That made the climate scolds angry, of course. But now it's getting even better; as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is finding more and more wasteful expenditures, the more all the president's men are cutting out of the executive branch's budgets - and a lot of those cuts are emptying the coffers of some notorious climate scolds.

That's right, the federal government was paying these people to advocate for the destruction of our modern, high-technology lifestyles. At the great climate website Watts Up With That, author Charles Rotter has brought receipts.

Oh, the humanity! The wine and cheese set over at Bloomberg has been thrown into full-blown hysteria because—brace yourselves—President Trump turned off the spigot of taxpayer cash that funds their sacred climate cult. Their headline reads like a lost script from The Handmaid’s Tale: “It’s Surreal: Trump’s Freeze on Climate Money Sows Fear and Confusion”.

“Surreal”? What’s surreal is that these people think they have some divine right to an endless fountain of taxpayer money to fund their political activism disguised as “science.” Imagine a world where these people actually had to produce something of value rather than leech off the federal government. Terrifying, right?

Not really - but, of course, Charles is being sarcastic. What it is, is schadenfreude-alicious. 

Let’s set the scene: Trump waltzes back into office and, in a move that should have shocked exactly no one, hits the brakes on the Biden-era climate boondoggles like the Inflation Reduction Act (which, ironically, reduced inflation about as effectively as a gasoline shower puts out a fire). Millions of dollars in grants—aka your hard-earned money—suddenly vanish from the pockets of climate non-profits, academics, and other assorted grifters who had built their entire existence around government handouts.

Bloomberg describes this as “confusion and panic.” Oh no! You mean these self-proclaimed geniuses who claim they can control the global temperature to within a fraction of a degree 100 years from now couldn’t foresee a Trump policy move that was as predictable as the sunrise? Not so bright after all, are they?

Here are some specifics:

• Alex Bomstein of the Clean Air Council. 
• Dominika Parry of 2C Mississippi.
• David Funk, of an "energy consulting firm" in Washington. 
• Laurance Smith, a Brown University professor.

Mr. Bomstein complains his organization has been given mixed messages about the continuation of their taxpayer funding. The proper response here would be to hand Mr. Bornstein a copy of the Constitution and ask him to find the enumerated power of the executive or the legislative branches to bestow taxpayer money on climate panic-mongering.

Ms. Parry is worried she might not get her next climate grant. The American taxpayers are greatly relieved at the notion that she probably will not.

Mr. Funk has had to furlough employees as his government funding teat has been closed down. Mr. Rotter suggests, correctly, that Mr. Funk might explore this new thing all the kids are doing called "selling a service that people want to pay for."

Finally, Mr. Smith (yes, I'm presuming these people's genders) is complaining that one of his postdoc students can't "access her salary." The American taxpayers are having a hard time accessing affordable homes, affordable gasoline, and groceries, so this postdoc should stop complaining.

See Related: 

Trump's Funding Freeze Continues Despite Judge's Order

President Trump and the Paris Climate Deal - He Was Right to Pull Us Out

It's a new day in America. The sun is shining, birds are singing (well, here in the Great Land, the birds are shivering, but that will change) and the American taxpayers have good reason to feel a little better about their government not wasting their money on horse squeeze.

The simple fact is that, for many years, the federal government has been pouring money down thousands, maybe millions of ratholes that are not authorized by the Constitution - and therefore are prohibited by the 10th Amendment. The climate is one of those things; setting the science and pseudo-science aside for the moment, there simply is no constitutional authorization for Congress to appropriate, nor the Executive spend, money on this. If the states wish to allocate money for such things, more power to them - and good luck when next you face the voters.

Meanwhile, the climate will still be here. It will change, at it always has. And Americans, at least for the next four years, can be assured that their energy-dependent, high-tech lifestyle will continue.