CEI Releases Ad Urging Trump to Withdraw from Paris Climate Treaty

April 18, 2017 WASHINGTON — Today, White House senior advisers are scheduled to meet about the future of U.S. involvement in the Paris Climate Treaty, even though President Trump made a campaign promise to cancel the agreement. Since December 2015, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has made the constitutional, political, economic, and moral case against the Paris Climate Treaty. This morning, CEI launched an online ad and petition asking President Trump to keep his promise and withdraw the United States from this harmful agreement.

Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment, Myron Ebell, said:

“The Paris Climate Treaty requires the United States to make drastic cuts in fossil fuel energy use by 2025, which will raise energy prices and slow economic recovery from our decade-long slump. It also requires us to submit more ambitious commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions every five years,” said Ebell. “Failure to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty will make President Trump’s plans to undo Obama’s climate agenda vulnerable to legal challenges. The President should not listen to Washington’s Swamp, but rather keep his campaign promise to get the United States out of the Paris Climate Treaty and send it to the Senate for a vote.”




VIEW THE PETITION >> StopParisClimateTreaty.org (not active until tomorrow)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Warren Blair
April 18, 2017 12:24 am

Failure to withdraw = political suicide.

Reply to  Warren Blair
April 18, 2017 3:44 am

failure to withdraw = financial suicide and Islamic, globalist success

Hugh Kendrick
April 18, 2017 12:38 am

Withdraw from UNFCC, gets rid of endangerment finding too as well as Paris

Stevan Reddish
April 18, 2017 12:41 am

Since great efforts were made to affirm that there was no treaty, merely an agreement, a “withdrawal” would be making that agreement into something it never was. Calling it a withdrawal from a treaty gives ammunition to those who say the U.S. is honor bound to adhere to the Paris “treaty”.

Can’t the U.S. (Trump) merely say we do not agree to that agreement?


Reply to  Stevan Reddish
April 18, 2017 5:06 am

Bring it before the Senate foot a vote. Then there is no question.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  ferdberple
April 18, 2017 5:40 am

Then there is no question.

Would that it were true. Never can tell what the politicians will do.

Reply to  ferdberple
April 18, 2017 5:44 am

The Senate will give it the boot?

Juan Slayton
Reply to  ferdberple
April 18, 2017 5:56 am

On second thought, ratification requires a 2/3 vote. Yeah, ferdie, maybe you’re right.

Roger Knights
Reply to  ferdberple
April 18, 2017 7:11 am

What would likely happen is that a majority of the senate would vote for the treaty, but not 2/3. That would give the warmists a moral victory. A year’s worth of public debates and re-education on the subject should be conducted first (as I’ve said before).

Reply to  ferdberple
April 18, 2017 10:45 am

“What would likely happen is that a majority of the senate would vote for the treaty, but not 2/3.”

I don’t think there is any way the Paris Agreement would even get a majority vote in the Senate. Even some Democrats would vote against it, imo. Any Republicans that voted for it would be out in the next election.

Let’s have a U.S. Senate debate and describe how the U.S. is going to be sending all our money to other countries under this agreement, and we get nothing in return, except a promise that we are saving the planet.

Let’s have the Democrats explain why it is a good thing for Americans to waste hundreds of billions of dollars based on nothing but conjecture.

Let’s hear the Democrats explain why Americans should all pay a carbon tax.

Let’s hear the Democrats explain why Americans must pay and noone else has to do so.

Trump should send the Paris Agreement to the U.S. Senate. Then, when it is rejected, the elites of the world can blame the U.S. Senate and the nation they represent, instead of blaming Trump.

Reply to  ferdberple
April 18, 2017 10:54 am

TA, further down there is mention of a R.I. Republican who’s pushing for a new cap and trade bill.
I have no doubt that he would vote for the treaty and it would not put his job in jeopardy to do so.

Reply to  MarkW
April 18, 2017 11:00 am

The last time congress voted on a climate change bill (Kyoto?) it was overwhelmingly defeated by both parties. Despite all the propaganda being disseminated since then I believe a vote today would be similar.

Reply to  ferdberple
April 18, 2017 11:19 am

The Kyoto vote was on a sense of the congress resolution. If memory serves, the vote was 98-0.
Kyoto itself was never brought up for a vote.
Had the treaty itself been up for a vote, the vote would not have been as lopsided. Voting against the resolution gave the Democrats cover to claim to their voters that they never voted against the treaty as those nasty Republicans refused to permit it to come to the floor.
The whole purpose of the sense of the congress resolution was to send a message to the White House to not bring Kyoto itself up for a vote.

Reply to  ferdberple
April 18, 2017 11:20 am

PS: Politically, we are a lot more polarized now than we were back then.
There were still a lot of Democrats who cared more about jobs for their constituents than they did about virtue signalling.

Reply to  ferdberple
April 18, 2017 1:58 pm

“I have no doubt that he would vote for the treaty and it would not put his job in jeopardy to do so.”

I would like to see that theory tested, MarkW. 🙂

Bryan A
Reply to  Stevan Reddish
April 18, 2017 6:02 am

As President, he can state the need to renegotiate the prior agreement at the next COP-a-Feel-good meeting then ensure that every party seeking climate funding reparations blackmail must be on the same energy playing field first. If any country is required to forego fossil fuel energy then ALL must, even developing nations. He can also the have both Hydro and Nuclear declared CO2 free renewable energy sources.
If the rest of the world wants to decarbonize global energy, nuclear and hydro are the only optional reliable and affordable sources to fossil fuels

Reply to  Stevan Reddish
April 18, 2017 8:02 am

Just ignore it, as it is non binding, and not ratified!

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Stevan Reddish
April 18, 2017 9:23 am

By the Human Rights, United Nations should respect the will of the people of Unites States of America:
“Article 21.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections …».

The constitution of United States is by definition the will of the people of the US. The will of the people is:
«The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….»

By the human rights, United Nations should also strive to promote respect for these rights.
“Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”

All Trump has to do is to refer to the Constitution and state that Obama was not entitled to sign the Paris agreement on behalf of the United States.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
April 18, 2017 9:33 am

The only right that liberals recognize, is their right to your money.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Stevan Reddish
April 18, 2017 9:40 am

“The ultimate purpose, then, of the Treaty Clause was to ensure that treaties would not be adopted unless most of the country stood to gain. True, treaties would be more difficult to adopt than statutes, but the Framers realized that an unwise statute could simply be repealed, but an unwise treaty remained a binding international commitment, which would not be so easy to unwind.

While the clause does not say, in so many words, that it is exclusive, its very purpose—not to have any treaty disadvantage one part of the nation—suggests that no other route was possible, whether it be the President acting alone, or the popularly elected House having a role. On the other hand, while the Treaty Clause was, in the original understanding, the exclusive way to make treaties, the Framers also apparently recognized a class of less-important international agreements, not rising to the level of “treaties,” which could be approved in some other way. Article I, Section 10, in describing restrictions upon the states, speaks of “Treat[ies]” and “Agreement[s]…with a foreign Power” as two distinct categories. Some scholars believe this shows that not all international agreements are treaties, and that these other agreements would not need to go through the procedures of the Treaty Clause. Instead, the President, in the exercise of his executive power, could conclude such agreements on his own.

Still, this exception for lesser agreements would have to be limited to “agreements” of minor importance, or else it would provide too great an avenue for evasion of the protections the Framers placed in the Treaty Clause.”
Treaty Clause

Trump got no other choice than to suspend or cancel that agreement.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Science or Fiction
April 18, 2017 2:25 pm

I suspect that the “all other agreements” was a catch-all to cover anything that might violate the spirit (if not the actual law) of treating making. Basically it is saying that states need to stay out of foreign policy – that is the function of the Feds.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
April 19, 2017 7:23 am

Unfortunately the Supreme Court is in the habit of reading any constitutional language in a manner that maximizes federal power. Even if the reading makes no sense or is plainly contradicted by the writings of the people who actually wrote the constitutions.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  MarkW
April 19, 2017 9:27 am

“Every generation gets the Constitution that it deserves. As the central preoccupations of an era make their way into the legal system, the Supreme Court eventually weighs in, and nine lawyers in robes become oracles of our national identity.”
– Noah Feldman

Reply to  Stevan Reddish
April 18, 2017 9:47 am

Just ignore the damned thing, since it’s unenforceable anyway. No point making it a beautiful backlit target on the ridgeline for all the leftists to focus their unhinged hysteria on. Just let it quietly . . . go away.

Reply to  Goldrider
April 18, 2017 10:33 am

On the other hand, if the unhinged are focusing all their fire on a non-issue, that leaves the president more free to act in areas that are more important.

April 18, 2017 12:57 am

The Climate Accords are based on pure fantasies; that CO2 is an air pollutant, that Anthropogenic CO2 has a significant effect on the Earth’s Climate, and that the Earth is currently warming.

richard verney
Reply to  mickeldoo
April 18, 2017 2:25 am

And that warming is bad, when for most it will be beneficial.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  richard verney
April 18, 2017 6:14 am

Yes – it’s truly amazing how they hold this stupid belief that warmer climate = bad climate. Why in hell do they think the warmest period in the current Epoch (the Holocene), which was incidentally much warmer than it is now, is called the “Holocene Climate OPTIMUM?!” But here I am attempting to apply LOGIC and REASON to the climate fantasies of the Eco-Fascist hordes!

Joe Crawford
Reply to  richard verney
April 18, 2017 7:24 am

If warming is that bad how come all the lefty idiots, at least those in the U.S., either chose to live in the warmer climates (e.g., Californians) or retire to warmer climate (e.g., the New York to Florida).

Reply to  richard verney
April 18, 2017 7:39 am

I’m not sure if there are any for whom a degree or two of warming (not that it will be that much) would be harmful.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  mickeldoo
April 18, 2017 6:10 am

All based on nothing more than “hypothetical BS,” because there’s not a scrap of empirical evidence to support any of it. Oh, but “the scientists (some of them, the ones whose egos, careers, fame, fortune, livelihood, etc. depend on the doomsday stories continuing to be perpetrated) say so.”

Reply to  mickeldoo
April 18, 2017 8:38 am

It’s not really about climate at all but political authority. A fact lost on many skeptics who think otherwise.

Better to focus on the Iron Boot culture of the Climate advocates first and science factoid second. The very claim that AGW policy results were determined by “science” to this point is a lie. It was always claptrap 70’s Earthday authority grasping and if every skeptic sounded that message the results would have been very different to this point.

April 18, 2017 1:01 am


April 18, 2017 2:45 am

Withdrawing from an agreement does not imply it was a treaty. Paris was and is a climate extremist nightmare of unworkable unattainable and pointless goals that would only end up hurting people and the environment. And enriching climate fear opportunists. Withdraw from the damaging mess.

Reply to  hunter
April 18, 2017 8:27 am

In the broadest way Paris maintains IN (globalist) central planning and moral authority arguments.

That’s why it should be annihilated with extreme prejudice.

Skeptics can’t win on technical/economic arguments alone. Climate change is loathing political sub-cult that only festers because skeptical divisions and the foolish belief that reason alone can win the argument and avoid the messy reality
of their own political contradictions.

The “Whites” outnumbered the “Reds” outside Moscow 5 to 1 routinely in the early Bolshevik Revolution but managed to lose. A disaster for humanity and based again by the divergent views of the 5 and the ideological determination of the 1.

Ultimately some skeptics are complicit for the success of global green and fanatical climate authority in the best same way.

April 18, 2017 2:49 am

No reason to stay in. Go TRUMP!

April 18, 2017 2:59 am

Waste of time trying to influence him and will only have a negative effect. He does not respond well to threats or entreaties.
Personally he either believes or he doesn’t and his actions to date have been that of one who will push through with some form of scrapping or dismantling Paris. Leave him alone.

Tom Judd
Reply to  angech
April 18, 2017 9:18 am

He responds to Ivanka. I’ll bet that’s where this is coming from. The sentimental old businessman has a deep affection and respect for his daughter. Like most people her age she grew up roasted and brewed in CAGW. He listens to her.

This is a big potential problem.

Reply to  Tom Judd
April 18, 2017 11:03 am

As far as I know, Ivanka has never publicly stated her position on human-caused Climate Change, so we don’t really know what it is. We DO know President Trump’s position.

Everything you have heard about Ivanka is an interpretation by a leftwing news organization. You should suspect ALL such interpretations.

One good thing about it, we will know the answer pretty soon.

April 18, 2017 3:03 am

I just hope that Trump is as good as his promise.
If US withdraws from the agreement others will too.

Reply to  Geoff Williams (@gwilliams99)
April 18, 2017 8:58 am

The whole Kahuna, nearterm, is in Dr. Lindzen’s petition and withdrawal from the UN Climate protocol completely.

Kill the cancer directly or more “Paris” like symptoms will occur.

A win would be win but Paris isn’t the end of it at all. We live in a very declined world. Trump plays the game in his range. He supports Ethanol subsidies which are an odd mix of green and domestic energy “independence” voodoo.

The chance of being sold down river to big green is very real. Paris one simple move in game.

When Elon Musk has Tesla’s $7500 per car subside (fighting CO2 rationalized) eliminated I might get more optimistic. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to get solar panel junk mail
from vendors who couldn’t last five minutes off the government teat on their actual production results.

It isn’t even the first inning in rolling back Climate policy nonsense.

ron long
April 18, 2017 3:05 am

What a strange contrast to see presented by the main-stream media: President Obama can sign an “Agreement”, like the Paris Climate Treaty, but President Trump cannot order the Dictator Assad’s ability to gas children degraded without consulting Congress. Draining the stinkwater out of the swamp will be a monumental task, but it looks like the current EPA will give President Trump a permit for it. Sign the Petition!

April 18, 2017 3:09 am

UK prime minister Theresa May has just called general election for June 8th, three years ahead of the 5 year schedule.

Reply to  vukcevic
April 18, 2017 3:27 am

Yup. Oh my, that looks like a big gamble. Parliament has made a huge fuss about Brexit, and there are complications with regards to Scotland and the SNP’s never-ending agitation. She’s probably looking for a stronger mandate to be able to tell the whiners to shut up and back off.
I’m looking forward to seeing the energy policy statements in the manifestos.
At least a snap election won’t drag on for ever.
I’d better get some beer ready for the celebrations.

Reply to  sonofametman
April 18, 2017 3:41 am

Russians are recruiting extra cyber hackers: French – May, British – June, Germans – September.

Reply to  sonofametman
April 18, 2017 7:31 am

Oh my, that looks like a big gamble.

Snap elections have been known to backfire.

Reply to  sonofametman
April 18, 2017 11:14 am

I’m wondering what if any effect Russian hackers would have. The only hacking that had any kind of effect on the American presidential election was revealing what a liar Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are. And there is no solid evidence the Russians did that hacking.

So are there many vulnerable lying politicians like Hillary in France, Britain and Germany? If these politicians don’t record their lies on vulnerable computers, then what could a Russian hacker do to effect the election outcome?

The only thing I could think of is they might be able to directly affect the vote count by breaking into voting computers, but that’s about all they could do, and none of that happened in the American election. It’s also easy to thwart by using paper ballots instead of computers.

And if Russian hackers uncover dishonest politicians and make that public, why, I say, more power to them. The truth will set us all free.

Reply to  sonofametman
April 18, 2017 11:26 am

In the districts that I am familiar with, the voting machines are never connected to the internet. The electronic ones tally the vote internally, then after the polls close, the workers plug a device into each voting machine and that device copies (does not delete or change, just copies) the totals from each machine. That device is then driven to election headquarters where it’s contents are down loaded into the main computer. That device, as well as all of the actual voting machines are then stored in a, hopefully, secure location, ready to be requeried if there is a request for a recount. Many voting machines also have a paper tape of each vote taken, that can be compared with the electronic totals.
There is no way for the election itself to be hacked.

Michael darby
Reply to  sonofametman
April 18, 2017 11:33 am

“… where it’s contents are down loaded into the main computer. ” Yes sir, in order to hack the election, all you need to do is hack the main computer !!! Unless you do a manual recount, you wouldn’t even know the election was hacked.

Reply to  sonofametman
April 18, 2017 11:40 am

..TA…..Voting machines are NOT connected to the Internet..

Reply to  sonofametman
April 18, 2017 12:31 pm

Michael, do you take lessons in how to display your ignorance?
First off, if the security is set properly, you can’t hack a computer without leaving evidence that you were there.
Secondly, the files have internal checks so that any modification of them will set off detection alarms.
Thirdly, in close elections, recounts are mandated by law.

Michael darby
Reply to  sonofametman
April 18, 2017 12:39 pm

Hey MarkW, did you know that the sysadmin of the computer can easily “hack” the election? He/she is the one that sets the security, and can alter most anything on it without leaving a trace. In fact, investigators would have to have the sysadmin allow them access to the machine to see if it was “hacked.” I guess you are the one that needs “lessons” in computer security.

Reply to  sonofametman
April 18, 2017 2:06 pm

I found this article which pretty much mirrors my thinking on this Russian hacking of elections


“A worker at a Russian ‘troll factory’ has lifted the lid on how the Kremlin tried to influence the US elections.”. . .

“Despite the cash being piled into the operation, the worker doesn’t believe the stories and comments have any impact.

‘Our work doesn’t bring great harm on to everyone,’ he said.

‘Personally, I believe our work doesn’t bring results at all, and especially not the results which our backers hope for.

‘No one believes in our posts – not us, and not our readers. Trolls argue with trolls.

‘It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of people simply do not pay any attention to these kinds of comments.’ ”

end excerpts

I think that is exactly what Russian hacking of elections amounts to: Trolls arguing with trolls. No sensible person pays any attention to this bs. If Russians are not capable of manipulating the actual vote count, then their hacking of elections is a sham and is not credible.

Reply to  sonofametman
April 19, 2017 7:27 am

Darby, so now you are claiming that the sysadmin is a Russian agent?
Regardless, elections supervisors have had the ability to under the table, “adjust” the totals since they started holding elections.
Unless you can come up with some actual proof, you are just proving yourself to be yet another sore loser.

Reply to  vukcevic
April 18, 2017 3:56 am

Vukcevic. Just read your post before I checked news, was not expecting anything until about now. Personally I think it is a good thing, we need to negotiate Brexit from a position of strength and unity, which will happen if we have a determined government with a strong majority. We will not get a good deal if we go into it in a half-hearted manner with the Remainers clinging on to their delusional beliefs that the Referendum can somehow be ignored.
Going back to the thread, I think Mr Trump has to ditch the Paris Agreement as do we, the Worlds economies are hamstrung by this idiotic and unnecessary agreement which as well as causing economic damage will increase poverty and the risk of wars.

April 18, 2017 3:25 am

This is off-topic for the article, but it is CO2-related, and I don’t have a better place to ask the question, so here goes. I was reading a Space.com article this morning about the Martian atmosphere, and how much of it had been lost to space due to the solar wind. The article stated that at one time it was probably a thick atmosphere of mostly CO2, which would have warmed the planet to the point where there could have been running water on the surface. It also claimed that terraforming Mars would be impossible because of the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The article stated that the atmosphere of Mars was now 95.96% CO2 (959600 ppm) with a pressure 0.6% that of Earth. I started wondering about those numbers, and my physics courses being a long time ago, I’m in some doubt of my rough back-of-the-envelope figuring. If the earth is currently about 400 ppm CO2, then Mars at 959600 ppm has about 2399 times the CO2 as does Earth by percentage. If the atmospheric pressure in general is 0.6% Earth’s, then Mars has 1/167th Earth’s pressure. Mars’ gravity is about 1/3 Earth’s, so if Mars had Earth’s gravity, the air pressure would be tripled, and it would have 1/56th Earth’s pressure. I think that levels the playing field.

Here’s where my cipherin’ gets fuzzy. If Mars has, essentially, 1/56th of the Earth’s atmosphere by mass, and 959600 ppm CO2, then it has (959600/56) or the equivalent to 17135 ppm on Earth. Seems that would be all any planet would need of that particular GHG. Even if I’m not correct in multiplying the pressure by three to account for the gravity difference, there is 6151 ppm-equivalent.

The article made it sound as though terraforming would be impossible because of the lack of CO2, but if my numbers are anywhere close to being correct, all it really needs is a bunch of water vapor.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
April 18, 2017 3:27 am

That final ppm figure should be 5712 ppm, not 6151 ppm.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
April 18, 2017 3:56 am

With no magnetic field to speak of any atmosphere you were able to create would be short-lived. Better to live in domes or underground as that would make better use of any remaining resources. Terraforming is just a waste of effort and resources.

Reply to  blunderbunny
April 18, 2017 5:17 am

Venus has no magnetic field. Yet it has a very thick atmosphere.

Reply to  ferdberple
April 18, 2017 5:51 am

It does have an induced magnetosphere that I believe offers some protection. But you’re right it is somewhat of an oddity. But hey if you’re happy to give terraforming mars a go. Good luck to you. I wouldn’t personally choose to. But it’s not like it will happen in my lifetime. So fill your boots

Reply to  blunderbunny
April 18, 2017 7:41 am

Venus started with a much thicker atmosphere since it never cooled down enough for water vapor to condense.

Reply to  blunderbunny
April 18, 2017 7:46 am

Another point is that Venus is bigger than Mars (6K miles vs 3.3K miles) so it’s core would have maintained it’s magnetic field for longer.

Reply to  MarkW
April 18, 2017 7:51 am

Yep. I would say that’s a more than reasonable supposition.

Reply to  blunderbunny
April 18, 2017 12:33 pm

A third point is that Venus’ higher gravity would do a better job of holding onto it’s atmosphere, though I don’t know how this stacks up against the increased solar wind because Venus is closer to the sun.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
April 18, 2017 6:16 am

Interesting idea there James Schrumpf. According to NASA Mars has water. Some of it sublimes into vapour. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/mars-ice-deposit-holds-as-much-water-as-lake-superior.

Mars should have all the elements to turn into greenhouse. Yet, carbon dioxide ice falls from the Martian sky at about -193 F. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-286

Reply to  James Schrumpf
April 18, 2017 9:43 am


The molar amount of CO2 per m^2 column of the Martian atmosphere is more than an order of magnitude greater than Earth. I pointed this out to Michael Schlesinger when he claimed that Mars was cold because it didn’t have enough CO2 and his head exploded. The idea that CO2 can be used to terraform Mars is a red herring arising from a faulty understanding of the GHG effect since the absorption of surface emission by CO2 is already close to saturated and incrementally, there’s not enough room left for further warming.

The misunderstanding about GHG’s is complicated by the faulty conclusion that Venus is the case of an impossible runaway GHG effect when in fact, Venus is a case of runaway clouds. The Venusian solid surface is no more in direct equilibrium with the Sun than the surface of Earth below the deep ocean, even at the equator, whose temperature, like the Venusian solid surface, is diurnally and seasonally independent, moreover; the mass of the Venusian atmosphere is the same order of magnitude as the mass of the Earth’s oceans.

The ‘surface’ of Venus that’s in direct equilibrium with the Sun is high up in it’s cloud tops. Whatever temperature this arrives at dictates the surface temperature based on the ‘lapse rate’ going down to the solid surface below (which is actually a reverse lapse rate). While Earth stores the bulk of its thermal energy in its oceans, Venus stores its thermal energy in its dense CO2 ‘ocean’. BTW, the bottom 100’s of meters of the Venusian atmosphere is CO2 in the form of a supercritical fluid and is more like an ocean than an atmosphere.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 18, 2017 11:22 am

Excellent explanation of the comparison of Earth’s oceans with the atmosphere of Venus, co2isnotevil.

April 18, 2017 3:27 am

President Trump has given his populist base cause for concern lately. I would guess that he will find withdrawal from the Paris accord to be an easy way to please his base. Plus, the agreement is extraordinarily anti-economy. Trump wants to see the economy grow and see jobs added — the Paris accord works against that goal.

There is no reason for the president not to withdraw from this nightmare of an accord.

Reply to  markstoval
April 18, 2017 3:56 am

Politicians when they come to power they don’t change their mind, they just can’t remember what they said they will do (what wall?)

Andrew Bennett
Reply to  vukcevic
April 18, 2017 6:13 am

Could not have said this any better. The one that came to my mind was
I have no recollection of that conversation taking place.

Reply to  vukcevic
April 18, 2017 7:47 am

I thought Trump’s big advantage was that he wasn’t a politician?

Reply to  markstoval
April 18, 2017 11:26 am

“There is no reason for the president not to withdraw from this nightmare of an accord.”

I agree. The Paris Agreement is a huge waste of money for the United States, and the last thing Trump wants to do is waste money.

April 18, 2017 3:41 am

We have to ask – who are the CEI? what is their authority for making this statement…

In particular, who funds them.

There is no doubt that they get substantial funding from the US petroleum industry, even if Exxon’s contributions ceased in 2006.

There is no doubt they receive funding from think tanks associated with the Koch brothers.

Is it any surprise that the US energy industry funds statements calling for withdrawl from the Paris agreement?

Reply to  Griff
April 18, 2017 7:00 am

From Wikpedia : “The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit libertarian think tank founded by political writer Fred L. Smith, Jr., on March 9, 1984, in Washington, D.C.”…

Reply to  Griff
April 18, 2017 7:48 am

Notice how Griff doesn’t even attempt to deal with the arguments, he goes straight to attacking the messenger.
Griffie poo, you might as well admit that you have lost the argument upfront and save everyone some time.

Reply to  MarkW
April 18, 2017 7:49 am

PS: Griff doesn’t even attempt to prove his slurs, he just proclaims that there is no doubt that they are accurate.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
April 18, 2017 10:37 pm

Careful Griff, your speculation is hanging bare

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Griff
April 18, 2017 8:17 am

Ahh, Griff, the Koch Bros. Those are the guys who fund most unis in the US, especially Michael Mann’s. Seems fair to me that they should fling some $$ CEI’s way – if true.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
April 18, 2017 9:03 am

Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest that the only thing Griff knows about the Koch brothers is how to spell their name and that he has been taught to hate them.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Griff
April 18, 2017 9:08 am

Two individuals fund the CEI.

One is Mr. Twiddly Dee.
The other is Mr. Twiddly Dum.

Reply to  Tom Judd
April 18, 2017 10:35 am

Would that make Griff, Twiddling Dumber?

Reply to  Griff
April 18, 2017 9:11 am

As in the case of the long look back at Clinton’s marijuana usage, you have to ask if its relevant now……and whether he inhaled.

Reply to  Griff
April 18, 2017 11:27 am

“There is no doubt that they get substantial funding from the US petroleum industry, even if Exxon’s contributions ceased in 2006.

There is no doubt they receive funding from think tanks associated with the Koch brothers.

Is it any surprise that the US energy industry funds statements calling for withdrawl from the Paris agreement?”

I thought they were all calling for the U.S. to stay in the Paris Agreement.

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
April 18, 2017 10:35 pm

Careful Griff, your speculation is hanging bare

April 18, 2017 4:22 am

Since this “treaty” was never ratified by Congress it is unenforceable. Period. Full stop.

Patrick MJD
April 18, 2017 5:03 am

UK PM May has just called a snap general election over Brexit. Cameron and May will go down in history as undemocratic cowards. It was voted on, democratically, like Trump, live with it. So, as with the Lisbon treaty, they are voting enough times to get the “right” answer.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
April 18, 2017 5:35 am

you have the wrong end of the stick Paddy – May wants a firm mandate to implement Brexit, not change the result. If she does the latter, she’s toast.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  AleaJactaEst
April 18, 2017 5:41 am

Cameron already had that. May does not have to ask voters again. She just needs do it! This is classic political diversion. People are not worried about Brexit anymore but rather the USA and N. Korea threat.

Andrew Bennett
Reply to  Patrick MJD
April 18, 2017 6:15 am

Patricia May is just trying to remove some of the barriers that are being put in her way. Her statement was very clear as to why this has been called.

Bruce Cobb
April 18, 2017 5:10 am

The Paris Agreement is a travesty, and is unconstitutional. It shouldn’t even be given the dignity of being voted on. Trump should, on camera, take the piece of garbage, hold it up, then rip it in half. He needs to send a message. He needs to stay true to his word, to his core principles, and to his goal of MAGA.

April 18, 2017 5:18 am

If, as seems likely by all accounts, the Paris agreement is just that and has no legal binding, the Trump Administration could simply adopt the strategy of comprehensively ignoring the ruinous stupidity and proceed as though it doesn’t exist. We may well have had an early indication of that when the Administration refused to return the UN climate chief’s frantic phone calls.

Margaret Smith
April 18, 2017 5:55 am
April 18, 2017 6:19 am

Please sign the petition. Trump needs to keep his promise and get out of the Paris agreement.

Roger Knights
April 18, 2017 7:23 am

I worry that CEI is worried enough to run this ad. Maybe it’s heard rumors of a back-down by Trump. (The NY Times has reported that Trump is expected to make an announcement on the treaty today.)

Reply to  Roger Knights
April 18, 2017 11:33 am

“I worry that CEI is worried enough to run this ad.”

Yes, that’s something to be considered.

Tom Halla
April 18, 2017 7:35 am

i did do some research on this topic of executive agreements when the Paris Accord came up earlier. If online sources are accurate on the law, such agreements have effectiveness only as long as the President cares to follow them. As Obama never tried to make the Paris agreement a treaty, which would have bound future presidents if ratified, the apparent status of the Paris Accord is a dead letter if Trump does not care to follow it.
Of course, that is an arguable conclusion, as there has never been a Supreme Court decision on foreign executive agreements, only domestic executive orders.

April 18, 2017 8:01 am

All good reasons to leave but conservatives and skeptics still cower to green “science” authority which is how it all got to this point in the first place.

Trump needs the anti-pseudoscience team on the lawn of the WH and has to crush the heart of the matter not just piece meal results. “Save the Earth” totalitarianism has to end directly not simply be put on a leash.

You can win a hundred battles and lose a war, Greenshirts want world domination just as their Communist lineage subscribed to. If science and morality capitulated wastefully the anti-market, anti-capitalism gain political ground.

Climate fanatics aren’t just wrong, at the central movement level they are evil. The CEI and even Trump approach is too appeasing and moderate.

Matt from Raleigh
April 18, 2017 8:36 am

There is no need to officially withdraw from this non-binding executive agreement. Simply ignore it and the terms and proceed as wanted.

April 18, 2017 9:37 am
April 18, 2017 9:39 am

Trump will not pull out. Tillerson is still an oil man wanting to sell natural gas, at the expense of coal. (Less carbon).

Avanka thinks Al Gore is an expert. She is a warmist.

No way, no how, can Trump pull out of the Paris accord.

Reply to  ECB
April 18, 2017 10:57 am

Tillerson was quoted yesterday as saying it’s time to pull out.
Secondly Tillerson no longer has any financial ties to the oil industry.

Reply to  MarkW
April 18, 2017 10:58 am

Sorry, that was Pruit, not Tillerson.
The second point still stands.

Reply to  ECB
April 25, 2017 8:25 pm

It’s a done deal…but thanks for dreaming.

April 18, 2017 9:47 am

I agree that stating we/US officially withdraws from the treaty gives it unwarranted credence that we were ever part of it to begin with. We need to borrow some slime ball verbiage from the alarmists that disconnects the US from any involvement in all Climate agreements period. Something that unequivocally separates the US from the scam without calling it as such and denounces the politics being used in place of science.

April 18, 2017 10:07 am

Trump must keep his promise and refuse adherence to Obama’s farcical Executive Paris POS.

It was not affirmed by the Senate, so there is absolutely no legal nor Constitutional obligation to pay one dime on this non-binding POS.

I just hope Ivanka doesn’t pressure daddy to change his mind, as she is a CAGW advocate and has substantial influence.

April 18, 2017 11:41 am

At the House climate hearing the audience was shown a graph of computer model output with a completely wrong climate prediction. It was not one of a kind item but one of many worthless computer outputs we get from the computer modeling section. Yet there was not one person there to call for cancellation of a program costing billions which consistently produces wrong climate predictions to deceive the public. Do the honorable members of the House not care that false information about climate has been and still is being outputted by this climate modeling ptogram? Did they have any thoughts about the meaning of that display shown to them? A scientist who knows that a machine has been producing wrong information for years will quickly drop it. But these charlatans won’t quit.. Somehow they have been drawing high salrties for years, are protected from being accountable for what they do, and their junk science is published in journals.

April 18, 2017 11:46 am

This is off-topic, but I think it would be of general interest to all readers.

It appears that there may be a fairly smiple way to repair old, tired hearts and make them new again.

A British heart transplant surgeon has been able to insert a Left Ventricle Assist (LVA) heart pump into severely sick heart patients, give them high doses of heart repairing drugs (which could not be given without using the LVA) and these very sick patients wore these heart pumps for from six months to 18 months, and then they were removed, and the patients hearts had healed themselves to the point that these patients had the same heart function as a perfectly healthy person of their age.

Formula: Wear an LVA for six to 18 months. High doses of heart repairing drugs. Have it removed: Resume your normal, healthy life. What’s not to like. If I had heart trouble, I would be asking my heart doctor for an LVA. The British heart doctor is looking for new test subjects and wants to do it internationally.


“The world-renowned heart transplant surgeon Sir Magdi Yacoub, who is heading a UK research programme, predicts artificial heart pumps will eventually become an alternative form of treatment for patients needing transplants.”. . .

“Sir Magdi said: ‘I’ve been working for 35 years and this is the most exciting thing I’ve seen in my whole career. You have someone who’s so sick he is emaciated, then you have him running in the park, playing football, or whatever.'”

end excerpts

April 18, 2017 12:38 pm


White House advisers postpone Paris climate deal meeting

April 19, 2017 2:08 am

Almost 100 days now I wouldn’t think it would take this long to get away from any climate agreements, but it’s not the only promise that he has neglected, like the great wall, the world peace by staying out of Syria, these are just some signs that Trump was either clueless before being elected or just plain liar.

Verified by MonsterInsights