Trump May Be Eye Funding Surrounding The National Climate Assessment
In 2013, we were told the Arctic Ice Cap would disappear. By 2014, it had grown by 530,000 square miles. For all the hysteria about “unprecedented” weather patterns, history tells a different story. Extreme weather has always been with us—hurricane season, tornado season, droughts, floods—none of this is new. And in fact, the 2013-14 hurricane season was the calmest in 30 years, while tornado activity was the lowest in 60 years.
Has the weather been more active since then? Sure. But that proves the point: these things are cyclical. If industrialization is causing "global warming," then what caused the Medieval Warm Period—a 500-year stretch of higher-than-average global temperatures, long before factories and fossil fuels?
Fast forward to today, and the climate lobby is in full meltdown mode over the Trump administration’s plans to reform the National Climate Assessment (NCA)—a document they consider their “crown jewel” of climate science. And by reform, we mean injecting actual scientific debate into the process rather than allowing it to remain a self-referential echo chamber.
The panic started when E&E News—a Politico-owned outlet that got caught taking money from USAID—reported that the next administration would be reshaping how the government assesses climate policy. The biggest name behind this effort? Russell Vought, a conservative policy bulldog who now leads the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
What’s his crime, according to climate activists? Wanting to introduce “diverse viewpoints” into the climate discussion.
Yes, you read that right. The same people who insist on “diversity” in every other aspect of life lose their minds when it comes to scientific debate. Because in their world, “diverse viewpoints” means allowing voices that might question the climate doomsday narrative—and they can’t have that.
Michael Mann, the climate activist who gave us the infamous (and widely debunked) Hockey Stick graph, is already crying foul, saying Trump’s climate policy “undermines efforts to transition from fossil fuels”—as if that’s a bad thing.
Meanwhile, Don Wuebbles, an academic with a long history of working on the National Climate Assessment, warned that introducing more viewpoints would make the U.S. look like “clowns to the rest of the world.” Translation? We can’t let people challenge our conclusions.
Their real fear isn’t about “science” at all. It’s about money, control, and policy.
- The climate change industry thrives on alarmism.
- The green energy sector depends on government subsidies.
- The bureaucrats writing these reports know that if the narrative collapses, so does their influence.
So, of course, they oppose any efforts to make the NCA a true scientific document instead of a political manifesto.
The Trump administration’s approach is simple:
- Stop the climate hysteria from dictating policy.
- Expose the financial and political motivations behind the climate agenda.
- Ensure that science—not activism—drives government decision-making.
That’s why they’re afraid—because for years, they’ve relied on the media, government bureaucrats, and academia to push a singular narrative without challenge.