obviously disenfranchised scientists will now maybe have an umbrella under which to stand. But what about budgets? What about the Mann equivalent from the sceptic side? Grabbing a chance for stardom? What about career or time-serving scientists seeing the way the wind blows. How long before before studies start to come out supporting government policy - obviously accepting the fact that science is politicised ;-)

The main stream media, not just liberal (the Telegraph is openly calling Trump a denier) is painting Trump as being an ignorant denier (we all know the words and approach.)

Yet I think the Climate Science orthodoxy is more under threat than they believe, because Trump has an ideology but he doesn't care directly about Climate Science. If it was just about scoring points a la "Bishop Hill discussions" then it wouldn't have any priority.

He cares about his ideology. It just so happens that Climate Science is standing in his way.

This is an agnostic thread. Even CAGW believers can see how things might go, if they have gotten around their Trump denial :)

(this time with the right title)

Heh, CAGW was a 'slam dunk', in the words of George Tenet.

CLANG!!!
======

Climate Science is bust, financially and scientifically.

Whether billionaire philanthropists will continue to fund it, will depend on how much sh!t sticks to Climate Science.

Output from Real Climate, SKeptical Science etc could be used as a barometer and anemometer, to determine changing economic wind direction and strength, even if contributurs to Real Climate and SKeptical Science probably don't know what barometers and anemometers actually do, as they only ever use adjusted data.

Most Climate Science devotees think the pricks of anemometers will be dissolved by ocean acidification.

I am no fan of Donald Trump, but his alleged hostility to the waste of money that is much of climate science is one thing which cheers me up. However, sadly I am not as optimistic as you, as I never doubt the power and tenacity of vested interests. I suspect the kitchen sink will be thrown at stopping him from doing what he wants.

But until then I'll hang onto my faint hope that something good might come from all of this. What would really be marvellous would be if US climate spending collapsed and nothing adverse happened. Maybe then our own brainwashed politicians might see the sense of repealing the CCA. But I won't hold my breath.

Martin A, a good juicy story unfolding in Court about fraud and corruption in the Democrat Party, linked to Climate Science, as American jobs were thrown away, would satisfy many of those emotions, and undermine many of his US detractors.

Mark Hodgson, I am no fan of Donald Trump either, but the US elected the better candidate.

He is a man driven to prove he is right, and has surrounded himself with people who share his vision. I think he will instigate as much change as he can, as soon as possible, concerning issues that he is passionate about. His attention to detail concerning issues he does not care too much about, or understand, particularly if they interfere with something more important to him, may be his weakness. This is where his team will need to be able to stand up to him.

Churchill introduced a new stamp into his office during WW2 which he used regularly, it said ACTION THIS DAY. I think something similar may now be in the White House. Swamp Cloggers won't like it, and Trump will like that.

As Trump has used Twitter very successfully, and bypassed a media system that did not support him, why should he change tactics now? If he can silence/rebuke/undermine a critic in 30 seconds, why wait for the next speech or official Q&A session with the Press Lobby? This may evolve into censorship by exclusion of journalists with constructive criticism, and the Press Lobby could be reduced to a pack of nodding lap dogs. This would not be good for democracy, in the US let alone the rest of the world.

I was no fan of Mr. Trump, but I am becoming one. There is a genius behind his tactics and plans, and I mean that seriously. He disrupted a process that had been controlled by an oligarchy of Washington Insiders and media completely, and did it by appealing to citizens who have been ignored and ridiculed by the oligarchy. He is the first non-politician in over 100 years to make it to the Presidency. He is probably the first from a strictly private sector background ever. golf charlie's concern about the press is valid, but make certain it is understood that the reporting of Mr. Trump's alleged offenses against the press are typically based on their reporting on what actually happened- which happens to typically be deceptive on the media's part. Check out the youtube of the actual confrontation where Mr. Trump told off CNN lately. it is far different from what CNN reported: CNN lied and lied about lying. The alleged violence at his rallies was documented by video confession of those involved to be the result of democrat party activists paying people to cause trouble. etc.
His policies are very centrist, very logical, and focused on doing what government is supposed to do: make things better for its citizens. Not to impose some theory of immigration or some extreme and dubious apocalyptic interpretation of the GHG effect, etc.

Heh, 'reduced to a pack of nodding lap dogs'. Such aspiration!
=========

kim, worth remembering that the MSM including the BBC have absorbed and broadcast all of Climate Science's scary stories and pontifications like nodding lapdogs, with increased transpiration and perspiration, but without critical interrogation.

Perhaps you misunderestimate the depths of my despair over our 'free press'.
================

Perhaps you misunderestimate the depths of my despair over our 'free press'.
================

Jan 22, 2017 at 10:51 PM | kim

kim, hang on to that despair.

A "Deep Throat" helped Woodward and Bernstein, and did for Nixon, another one partially undid Bill Clinton. Who knows what may find its way out to journalists, with so many disgruntled Democrats, who never wanted the Clinton's stain on their ticket?

Some dirty Democrat laundry may get washed in public this time.

Felled by Felt, at fault. Now plumbing new depths.
==========

Media Hoar, I see it more often said of Trump that he is not an ideologue: He is driven more by practicality and a believably honest patriotism. I suppose one could call that an ideology, but it boils down to semantics.

Either way, I think official climate science cannot expect much leniency. They have been severely wrong with their predictions, and Donald Trump is famously known for his intolerance of under-performers. Hell, a TV series was built around this fact, and he changed people in his campaign team during the election.

Even if official climate science make the case that they were right they are still in trouble because the message never changes. They've been telling us weer doomed for decades now. Why should we continue to pay them to carry on telling us we're doomed? Other professions, not just sportsmen, are only as good their last game. A civil engineer is only as good as their last bridge. They are still expected to build new bridges in order to get paid (and if their last bridge falls down, then they are in trouble).

Frankly, I see the record of official climate science escaping the notice of President Trump.

Many of the hangers-on will simply re-tool or re-purpose to where federal spending will, hopefully, be redirected. A material scientist will start claiming that their work is somehow good for building new bridges instead of claiming that it was somehow good for carbon-capture. I've seen similar things before ("nanotechnology", in particular). There are a lot grant-hoars out there. :)

doh..
"Frankly, I don't see the record of official climate science escaping the notice of President Trump."