White House cancels meeting on considering Paris climate accord action

The White House scrapped a much-anticipated meeting Tuesday to decide whether it would exit from the Paris climate change agreement.

A White House spokeswoman said the meeting was postponed due to the president’s travel schedule, reported Bloomberg. (Via Washington Examiner)

That may be true, an email I get daily from the White House says this is Trump’s schedule today:


  • 1:15PM CDT: President Trump arrives in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  • 2:00PM CDT: President Trump tours Snap-On Tools
  • 2:20PM CDT: President Trump makes remarks at Snap-On Tools – Watch LIVE
  • 2:50PM CDT: President Trump signs the Buy American, Hire American Executive Order
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 18, 2017 10:10 am

Protecting the pact: Exxon, Shell join Ivanka Trump to defend Paris climate accord

As President Donald Trump contemplates whether to make good on his campaign promise to yank the United States out of the Paris climate accord, an unlikely lobbying force is hoping to talk him out of it: oil and coal producers.


Reply to  Cam_S
April 18, 2017 10:58 am

Which means nothing. I didn’t vote for Ivanka.

Reply to  TomB
April 18, 2017 11:14 am

You didn’t vote for any of the other presidential advisors either, but they still have the president’s ear.

Reply to  TomB
April 18, 2017 12:09 pm

And the fossil fuel industry has their ears…

which may work either way – the largest oil companies are arguing ‘stay in Paris agreement and argue’.

Bryan A
Reply to  TomB
April 18, 2017 12:29 pm

And Ivanka has a little more than an ear

Reply to  TomB
April 18, 2017 1:01 pm

Griff, do you have any evidence that the oil and gas producers have the governments ear any more than any other like sized industry would?
Or are you just assuming that the only reason why everyone doesn’t agree with you is because evil pay them not to again?

Reply to  TomB
April 18, 2017 1:32 pm

Keep Paris agreement/leave Paris agreement…damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

Reply to  TomB
April 18, 2017 3:38 pm

Yes. With all due respect, Ivanka’s opinion (and scientific qualification) to make energy policy is about equal to that of my dog. She is not an elected official, and while I’m sure she is brimming with goodwill toward the whole world, I would hope the input of the Heritage Foundation etc. would carry a lot more weight with Big Daddy when it comes time to make policy. Personally, I think we should just ignore the non-treaty, do as we will, and deny the loony left a target to focus their fruitless “protests” on.

Reply to  TomB
April 19, 2017 12:13 am

MarkW said: “Griff, do you have any evidence that the oil and gas producers have the governments ear any more than any other like sized industry would?”

So Mark, please tell us which large industries are telling the President not to sign the climate accord.

Reply to  TomB
April 19, 2017 2:03 am

Griff, a lot of people would like to also get the ex-POTUS’ ear … on their belt!

Reply to  TomB
April 19, 2017 7:06 am

Our other trolls reliably pipe in.
Chris, why do you believe it is a large corporation ordering Trump around.
More than likely he’s just listening to the vast majority of scientists who haven’t bought into the CAGW nonsense.

Reply to  TomB
April 19, 2017 12:45 pm

MarkW, thanks for ignoring my question.I guess anyone who asks you a question is a troll. As The Donald would say, Sad.

It’s not about your misstatement of large corporations ordering Trump around. It’s about him listening to corporate America before he makes his decisions. If you are surprised by that, you are even more clueless than I thought.Sad.

Reply to  TomB
April 19, 2017 1:12 pm

A distinction without and difference Chris my friend.
You say telling him, I say ordering him.
Regardless, why does it bother you that Trump would listen to the people who make stuff that we use and provide us with the jobs we need to buy that stuff?
Second, why does you assume that the the reason why Trump doesn’t do as you want is because someone is telling him not to?

So many mindless assumptions built into your simple statements that it’s hard to unpack them all.

Reply to  TomB
April 19, 2017 9:47 pm

MarkW said: “More than likely he’s just listening to the vast majority of scientists who haven’t bought into the CAGW nonsense.”

Vast majority? What is your basis for saying that?

It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that Trump listens to companies – though that is exactly what he campaigned against. You asked whether the oil & gas industry has Trump’s ear more than any other. It doesn’t matter, all the large industries say AGW is real and requires action. The automotive industry, aviation, pharma, insurance, banking. All the big industries except coal, and perhaps extraction mining. You didn’t answer my question because you know that is the case.

Reply to  TomB
April 20, 2017 10:14 am

What’s my source? The vast majority of scientists who haven’t bought into the hoax. All you have to do is read stuff outside the officially approved propaganda and you will find them as well.

PS: You still haven’t presented any information showing that Trump is listening to companies. You just seem to be assuming it since he isn’t listening to your charlatans.

Reply to  Cam_S
April 18, 2017 11:31 am

“Events, my dear boy, events”
Winds of change fashion the future by blowing away the promises of the past.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  vukcevic
April 18, 2017 12:09 pm

Ohh, good comment. Very deep, Vuk. I loved the h/t to MacMillan, especially how you’ve repurposed his winds of change.

Reply to  vukcevic
April 18, 2017 1:01 pm



Reply to  vukcevic
April 19, 2017 2:45 am

Good one Vuk. A very apposite quote and a clever use of words around his famous Cape Town speech.

Reply to  Cam_S
April 18, 2017 12:05 pm

There is no coal producer there, maybe a clue as to why those oil/gas companies are so keen on Paris.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Cam_S
April 18, 2017 12:15 pm

Gee, could it be because they’ve invested in green technology and want their payoff?

Reply to  Joel Snider
April 18, 2017 1:48 pm

No, it is because oil and gas have been growing as coal declines under Obama’s climate regs. because they are emitting less “carbon” than coal.

This is not just US either, they play in world markets. They do not want to see the AGW baloney collapse. Simple business interests.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel Snider
April 19, 2017 12:11 pm

Market manipulation is undoubtably part of it.

Reply to  Cam_S
April 18, 2017 3:42 pm

From the article posted:

“The industry campaign to stick with the Paris accord comes amid deep divisions in the Trump administration over the carbon-cutting agreement. Both the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, Jared Kushner, a White House special adviser, have urged the president to stay in the deal, along with Tillerson.”

No quotes from Ivanka or Jared provided. I think this reporter is assuming something not in evidence. How do we know Ivanka and Jared’s position on CAGW? All we have to go on, and I think all this latest report has to go on, are a couple of claims from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal that Ivanka and Jared are in favor of remaining in the Paris Agreement, but even those articles provide NO quotes by Ivanka or Jared.

So other than the opinion of a couple of reporters, noone has any idea what Ivanka and Jared are advising Trump about the Paris Agreement.

Assuming facts not in evidence is a bad way to look at politics and a bad way to do science.

Maybe there’s fire, amongst this smoke, but you can’t tell it from here and you can’t tell it from the information available. Reporters opinions are a dime a dozen. Leftwing reporter’s opinions are worthless.

Reply to  TA
April 18, 2017 4:04 pm

+1 The MO of the MSM today is to apply the propaganda technique of repetition to advocate an outcome. Witness so called ‘Climate Change’. Until I see a quote from someone all ‘news’ is suspect. As much as Trump thinks of his daughter and son in law I don’t think their input on major decisions carries much weight.

Reply to  TA
April 19, 2017 2:48 am

Indeed, it would be called fake news in other circumstances. I have never heard Ivanka or Kuschner offer an opinion on this or any other matter come to that.

As we all all learned from The Godfather it won’t do for family members to appear to be at odds by the larger world.

Reply to  TA
April 19, 2017 7:08 am

markl, even quotes are suspect. In recent years media outlets have been caught “editing” quotes to make them say something the author never intended.

Reply to  Cam_S
April 18, 2017 10:32 pm

But how much does Exxon & Shell have invested in wind farms, solar, battery technology, and even nuclear?

How much are they already getting in various ‘clean energy’ taxpayer funded subsidies?

How much more do they stand to make?

Reply to  Cam_S
April 19, 2017 5:55 am

To Donald, Ivanka, Jared and Rex:

Donald was correct – time to dump the Paris Climate nonsense!

COLE’S NOTES FOR all the TRUMPs and Rex Tillerson


Observations and Conclusions:

1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record

2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.

3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.

6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.

7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.

8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.

9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.

10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

Allan MacRae, P.Eng. Calgary, June 12, 2015

Post Script for Rex Tillerson:

Hi Rex,

I have two engineering degrees, have worked in the energy business on six continents since 1984 and have made very significant contributions to the Canadian oilsands and the conventional oil and gas industry – this includes personally initiating the move to new royalty and tax terms and major cost reductions that revitalized the Alberta oilsands industry. Exxon was a 25% owner in three of our joint ventures.

I suggest that few individuals have made more money for Exxon through their own initiatives than I have, and I did not even work for you. So please put on your engineering hat, study the above post, and forget about the alleged global warming crisis – it does not exist.

Regards, Allan

April 18, 2017 10:11 am

I think the Paris Agreement can be woven in as a detriment to the Midwestern working class theme. It does not take any spin to get there either.

Reply to  Resourceguy
April 18, 2017 1:51 pm

Does anybody know who’s expected to be at the meeting who will represent the skeptical, anti-CAGW position?

April 18, 2017 10:12 am

Well big oil funded green cr@p.
So we ended up with useless windmills instead of worthwile nukes.

Reply to  Leo Smith
April 18, 2017 10:33 pm

Indeed, windmills that chew up millions of birds each year.

Reply to  wally
April 19, 2017 4:15 am

Well no, they don’t.

On published figures all US Eagles are already extinct…

Reply to  wally
April 19, 2017 11:37 am

What is it with Griff and his desire to make a fool of himself.
There are no published figures claiming that all eagles have been killed.
There are published figures showing that in certain areas, protected and endangered species are being killed in alarming numbers.

Having to lie and exaggerate is just more evidence that you know the truth does not support your case.

Joel Snider
Reply to  wally
April 19, 2017 12:15 pm

Yeah, he just simply denies basic facts, if it conflicts with his exploitive product promotion.

And where I live – in the Northwest US, not the United Kingdom looking at published figures from lying activists – I see lots of eagles.

Tom Halla
April 18, 2017 10:17 am

The curious and promising thing about the “Ivanka and Jared are greens” theme is that all the stories are gossip. Thus far, all the stories are friends of friends stating that ivanka wants to do various green things. But nothing directly from the principals.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 18, 2017 10:46 am

+1 Nothing but rumors and probably being perpetrated by alarmists.

Bruce Cobb
April 18, 2017 10:34 am

Mr. President, quit Stalin’ and tear up that Climate Agreement”!

Ron Williams
April 18, 2017 10:35 am

Maybe better to stay, at least on the sidelines, so as the USA can modify the plan starting with a review of the Scientific Method. Maybe it can do more to influence a proper accounting of how science has become so politicized and polarized so that it can knock some sense into this global scam that would kneecap the western world into a 3rd world state.

Once the science is exposed that the CAGW gang use is shown to be not only totally flawed but actually making up lies and cooking the books to make CO2 out to be some climate villain, then perhaps some of the other nations will realize what they are opposed to is air pollution, and not an invisible trace atmospheric gas that has went from .03% to .04% of the atmosphere by volume over the last 150+ years.

Perhaps the USA should stay, but on the condition that this review of the Scientific Method is being implemented truthfully, and not bullied as has clearly been shown recently such as Dr. Mann lying before Congress with all kinds of made up BS. This would expedite the complete failure of the Paris Climate Agreement. Better to have some influence at the table, than not to be at the table at all.

Reply to  Ron Williams
April 18, 2017 3:32 pm

No. Absolutely and categorically no. There can be not the tiniest chink of appeasement towards this civilisation destroying farce. If you want us to implement the complete deconstruction of western civilisation on the basis of your hypothesis – bring evidence – lots of evidence – quality evidence. Bring evidence of a scientific case for CAGW. Bring evidence of a plausible macroeconomic case for mitigation. Bring evidence of remedial actions and their projected effect on global temperatures and climates.

Someone somewhere needs to make a stand on this and if that isn’t Trump then someone else had better stand up and quick before the lunatics destroy us all.

Reply to  Ron Williams
April 20, 2017 4:44 am

I’m leaning toward Ron on this. Stay and present the non-catastrophic case. In fact, I would present the case that the catastrophic impact of CO2 is more likely negative then positive. The presentation starts with the usual general concerns about the environment and then the basic CO2 radiation absorption info and then when the negative consequences are displayed as negatives, people start scratching and shaking their heads over the negative of a negative is a positive thing, and then their heads explode when the recommendations come up and the CO2 recommendation is to increase concentrations.

If the U.S. sticks around, there is an opportunity to make the case directly to folks who only hear the big lie over and over. Also, if the purpose can be steered towards a different focus, some folks who like the trips will be more inclined to go with the change. If the U.S. leaves, the MSM will own the message. Stay on the inside and they will have a harder time snuffing it out.

Bob Denby
April 18, 2017 10:38 am

Truth is that the oil and coal companies are ‘bi-sexual’ — and would rather not play to a full stadium. They’re reasonably sure that taking a firm stand on the truth concerning AGW is politically risky and feel confident that their ‘sub-rosa’ lobbying can fulfill their needs with minimum fuss. Clear up this climate controversy for all time and a lot of people lose income!

Kaiser Derden
April 18, 2017 10:42 am

“That may be true” ????? seriously “May be True ???” So you have experience with the reported Presidential travel agenda NOT being true ? I’ll be you can get on CNN and see Trump at one or more of those events or at a minimum check the local papers for article about his visit …

Reply to  Kaiser Derden
April 18, 2017 10:49 am

Presidents can and often do have meetings while on the road.

Reply to  MarkW
April 19, 2017 12:47 pm

Thanks for the incredbile insight, MarkW.

Reply to  MarkW
April 19, 2017 1:14 pm

I know that you have a desperate need to feel superior. Probably because life has given you so many chances to find out you aren’t.
However, my comment was a direct response to Kaiser’s apparent belief that the mere fact that a president is on the road means he can’t be involved in meetings.
Please try to not to embarrass yourself next time you post.

April 18, 2017 10:58 am

What do they need a meeting for, just get out of it. Without the US, the whole thing will collapse faster than house of cards.

Richard M
Reply to  Rob
April 18, 2017 4:04 pm

Well, that could be why some are advising to stay in. IOW, play the game just like China. I’m not saying that is what I would do but it could be what some of the advisers are saying. If other countries stay in and try to meet their goals it would disastrous for them.

April 18, 2017 10:59 am

Isn’t the Paris Climate Agreement just an agreement? There is no force of law behind it, right? There are no built-in sanctions to punish, right?

What’s the problem, then? Just leave. Get out of the game. A different national leader decided to play this game. A new national leader took over the team and does NOT want HIS team to play that game.

Just don’t show up for the meetings. Throw out the rule book. Take the ball and go home.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
April 18, 2017 12:40 pm

You are right, there are no mandatory goals – the only part with any bite to it was the promise to hand out boatloads of cash to a pile of 3rd World countries, because that was needed to get them to buy into it.

Now I very much think we should simply say we’re done with it, but the reality of the accord suggest another possible way to deal with it that would have the same effect as pulling out – simply refuse to provide any funding for the giveaways (what can anyone do except whine?) and refuse to take any actions promoting it inside the US. That way, there’d be no political fallout with the Euros, but it would just become another dead piece of paper that we ignore.

That’s not my preferred option, of course, but it’s not completely bad.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  wws
April 19, 2017 3:47 am

wws – April 18, 2017 at 12:40 pm

Now I very much think we should simply say we’re done with it, but the reality of the accord suggest another possible way to deal with it that would have the same effect as pulling out – simply refuse to provide any funding for the giveaways (what can anyone do except whine?)

My guess is that 99 44/100% of the goofy “greenie” liberal wackos that support Obummer’s Paris agreement will agree wholeheartedly with what you stated above.

Iffen POTUS Trump doesn’t get Congress to officially “kill” any US involvement in the Paris Accord ….. then those persons who adamantly disagree with any US compliance with said ……. better be damn sure that that either Trump or a like-minded Republican is elected POTUS in the next General Election in 4 years.

Bryan A
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
April 18, 2017 12:44 pm

Better to rewrite the Accord into US favor and require a level playing field.
Allow for the continued use of Fossil Fuels for the cost effective development of next gen reliable energy sources (not necessarily/exclusively wind and solar). Have BIOMASS declared a CO2 producer and be phased out like Fossil Fuels, after all Biomass does create a reduction in the Carbon Sink simply by removing forests for pellets. Allow for the gradual switch over to newer better functioning upgraded carbon free energy sources through the attrition of existing fossil sources as their extraction becomes unviable (in around 300 years or so). Society WILL eventually, by necessity, decarbonize energy sources naturally and without government intrusion. But it shouldn’t be mandated and shouldn’t be forced but allowed to naturally wait until the alternate sources have been thoroughly developed into more reliable sources. You wouldn’t want to force your society into energy generating sources that are susceptible to damages by inclement weather

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
April 18, 2017 2:36 pm


This is small ball thinking. As Paris lives the fake pseudoscience, fake political structure, fake deep regulatory state are all validated. The academic lying machine feeding the media will remain non-stop with all the pathetic moral certainty on overdrive.

It shouldn’t just be withdrawn from but there should be a burning ceremony on the WH lawn surrounded by what is left of the empirically driven science community.

Dr. Lindzen should have his face carved into Mt. Rushmore and there should be national holiday for the preservation of the scientific method created. That’s what would be suitable for announcing the end of the UN Climate Protocol and its deformed child call “Paris”.

Trump has played small ball on the issue as well, he’s staring at a 1.5 trillion market cap green bubble that says “recession” all over it if he pops it. He supports the ethanol sham so he’s already compromised. Lincoln supported slavery when elected, so what? “Climate” is the “swamp”, “deep state”, “globalism” in a single word. He’s already way late and mushy. Pruitt is hanging on a thread if the contradiction of keeping Paris while rolling back selective details of the ideology domestically.

In substance regarding actual climate impact it’s all meaningless. Climate is about political structures first and foremost. Therefore it’s very important to annihilate for exactly that reason. The global Sovietization of science either lives or dies and that’s why it is important to abolish the entire climate fraud structure such as Paris. Then you should have PR people explaining these simple truths as your spokes people. It can’t be sold as a minor executive order change. Bannon, Perry, Pruitt, Ebell get it. The rest of the “team” like Tillerson, Ivanka and Kushner are worse then useless.

Reply to  cwon14
April 18, 2017 5:29 pm

cwon 14,

now tell me what you REALLY think. (^_^)

While your grand vision certainly has a place in an intelligent world [clear throat], I’m afraid that we are faced with many, many people who have not graduated from kindergarten intellectually, let alone graduated from little league ball to major league ball. Hence, the first step is necessarily a baby step, which means somebody has to start acting like an adult.

When one wants to play with the big leagues, one simply stops playing with the little leagues. That’s why I say, “What’s the problem, USA, just walk away and play at a different level than our former leader did, since he obviously did NOT play with the greater interests of his team in mind.”

April 18, 2017 11:01 am

As President Trump is in Wisconsin today, I might think a meeting at the Whitehouse that intends to include him would necessarily need to be postponed at least until he is back in Washington DC.
Why does this need to be overwrought? No conspiracy here, the man is merely out of town.

Reply to  rocketscientist
April 18, 2017 11:04 am

BTW, according to the WH the meeting was postponed not scrapped.

April 18, 2017 11:06 am

Procrastination is a Bureaucratic Art Form design to delay and obfuscate.

April 18, 2017 11:31 am

Since it doesn’t do anything, I guess you could hold it as a trump card to be played against those duped by it. Just don’t send any more plane loads of cash to Geneva or anywhere else.

April 18, 2017 11:55 am

It is possible that the president wants to withdraw from the Paris accord with a little more fanfare than today would have allowed. It is possible that timing is the main issue here. It is possible that staging is the main issue. (Trump loves staging)

It is also possible that advisors are in heated debate over the issue.

Regardless, he is going to disappoint those who elected him if he does not get the US out of that “agreement”. (and soon)

Joe Crawford
April 18, 2017 12:10 pm

Staying in the Paris Agreement might get a bit costly. The U.S. has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 by 26-28 percent below the 2005 level and to make “best efforts” to reduce emissions by 28 percent. In general the developed countries, including the U.S., are supposed to come up with $100 billion a year to help the undeveloped and developing countries adopt less-polluting energy sources and cut emissions. So far we have pledged $3 billion to this Green Climate Fund. If I remember right China has gotten themselves defined as a ‘developing’ country so they expect to be receivers of the largess. I would imagine India has as well so that pretty much leaves us, the U.K. and the E.U. (with a few hangers on) to come up with $100 billion annually. As I said; staying in Paris could get costly.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Joe Crawford
April 18, 2017 8:50 pm

And what exactly happens if the US refuses to “donate” or pay (whatever it’s called)? They throw us out of an organization we don’t want to be in to begin with?

It’s laughable to think of the EU & UK trying to pony up $100B. The EU (in total) spends about $200B on national defense (UK & France are about $105B of that).

April 18, 2017 12:12 pm

The Oil and Coal are lobbying hard to keep the Paris Agreement because they want the consumer to foot the bill to capture CO2 from coal plants to aid in oil recovery. None of this works financially without the Paris Agreement, because the all important ingredient is the consumer funding.

The question is all about who pays. The Paris Agreement says it will be you and me.

Reply to  ferdberple
April 18, 2017 4:09 pm

“The Oil and Coal are lobbying hard to keep the Paris Agreement because they want the consumer to foot the bill to capture CO2 from coal plants to aid in oil recovery. None of this works financially without the Paris Agreement, because the all important ingredient is the consumer funding.”

Is that what they are pushing for? The oil companies claim they will benefit but I don’t see how exactly.

I could see Trump possibly staying in the Paris Agreement for administrative purposes, but I just can’t see Trump wasting American taxpayer money on anything involved with the Paris Agreement. That seems to be completely against the grain for Trump.

Maybe Trump is just waiting until the rent-a-mob scientists get through with their big march in a few days before announcing the U.S. withdrawal.

Trump made a specific campaign promise on the Paris Agreement. He’s going to have a lot of blowback if he doesn’t do what he said he was going to do. And no matter what he does, there is still no evidence that humans are causing the climate to change.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  ferdberple
April 19, 2017 4:30 am

The Oil and Coal are lobbying hard to keep the Paris Agreement because they want the consumer to foot the bill to capture CO2 from coal plants to aid in oil recovery.

Ferdberple, …… the oil producers would still have to pay the coal-burning plant owners for the CO2 regardless of who paid for said “CO2 capture”. To wit:

Clean Coal: Carbon Capture and Enhanced Oil Recovery

The price of CO2 for EOR projects is generally pegged to the price of oil. At >$50/bbl, the sale of the CO2 to Hilcorp will pay for the carbon capture system. Projects like this do not need subsidies.


Iffen the coal-burning plant owners do not have a “market” for their captured CO2 ….. then why in hell would they want to incur the horrendous expense of installing “CO2 capturing equipment” as well as the horrendous expense of getting rid of or sequestering all of their captured CO2?

April 18, 2017 12:44 pm

Perhaps the CEI Paris agreement Ad has given them second thoughts?

Roger Knights
Reply to  steverichards1984
April 18, 2017 1:23 pm

That’s what I’ve been thinking. It’s worrying, because it suggests that Trump was considering going along with the treaty in some fashion. (I wonder if the spat with Bannon involves this matter in part.)

Reply to  Roger Knights
April 19, 2017 3:33 am

it was kind a ‘Beauty vs Beast’; it appears that the slender Ivanka won and the flabby Bannon might be on the way out. This doesn’t mean that money will flow into accord, Trump may just ignore whole thing for time being ( what wall? )

Myron Mesecke
April 18, 2017 12:45 pm

OIl companies stand to sell more natural gas if the Paris deal reduces demand for coal.

Reply to  Myron Mesecke
April 18, 2017 4:13 pm

“OIl companies stand to sell more natural gas if the Paris deal reduces demand for coal.”

Does it sound logical that Trump would do something that would reduce the demand for coal, right after the coal miners got him elected, and Trump has revived their industry for them? I don’t see it happening.

April 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Oil companies could care less if they have to collect another tax to buy them green cover. Who cares what corporations think . It’s what elected officials representing voters think and what candidate Trump promised that is important . .
The Pars Agreement should be cancelled by Executive order the same way it was slipped in without peoples representatives even getting a chance to vote on it . It would have failed just like Kyoto did . For good reason.
Cancel it and put it to a vote because executive orders are just as easily reversed . Do the right thing
Mr. President the people who voted you in are watching .

Ron Williams
Reply to  Amber
April 18, 2017 2:00 pm

Putting it to a vote would be the proper thing to do, since Obama only implemented it by Executive Order. Sure, Trump could just kick it to the curb, but why let such a golden opportunity go to waste when so much hay could be made by having proper debate in both houses? Trump then would be off the hook for the failure for the USA to implement, and the world would get an education on what’s wrong with the the whole premise of CAGW.

That would give Congress/Senate the opportunity to scrutinize whether the whole issue of CO2 has met the litmus test of the Scientific Method. Instead of just ignoring the whole issue and taking ones marbles and going home, why not use it as an opportunity to expose the entire CAGW meme as a scam to redistribute the wealth from the wealthiest 11 countries to 200+ poor countries. And we know how accountable the money given to these 200+ other countries would be, and the cronyism that would follow the money. The worst thing you can do is throw money at poor nations and expect them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Just look at all the foreign aid that has gone to Africa in the last 40-50 years, and all the good that has done.

Reply to  Ron Williams
April 18, 2017 3:20 pm

Do you really want to trust congress ?

April 18, 2017 2:07 pm

Agree with everything stated about large companies and big agreements. They tend to like that environment since it stifles competition. Most of them are also run by chickencrap safety managers.

Do The Right Thing Mr. President. Lead

April 18, 2017 2:10 pm

“it is better to die on the losing side then live under communism”- Whittaker Chambers


You can’t pick your allies by their imperfections. Trump hasn’t laid a foundation against the evil aspects of the climate movement because it remains beyond the scope of most public debate. It’s Trumps whole reason for being elected based on an anti-globalist tyranny platform and that sums up “climate change” as a proxy in just two words.

Playing small ball on piece meal climate rules and regs based on economics leads to longer term political and policy disaster. The green swamp becomes permanent and every thing Trump will be whitewashed in reeducation camps when he falls.

If he doesn’t wipe out Paris and the greater UN cabal now he will never be a great President. This can’t be an issue to triangulate on as there isn’t a single Greenshirt vote to be had in the process. This is as principled and issue as there is. Political suicide if he doesn’t keep his word.

April 18, 2017 2:55 pm

Exxon just wants to make it harder for smaller companies to move in on their market share. Same story as it’s always been and the reason for nearly all lobbying.

April 18, 2017 3:26 pm

On the lighter side;

Roger Knights
April 18, 2017 3:43 pm

Here’s a long Buzzfeed article recounting the reasons why it would be politically prudent internationally to stay in the agreement formally, while explicitly or implicitly not attempting to fulfilll its goals:


Reply to  Roger Knights
April 18, 2017 4:30 pm

Thanks for that link, Roger. That explains some things.

A quote from the link:

“But walking away from the accord entirely would raise tensions to another level.

“The greatest international reaction would be around full-scale withdrawal from the agreement,” David Waskow, director of the International Climate Initiative at the World Resources Institute in Washington DC, told BuzzFeed News.

There are pragmatic reasons for the Trump administration to stay in the agreement even as it allows the US pledge on emissions reductions to slide. In future meetings, the deal’s signatories will discuss arrangements for investing in clean technology for the developing world. And if the US isn’t a party to the Paris agreement, it will have no say in how these and other policies are set up.”

“Investing in clean technology” = Giving American taxpayer money away to other nations to kill birds and bats. I don’t see any advantage to this for the U.S.

All those oil companies are international companies. They don’t need the U.S. in order to get their fingers in the “clean energy” pie. Some other nation will do it if there is money in it for them.

So far, I haven’t seen any good reasons for staying in the Paris Agreement. The only reason others want the U.S. in the agreement is so they can soak us for our money.

Juan Slayton
April 18, 2017 3:47 pm

How about the possibility that Congress could put an end to Obama’s “agreement” without any input at all from Mr. Trump?

Reply to  Juan Slayton
April 18, 2017 4:32 pm

There’s a good idea. I imagine that will move front and center if Trump doesn’t honor his pledge to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. I know I’ll be calling my represenatives on the subject.

Javert Chip
Reply to  TA
April 18, 2017 8:56 pm


And exactly what is congress going to do? This isn’t a treaty, its never been voted on in congress in any way – other than not allocating funds, what exactly do you think congress can do to a non-treaty piece of paper signed by Obama?

Reply to  TA
April 19, 2017 7:12 am

I don’t know if congress can vote on a treaty until after the president presents it to them.

Reply to  TA
April 19, 2017 11:07 am

Congress killed the Kyoto treaty without voting on the treaty. Instead, they voted on a “sense of the Senate” bill which turned out to be negative for the Kyoto Treaty, and the Kyoto Treaty was never put before the Senate because of this vote. They could do the same thing to the Paris Agreement.

If the Congress votes down the Paris Agreement in some form or other, Trump is not going to go against them.

April 18, 2017 4:00 pm


“Cheniere Energy, which exports liquefied natural gas, became the latest company to weigh in for the pact to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a letter Monday solicited by White House energy adviser G. David Banks.

“Domestic energy companies are better positioned to compete globally if the United States remains a party to the Paris agreement,” Cheniere wrote. The accord “is a useful instrument for fostering demand for America’s energy resources and supporting the continued growth of American industry.””

end excerpt

How is remaining a party to the Paris Agreement going to be “a useful instrument for fostering demand for America’s energy resources and supporting the continued growth of American industry.”?

There’s plenty of demand for energy resources. How would remaining in the Paris Agreement change that? Even if Trump did remain in the agreement, I don’t expect Trump to be passing money around to all comers, so how will these energy companies benefit the United States by our remaining in the Paris Agreement, which we are not going to follow. We would still be a member but we are not going to do anything about reducing CO2 other than what we are doing now, which is actually reducing CO2, and we are not going to be giving away money, so where do these benefits for the oil companies come from?

Richard M
Reply to  TA
April 18, 2017 4:13 pm

If we stay in then other countries stay in. Those countries then become customers for things like LNG, It’s all about money for this company.

Mike Maguire
April 18, 2017 4:09 pm

We have been hearing about cheap natural gas prices causing more demand/use for natural gas, which emits less CO2 when burned than coal. This has caused CO2 emissions to drop in the US. “has” is the operative word. The natural gas market fundamentals have turned more bullish for prices. The market price for natural gas spiked to a low at the end of February 2016 that will not be reached again…….maybe in our life time.
There are numerous reasons but the huge supply overhang peaked just over a year ago, with record end of the heating season supplies and we have been gradually eroding the supply surplus.

End of season storage, right now is at a comfortable 2.0 trillion cubic feet and more than 200 bcf above the 5 year average. However, we just finished one of the warmest Winters in history in the high population centers of the Midwest/East(that use the most ng for residential heating). Storage is 400 bcf less than a year ago. The record warm February and November caused the lowest Heating Degree Days for those months ever.
This has masked the bullish fundamentals of the natural gas market.

Fundamentals can change of course if prices keep going higher and this provides more incentive for increasing supply( some of which will be lost to increasing exports) but prices in 2016 were probably as low as they will ever be for a very long time.

Odds are that natural gas prices will go higher from here, which will mean that coal will once again become more competitive and in some cases cheaper than natural gas. At the very least, we will need more cheap, reliable and efficient power generating capacity and coal can fill that need. We have 200 years of power generating coal in the ground in the US, more than any other country in the world.

To not maximize our use of this valuable natural resource because it emits a beneficial gas when you burn it, would be the dumbest energy policy position in our history, by a wide margin. To be fair, I’m a lukewarmer that believes increasing CO2 has caused some of the warming and this is causing more high end flooding events around the world. But this is more than offset by the massive benefits to life, our biosphere and agricultural production.

There are pro natural gas energy companies that are for the climate agreement for business reasons, while there are others in the energy sector that want to be on the record of having this position………..for disingenuous, perception/political reasons. Being against it, carries with it, a strong negative label. There is a tremendous amount of money involved for the business sector in addition to the billions for world governments who play the game correctly. Of course that money has to come from somewhere. Guess who pays the bill?
The tax payer. The energy user. The poor. The rich. Those for it. Those against it. Maybe we should just establish a new green climate fund and instead of it using everybody’s money, let’s just take donations from those that believe in it. George Soros can donate several million. Give that money to China and India, not mine or yours for a reason that we think is really dumb.

Authentic climate science is pretty far down on the list of what this climate agreement really means.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
April 19, 2017 4:13 am

“However, we just finished one of the warmest Winters in history in the high population centers of the Midwest/East(that use the most ng for residential heating).”

Well, Climate Change science would predict that will happen again and more often…

Reply to  Griff
April 19, 2017 7:13 am

If so, that would be the first prediction that Client Change science has gotten right.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Griff
April 19, 2017 7:28 am

“However, we just finished one of the warmest Winters in history in the high population centers of the Midwest/East(that use the most ng for residential heating).”
“Well, Climate Change science would predict that will happen again and more often…”

This is true, though 1 year is just weather. From a real world perspective, did those most effected have a detrimental effect or benefit?
2015 and 2016 were the “hottest” years ever too.We also smashed previous records for agricultural production for many areas, not in spite of but because of the slight beneficial warming and the increase in beneficial CO2.

Is more food production detrimental or a benefit?
Is a greening planet detrimental or is it a benefit?
Is less energy use for residential heating during the Winter detrimental or a benefit?

Is ignoring these empirical facts, which clearly are worth many trillions in benefits to humans as well as most life and the biosphere of our planet, an authentic way to conduct an objective scientific analysis?

Telling just one side, exaggerating one side, ignoring/giving less weight to valid data that doesn’t line up favorably, giving more weight to theorized(model) data that does line up favorably. Is this the scientific method?

A warmer atmosphere will hold more moisture, warmer oceans will add more precipitable water to that atmosphere. This causes heavier rains and more high end extreme flooding, weather events. This is backed by meteorological principles and the observational world. If you want to be real Griff and support your position, you can site this fact.

However, siting a benefit is counterproductive to your case. Those of us living in this part of the world=100 million+ people, when we opened our gas/electric bills this past Winter, had emotions, reacting to the small numbers(cost to heat our homes) of what you just used as an example of Climate Change science. Were we happy or sad?

Maybe you should twist the record crop yields for the last 2 years in the US as being a problem for farmers because of low prices(supply burden) and the need for additional storage space for their massive crops.

As absurd as that reads, this is exactly what you do when subjectively interpreting everything and anything that might relate to Climate Change science(assumed to be human caused) climate change.

Reply to  Griff
April 19, 2017 9:11 am

The big problem with the warmer world is a wetter world is that the total energy coming in from the sun hasn’t changed.
It takes energy to evaporate water, so the limit to how much water can evaporate is not the temperature of the air, but rather the energy entering the system from the sun.
If the amount of energy from the sun remains unchanged, then the total amount of evaporation will likewise stay unchanged, regardless of the temperature of the air.

Gary Pearse
April 18, 2017 4:36 pm

Trump does elevate your blood pressure on these topics we thought we could make book on. I hope he’d rather disappoint his daughter than his supporters on this subject. If he is looking for money for his military, wall, infrastructure and jobs programs, this a pretty weighty anchor to cut the chain from.

I know with activist judges doing lefty bidding we have to be patient but I don’t want to see any relaxing of resolve. Smack these anti-American organizations and their US treasonous citizenry supporters down. “There’s a new sheriff in town” used to mean something.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 19, 2017 10:27 am

“The big problem with the warmer world is a wetter world is that the total energy coming in from the sun hasn’t changed”

The biggest problem with that assumption is that empirical data clearly shows that heavy rain events for all time scales have increased globally. As you stated, the sun has not changed enough to account for this. Maybe you don’t want to believe that high end rain events have not increased. As an operational meteorologist for 36 years, forecasting global weather patterns the past 25 years, there is not a shred of doubt in mind this is what we’ve seen.
So why is this?

You can make the case that the warmer atmosphere holding more moisture will mean that less will condense out but a good example instead would be comparing the atmosphere to a sponge. If you saturate one sponge with H2O, then bring in another, slightly bigger sponge and saturated it, then wring both out with the same force, which one will yield more water?

You are right about the sun and evaporation. Also, there is a negative feedback regarding clouds that makes this tricky. If the atmosphere is holding more moisture and we have more (low) clouds blocking the sun, it will decrease evaporation from the sun.
However, the oceans have warmed vs 100 years ago. Regardless of what caused it. A warmer ocean and warmer atmosphere with a constant sun will evaporate more.

Sit 2 bowls of water out, 1 at 62 degrees with an ambient air temperature of unsaturated air of 70 degrees. Set the other one at 63 degrees for the water and 71 degrees for the air.

The 2nd environment will have a bit more moisture. Massively multiply the areal coverage by millions of times to represent the synoptic scale of weather systems and subject those air masses to lifting, cooling and condensation on a large scale. With all things being equal, which one will lead to heavier rains?

There is additional heat energy in the oceans and atmosphere and it doesn’t matter if it came from the sun or somewhere else.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
April 19, 2017 10:53 am

The claim that heavy rain events have increased is problematic at best, completely wrong at the worst.
The problem is three fold, first the claimed increase is so small that if it did actually exist it could easily be explained as part of natural cycles.
The second is that the time period during which accurate climate data has been taken is too short for anything to be proven from it.
The period of time during which this alleged increase has occurred, the planet hasn’t been warming anyway.

PS: You contradict yourself, first you claim that there is extra heat in the ocean, then you proclaim that there is more rain, they cannot both be true.
Finally, the claim is that the oceans have increased in temperature by a couple thousandths of a degree.
1) Such a number is several orders of magnitude smaller then even the most optimistic error bars that can be put on that number. In other words, it’s crap.
2) Do you really believe having the oceans warm up by 0.001C is going to increase rainfall by a measurable amount?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 19, 2017 11:17 am

“The biggest problem with that assumption is that empirical data clearly shows that heavy rain events for all time scales have increased globally.”

Not around my neck of the woods. The weather patterns look pretty normal around here. It might be slightly milder weather, but no increase in rain. In fact, the way the weather is looking, my neck of the woods may be a little short on moisture this spring and summer, and when that happens it usually corresponds with a hot, dry summer.

J Mac
April 18, 2017 4:51 pm

President Trump must deliberately abrogate US participation in the ‘Paris Agreement’. He must do this, on the basis that Obama’s personal commitment of USA to the ‘Paris Agreement’ exceeded US presidential authority. Obama refused to submit this ‘agreement’ to the authority of the US Congress for debate and an ‘up or down’ vote. Rejecting the ‘Paris Agreement’ effectively rejects the illegitimate ‘authority’ and precedent Obama tried to set. If it is not rejected, that very dangerous expansion of presidential power becomes precedent.

Gary Pearse
April 18, 2017 5:10 pm

Most of the mushy comments on reasons to stay in the Paris web seem unaware of the reality of the power of the US. There will be no such thing as an agreement without the US period! The US isn’t just a one vote country in a world of equals. This is precisely why they can be unilateral in this and purely bilateral in all trade deals, rather than dilute their power by sharing it. No other country other than the US can go it alone because no other country can afford to do without the US. Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not the EU, not the UN. This why it’s foolish for the US to not assert itself strongly in its self control interest. The reality is that other countries, deep down understand that the US self interest is in their real self interest, too. It is the chief reason why there is so much anti-Americanism. Since you can’t make them love you, do the best thing.

Anybody looking for an alternative Secretary of State?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 18, 2017 5:13 pm

dang illiterate corrector “self interest”

J Mac
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 18, 2017 9:28 pm

Whole heartedly agree, Gary!

Sun Spot
April 18, 2017 6:43 pm

Remember Donald Trump is a New York Liberal , and in the end he will behave as such.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Sun Spot
April 18, 2017 9:02 pm

Sun Spot

So Says you. Then you also have a couple tens of millions of actual liberals who seem to think Trump is not one of them.

Reply to  Javert Chip
April 19, 2017 7:15 am

Liberals tend to be purists. Unless you agree with them 100%, you aren’t one of them.
Regardless, New England conservatives would be called liberal in most of the rest of the country.

Reply to  Javert Chip
April 19, 2017 11:39 am

I should probably say extremists tend to be purists, because I’ve known some conservatives who suffer from the same mental disease.

Reply to  Javert Chip
April 20, 2017 10:18 am

Though the liberals have a greater tendency to become extremists. Probably frustration from watching their schemes fail over and over again.

Reply to  Sun Spot
April 19, 2017 11:20 am

Funny, conservatives like me see Trump promoting conservative ideas. I couldn’t be more pleased with what Trump has done. Well, I could be more pleased if he withdraws from the Paris Agreement, but so far, he’s batting 1,000 with me.

Sun Spot
Reply to  Sun Spot
April 24, 2017 6:24 pm

Donald won’t withdraw from the “Paris Accord” as it might damage Ivanka’s fashion business

April 18, 2017 7:04 pm

I fail to understand why President Trump would want the US to stay in an ‘executive agreement’ that in reality would require us to borrow billions from China to give billions to China. Seems rather stupid to me and I’m pretty sure the Chinese are having a hard time keeping a straight face when they talk with us about it.

What President Obama is finding out is (what should have been obvious in the first place) that as easy as it is to ‘legislate by executive order’ (in order to get around a recalcitrant Congress) it is equally as easy to ‘repeal by executive decree’. Although i suppose he never expected that Trump would win and expected that Hillary would carry his legislation by executive order forward fro another 8 years.

Reply to  Bill Marsh
April 19, 2017 12:18 am

“I fail to understand why President Trump would want the US to stay in an ‘executive agreement’ that in reality would require us to borrow billions from China to give billions to China.”

Specifically how do the Paris accords require the US to borrow money from China and give money to China?

Reply to  Chris
April 19, 2017 3:42 am

Where did you think those billions to pay for the stupidity was going to come from, a money tree ?

Reply to  Chris
April 19, 2017 10:54 am

It doesn’t grow on trees. It grows on printing presses.

Reply to  Chris
April 19, 2017 11:28 am

“Specifically how do the Paris accords require the US to borrow money from China and give money to China?”

Well, if the U.S. spends any money at all on the Paris Agreement, some of it will be borrowed money, and some of that will come from China.

Half of every expenditure the U.S. makes is borrowed money. If we donate $10 million to the Paris Agreement, we have to borrow $5 million of that amount from our lenders.

Interest on the U.S. debt will soon exceed the budget for U.S. national defense ($600 billion+ annually). The U.S. shouldn’t be wasting money on the Paris Agreement, especially since we have to borrow the money to begin with.

Reply to  Chris
April 19, 2017 11:40 am

If spending increases, every penny of that increase will either be borrowed or printed. Since the money from tax revenue has already been spent.

Reply to  Chris
April 20, 2017 10:19 am

For a guy who believes himself to be smart, he sure does ask some dumb questions.

Johann Wundersamer
April 19, 2017 2:32 am

The Paris Climate Agreement was signed by 198 states.

Including 5 net payers:

1. US
2. Great Britain
3. Germany
4. France
5. Italy

Following the rejection of the Paris Climate Agreement

by US + Great Britain

leaves 3 net payers:

– Germany
– France
– Italy

Anybody here who thinks

Germany +France + Italy will save the world?

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
April 19, 2017 8:50 am

Excellent analysis of the situation. And with Germany fudging on their emission goals that doesn’t leave a very strong block. But we know it’s not about the CO2 goals and all about the money transfer. I’m betting the man on the street doesn’t understand the real impetus behind AGW.

Johann Wundersamer
April 19, 2017 3:59 am

China is going a stupid and really wrong way:

China has real air pollution – but that stems of the Taklamatan and therefore is mostly built on desert dust.

Refering to ‘carbon’ and ‘CO2’ is as stupid as hindering to a wealthy solution.

Johann Wundersamer
April 19, 2017 4:10 am

Here we go with ‘westerlies’ –

To China; Best wishes from Taklamatan.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
April 19, 2017 5:25 am
April 19, 2017 10:14 am

Mr. Trump is under, I will bet, increasing pressure to break his word on climate. This would be a mistake. Not only from an integrity perspective but politically and more importantly benefits to America perspective. His integrity is something he deservedly greatly values. He can be trusted to keep his word. Boeing under the pressure of even close friends and family to appease them but breaking his own word would damage his integrity. He needs the power that goes to a man of integrity in the tough times to come. When our enemies realized Obama would fold on his word they made hay on that weakness. Folding on climate will lead to other problems. Folding on climate will not gain Mr. Trump one new vote but will cost him many current supporters. Also and perhaps most important, folding on climate will leave in place damaging ineffective policies and expenses which do nothing to help America or the world.

Reply to  hunter
April 19, 2017 11:39 am

“Folding on climate will lead to other problems. Folding on climate will not gain Mr. Trump one new vote but will cost him many current supporters.”

That’s right.

I can’t imagine an argument good enough to keep Trump in the Paris Agreement. And with Trump fixated on managing our money properly, I just don’t see how he can look at the Paris Agreement and see anything but a huge giveaway of U.S. taxpayer’s money.

April 19, 2017 12:20 pm

Ignoring the Paris Agreement or taking the ball home as some seem to suggest is a cowards way of
dealing with a document that is unenforceable UNLESS Democrats wait in the weeds. as they hope to do , then start shipping $billions in make up money when they get back in power .
If Mr. Trump wants to retain his credibility stop the “HOAX ” as promised or history will show his relatives
influenced him to further the Hoax and he will be firmly in the swamp for everyone to see .
Kyoto was not approved in the USA Congress and that is the last vote by elected officials on the record .
If Mr. Trump is worried about honouring a campaign promise then it is simple put the Paris “Agreement” to a vote like the Kyoto Agreement was . If he doesn’t you will know the unelected White House liberal insiders are running the agenda and he can kiss his credibility good by .
His erratic policy behaviour should be a major worry for the Republicans and the Paris Agreement
is an opportunity to show he won’t be signing on to a $ Trillion fraud despite attempts of liberal whiners furthering their own agenda .

April 19, 2017 2:18 pm

The EPA office in Chicago should either be closed or downsized to a small store front in south Chicago.

April 19, 2017 6:32 pm

Y’all just don’t get it. Trump makes DEALS!
If he sees he can win in making a DEAL using the Climate Change thing, then guess what…
This is government as business.
Is that good or bad or so much different?
We shall see…

In the meantime, think about the possible DEALS.

Reply to  Yirgach
April 19, 2017 6:36 pm

Um, real numbers?
Not so much.

%d bloggers like this: