Pro-Trump Scientist Berates Ivanka’s ‘Madness’

Written by Thomas D Williams PhD

In an open letter to Donald Trump, climate expert Dr. Duane Thresher has urged the President not to give in to his daughter Ivanka’s misguided views on global warming and her insistence that the U.S. remain in the Paris climate agreement ratified by Barack Obama last August.

“Climate treaties like the Paris Agreement have little to do with climate,” Thresher notes in his letter, which he made available to Breitbart News. “They are about economic competition. As the greatest economy in the history of the world, other countries will do anything to cripple the United States.”

Thresher, who has a PhD in Earth & Environmental Sciences from Columbia University and NASA GISS and worked for years in climate monitoring, says he understands the President’s temptation to listen to his daughter’s advice, but begs him not to give in to that temptation.

“Countries like China will agree to anything in these treaties and simply ignore their obligations while demanding the United States fulfill theirs,” Thresher said, calling belief in global warming a “popular delusion.”

In his letter, Dr. Thresher also reminded President Trump of his campaign promises that led many Americans to vote for him.

“We who voted for you consider stopping this climate change madness one of your key promises,” Thresher said. “If you renege on it you will lose me and many others as supporters.”

After Trump’s election, in fact, a number of climate change skeptics were emboldened to take more public stands against the politically imposed “scientific consensus” of global warming, welcoming a new era of free debate about a hotly contested issue.

Scientists unconvinced by the party line on climate change applauded Trump’s appointment of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head up the Environmental Protection Agency as an important step away from climate alarmism.

Even if Trump caves and stays in the Paris climate agreement, Thresher says, it won’t win him any friends. “Your opponents are not going to support you; they’ll just taunt you as being a flip-flopper,” he said.

“Climate science is one of the most fascinating sciences there is. To turn it into a lie for political purposes is a crime,” he stated, before urging the President to stand strong in his convictions.

“Make climate science great again,” he wrote.


Comments (3)

  • Avatar



    I’m not sure I agree with you when you claim radiation is primarily responsible for heating the atmosphere.

    Your assertion requires that less than a few percent of the atmosphere heats the remaining 98+% that are not significant absorbers of IR. It also fails to explain how the maximum air temperatures in tropical and sub tropical deserts, which have very low humidity, exceed the temperatures of humid areas at similar latitude.

    Using the oft quoted Nimbus graph plotting IR emissions detected by the satellite from a text by Petty one can see that the plot extends from 400 to 1600 wavenumber and of that about 40 % of the emissions recorded follow the Planck curve for between 290 and 300 K – from ~750 to ~1250 wavenumber. This area is clearly labeled “Atmospheric Windows”.

    This emission is not coming from atmospheric gases which comprise a tiny percentage of the atmosphere whose density is less than 1/1000th of the Earth’s surfaces.

    The emissions one might associate with GHGs indicates they are stony cold – if indeed these constitute the source of the emissions detected. And surely this fact belies any possibility of back radiation heating of the warmer surface by CO2 or, even more absurd, Ozone ?

    Comparing an emission spectrum to Planck curves is the correct manner to identify temperatures of remote emitters.

    And your assertion faces the other problem that 99+% of the atmosphere allegedly does not emit significant IR so must, again allegedly, rely of transfer of energy to statistically unlikely collisions with GHGs in order for their thermal energy to escape the atmosphere to space. Logically, increasing water vapour and CO2 should increase the chances for 99+% of the atmosphere to “shed” their thermal energy.

    But I agree with your point that water vapour absorbs far more radiation that CO2 or CH4 whose spectrums show transmittance of the order of >96% – my estimate.

  • Avatar

    Joseph A Olson


    Trump appointed Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State and Rick Perry at Department of Energy, both have supported Carbon taxes to benefit natural gas use over coal. EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt has proven in TV interviews to be scientifically incompetent. Adding the CFR and Goldman Sachs cabinet appointments, and Truth never had a chance in the DC swamp. This treaty requires 2/3 Senate approval, if the Constitution means anything.

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn


    CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Here’s why:
    Radiation from the solid or liquid surfaces of earth is defined by the Planck Spectrum and the Stephan-Boltzmann (T^4) law. Much of this energy is absorbed by ghg and thermalized warming the surrounding molecules including non-ghg molecules. Wavelength of radiation from ghg molecules in the atmosphere depends on the energy of individual molecules which is described by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. This ghg radiation favors the lower energy photons from water vapor. At low and medium altitude, thermalization effectively shifts the radiant energy absorbed by CO2 over to water vapor.

    Average atmospheric water vapor is increasing more than twice as fast as it should be based on temperature increase alone (feedback). The physics is further described at which also explains why CO2 has no significant effect on climate and identifies what does.

Comments are closed