Dumping Paris agreement right decision for U.S. and the world

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

President Trump should dump the politically contrived and scientifically corrupt 2015 Paris climate agreement as the right decision for the U.S. and the world.

clip_image002

Those arguing that the U.S. should continue to support the Paris process but negotiate new and different provisions are naïve and fail to appreciate that the Paris process of political and scientific corruption disqualifies it serving as a credible vehicle for advancing legitimate future climate policy proposals.

The Paris agreement and its associated processes need to be completely abandoned and a new process created which is free of the stigma of corruption which cloaks the existing Paris agreement and proceedings.

The Paris agreement is a scheme built upon a foundation of completely inadequate science as clearly acknowledged by the UN IPCC. The Paris agreement process is driven solely by the politics of climate alarmism.

The 2001 UN IPCC AR3 report established that it is impossible to create climate models which accurately represent global climate when it concluded that “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

The most recent UN IPCC AR5 report relies upon these inadequate climate models and tries to hide this inadequacy by employing slight of hand “assessed likelihood” opinions, conjecture and speculation to improperly convey degrees of certainty of climate outcomes that are unsupported by scientifically established and mathematically derived probabilities.

The Paris agreements provisions which rely upon climate “models” that are clearly inadequate and where scientific conjecture is falsely disguised as certainty have also been unequivocally determined to be flawed and failed as documented in Congressional testimony by climate scientists before the House Science Committee in March 2017.

clip_image004

Climate scientist Dr. Judith presented testimony before the House Science Committee in March 2017 where she identified the fundamental flaws contained in climate models as follows:

.

clip_image005

clip_image006Dr. Curry concludes with three key points about climate model capabilities:

clip_image007Climate scientist Dr. John Christy also presented testimony before the House Science Committee where he employed the scientific method to evaluate the credibility of climate model temperature projections against actual measured global temperatures. He concluded that:

Dr. Christy’s tests of climate model temperature projections against actual measured global temperatures showed the model theory failed against observed temperatures at greater than a 99% confidence level.

clip_image009

The testimony before the House Science Committee of Dr. Curry regarding the extensive flaws contained in climate models coupled with the testimony of Dr. Christy regarding the extraordinary failed performance of these climate models in conjunction with the UN IPCC’s own acknowledgement of it’s inability to create climate models which can faithfully represent global climate clearly dictates that using such models for establishing global climate policy actions is completely inappropriate and unjustified.

Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. addressed climate alarmist claims that man made CO2 emissions are causing more extreme weather also in testimony provided before the House Science Committee March 2017. In his testimony Dr. Pielke concluded:

clip_image010

clip_image012

The U.S. has been extremely successful in reducing greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions from its peak levels in year 2007 driven by the remarkable energy market benefits of natural gas fracking.

EPA data shows that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have declined through year 2015 by over 10% to levels last experienced in 1994. This reduction amounts to 763 million metrics tons of lower greenhouse gas emissions.

clip_image014

The newly released 2017 EIA AEO report updates US CO2 emissions through year 2016 and shows emissions declining from 2015 levels as well as continuing to decline from peak year 2007 levels with forecasts of stable CO2 emissions through year 2030 without Obama’s EPA CPP “war on coal” regulations ever being in place.

The 2017 EIA AEO report shows year 2016 US CO2 and future emissions are being achieved as a consequence of the increased use of energy market available low cost natural gas which is driving down the use of coal fuel with the further impacts of lowering CO2 emissions.

Thus energy market forces provided by fracking of natural gas are driving and controlling the reduction and future stable CO2 emission levels of the U.S. without government imposing unnecessary, costly and bureaucratically burdensome regulations on the public.

clip_image015

In year 2030 US CO2 emissions are forecast by EIA to be 5,210 million metric tons (without Obama’s EPA CPP) which is a reduction of 790 million metric tons and over 14% below peak year 2007 CO2 levels.

The U.S. significant reductions in greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions have been hidden from the public by the climate alarmist main stream media and climate activist scientists.

During this same period between 2007 and 2030 while the US is reducing CO2 emissions by nearly 800 million metric tons per year EIA IEO 2011 and 2016 report data shows the world’s developing nations increasing CO2 emissions by over 9,900 million metric tons per year with China and India accounting for more than 5,700 million metric tons per year of the developing nations total increase.

The massive increased CO2 emissions of the developing nations including China and India are acceptable under Obama’s 2015 Paris agreement.

NOAA has just updated its coastal sea level rise tide gauge data  including actual measurements through year 2016 which continues to show no evidence of coastal sea level rise acceleration.

These measurements include tide gauge data coastal locations for 25 West Coast, Gulf Coast and East Coast states along the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, 7 Pacific island groups and 6 Atlantic island groups in all comprising more than 200 measurement stations.

The longest NOAA tide gauge data coastal sea level rise measurement record is at The Battery in New York with its 160 year long data record showing a steady rate of sea level rise of about 11 inches per century.

clip_image017

clip_image018The UN IPCC AR5 WG1 report concludes in the Summary for Policy Makers Chapter that:

NOAA tide gauge coastal sea level rise data measurements encompassing the 46 year period from 1970 through 2016 do not support and in fact clearly contradict the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 conclusion regarding supposed man made contributions to increasing rates of sea level rise since the early 1970s.

clip_image019

Climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry provided Congressional testimony regarding the decades long frustration of dealing with the politicalization of climate science by both the UN IPCC and Obama Administration as follows:

clip_image020

Dr. Curry then clearly articulated the “war on science” that has been conducted by government climate science alarmist politics during the past decades:

clip_image021

The voluntary commitments made thus far from the 2015 Paris agreement will costs trillions of dollars to implement and produce little in actual global temperature reductions and related impacts.

It is absurd for global nations to commit trillions of dollars on government regulated climate actions based on flawed and failed climate model projections which are the products of conjecture and speculation coupled with a corrupt political process which invented a contrived “consensus” scheme to cover up the truth of flawed climate science capabilities.

The fact that those demanding such massive expenditures have worked so hard to hide and deny the extraordinary shortcomings of global climate model simulations demonstrates that a massive global government con game is being perpetrated by the climate alarmist community upon the public.

Climate models may serve useful purposes in academic and scientific studies but they are completely unsuited for purposes of regulatory driven commitments that require the expenditures of trillions of dollars of global capital which can be utilized for much greater benefit in dealing with known massive global problems including poverty, health care and education.

President Trump needs to make the right decision for the U.S. and the world by dumping the politically and scientifically corrupt 2015 Paris agreement and moving future climate policy endeavors to what hopefully will be a new and fresh beginning free of the monumental stigma of “climate science politicalization” that has so thoroughly contaminated the present Paris agreement and associated processes.

Advertisements

218 thoughts on “Dumping Paris agreement right decision for U.S. and the world

      • Ivanka isn’t the one who will be running for re-election. Trump should be very careful of pissing off virtually everyone who voted for him by not following through on anything.

      • “Big problems. Speed humps or road blocks?
        1. Ivanka Trump says there is global warming.
        2. Guess who Trump has now authorised to review the Paris Stupidity?”

        Perhaps. But the thought occurred to me that Trump may have deliberately given Ivanka this specific role in order to expose her to the solid arguments of the sceptical/realist side. In having to review the Paris deal herself, Ivanka will be obliged to listen carefully to both sides of the issue, something that’s all too easy to avoid if you aren’t directly involved in the process personally. Believers in the alarmist cause are, generally speaking, coming from an ideological viewpoint where the scientific arguments don’t carry any weight. This is precisely why the craziness is still alive and well; the real-world science is ignored. So this could, perhaps, be Trump being very clever indeed. Maybe. I mean, I HOPE that’s the case! I won’t hold my breath on it of course, but it IS a possibility at least.

      • Indeed, Kiwi Heretic, exposing Ivanka to both sides may well turn out to be a clever move. Even her conversion to the valid sceptical cause is a possibility. Slim, though. I believe the esteemed author of this blog saw the light some years ago! Sadly, however, AW is a rare exception having the considerable wit to recognise the pseudoscienctific hoax of climate alarmism.

    • Man made warming exists, but is manifested mainly in the urban sprawl and superhighway infrastructures. On a global scale these UHI effects are not significant. Most of society’s masses, however, live within the influence of these heat islands. Their “human terrariums” have indeed warmed as the cities grew. Who can blame the average urbanite for being sucked in by the authoritarian doomsayers?

      Solving the UHI problem would be much more worthy of multinational attention.

      • Pop Pisa,

        I disagree with you on one point. Whilst man may contribute to climate change by some means, to my mind it’s almost certainly not by CO2 emissions. Whilst atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 400ppm in 100 years or so, temperatures have not followed suit.

        Now, whilst we may endure a dramatic temperature rise over the next ten years or so, which would dispel the claim of a pause in GW, I can’t see there’s any evidence to support that eventuality.

        What I believe should be at the forefront of our mind’s is that whilst CO2 responds predictably in a test tube and computer projections, it is all, to date, unsubstantiated hypothesis relative to the climate. There is not a single, credible, empirical study over the last 40 years that reliably demonstrates CO2 is anything but beneficial to the planet. There should be hundreds, if not thousands on which to base current eye watering expenditure, but there’s none.

        Indeed, to my knowledge, the only observable study conducted to establish what effect increased CO2 has on the planet was by NASA, on their own satellite data. It concluded the planet has greened by 14% over the last 30 years of their observations.

        I’m not sure what the greens want, if not that, but it seems solid, observable evidence isn’t good enough for them, even when it does support their own objective.

      • It’s probable that CO2 does cause warming. The problem is that the probable level of warm is so small compared to natural variability that it is impossible to pick out the influence in the climate record.

    • If you look closely, you’ll find it in your beer bottle. Just don’t burp, the world will go under.

    • We can all bottle sea water and store it in wooden cupboards, storing carbon and dealing with sea level rise in one go. It won’t happen because, like nuclear power, there is nothing in it for The Blob.

  1. Does anyone know why the President hasn’t dumped the agreement yet? It hasn’t been ratified, it’s not a treaty. The President could get rid of it with the stroke of a pen.

    • What I’ve been hearing on the news today makes me think that the fecal matter has hit the air movement device. I think The Donald is going to be seriously distracted for a while. We may have missed our chance to get rid of Paris.

      • Personally I think The God Emperor will do the same thing with Paris that he’s done with great success on a number of issues. Not make a commitment and seem to be waffling right up to the moment the Axe flies.

    • Commie-San:

      Ivanka is a strong advocate of CAGW and doesn’t want to exit the Paris Accord.

      Recently, Ivanka has become one of Trump’s closest and trusted advisors, so he’s backed off until Ivanka has more time to discuss the Global Warming “crisis” with pro-CAGW “scientists”…

      Oh, goody…

      Gee, I wonder what conclusions and advice Ivanka will come up with after “consulting” with “experts” like Al Gore and Michael Mann?….

      • You can bet they won’t be discussing this paper with Ivanka !

        The global CO2 sinks have expanded so rapidly due to the CO2 fertilization effect ,our share of atmospheric CO2 began declining since 2000, Paper published 2016 in Nature ;

        “Since the start of the twenty-first century, however, the airborne fraction has been declining (−2.2% per year, P=0.07; Fig. 1b), despite the rapid increase in anthropogenic emissions”

        Another decade of the increasing sink growth, and Paris is irrelevant !
        https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428/figures/1

  2. Anyone who thinks they have a cat in hell’s chance of renegotiating any part of the Paris “agreement” is even more naive than David Cameron and others thinking that they could get the EU to change its economically disastrous ways. And – guess what? – many of those involved in the upper echelons of the EU are the very same people who will never change their minds about CAGW. The USA should just pull out as indeed the UK should.

  3. ” The U.S. has been extremely successful in reducing greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions.”

    – greenhouse gas

    – CO2 emissions
    ________________________________________

    We’re doomed !

    We’re extremely successfully doomed !
    ________________________________________

    What’s next, Larry Hamlin !
    ________________________________________

    Shucks.

  4. Whether or not our “greenhouse gas” emissions have declined is beside the point. When arguing with Warmunists, do not give them ground of any kind. The Paris “agreement” is wrong because the science is wrong. End of story.

    • Bruce, disagree. Actually, quite strongly on political tactics grounds.
      There is some basic common ground. Yes, climate changes. Yes, we have been naturally warming out of the LIA. Yes, CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’ that impedes radiative cooling. Yes, all the measured data says that by itself, the lack of cooling from CO2 is logarithmic with concentration and about 1.16C per doubling based on present measurements. Even Monckton agrees with that value. Those are all objective facts. Not conceding them just gets one dismissed as a D person or Obama ‘flat earther’.
      But then once they are engaged you can cut them off at the knees with additIonal observational facts they cannot rebut. My usual short list offered up again with a couple of newbies just for you:

      Except for the now stll rapidly cooling 2015-16 El Nino blip, no warming this century except by Karlization. Yet this century comprises ~35% of the total increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958 (Keeling curve onset).
      No acceleration in sea level rise.
      No increase in extreme weather per IPCC SREX itself. Direct consequence of any polar amplification and the reduction in latitudinal energy differential. (Lindzen’s point that their ‘science’ on this is bassackwards.)
      Greening.
      Antarctica stable/gaining ice. Arctic not continuing to lose sea ice.
      Polar bears thriving. They do not depend on summer ice, mainly spring ice during seal whelping.
      Oceans buffered and not ‘acidifying’ much even where barren. Biological ocean CO2 sinks (e.g. Coccoliths in North Atlantic) increasing 10 x past 30 years with no signs of saturation as in the Bern model.

      Use judo/aikido on warmunists, not no quarter MMA. Get them close, then throw them off balance with ‘tricks’ like SREX (most warmunists will not have heard of or read this IPCC document) or Susan Crockford’s new book on polar bears, then slam them to the mat with killer facts they cannot refute like greening, 21st century, SLR. Aikido is judo with elements of karate mixed in. Is more violent than pure judo. Both very Japanese. I learned judo long ago, but the aikido demonstrations are awesome. Not much taught in the US.

      • the lack of cooling from CO2 is logarithmic with concentration and about 1.16C per doubling based on present measurements.

        Presuming no negative feedbacks. Perceptible warming from increased CO2 is not a conclusion from science.

        Cloud feedbacks are poorly understood and not modeled at all well. Small changes in tropical cloudiness, and in the hydrological cycle, could zero out tropospheric warming from increased CO2 forcing.

        Not one iotum of the climate alarm is situated in science.

      • As always, when losing, enargpia tries to move the goal post.
        Nobody said it was a trend.
        On the other hand, one year of data is enough to make a trend according to many trolls.

      • Engarpia< Your Arctic ice plot, "Adjusted Hadley Sea Ice Extent Standardized Anomaly, 1953 -2007" lacks any current data, 9 years of it actually. Is there a more current plot?

      • Wait.

        Did engarpia just try to prove two different points about ‘current’ trends by posting graphs that end BEFORE the trend changed?

        Really? >¿<

      • ‘OK, can you tell us what caused the oceans to warm?’

        ENSO remains an enigma, but I feel in my water that its a determinate.

        There were more La Nina during the LIA and as you know a strong El Nino has a warming effect.

      • ristvan, you also believe that the earth doesn’t roll idly by and allow CO2 to heat us up unimpeded, though, don’t you? ДEnthalpy and greening and…

      • Yes MarkW, currently above 2 of the lowest 4 years in the 37 year satgellite record… after being at record low all winter. Its only high extent because so much of it is thin, broken up and dispersed and on its way out to melt in N Atlantic.

        but the ice is thinner and of lower volume than ever before. Its still below 2012 at this point and in worse condition.

        There’s no way (sadly) this isn’t going to be another record low year…

      • engorgement@proboscis

        You sound like that tripe wallowing failed scientist attp.

        Isn’t it interesting that you link to charts specifically far short of current data. How does one show El Nino 2016 effect when the chart dies off in 2015?

      • Griffie, The ice level always falls after an El Nino, as normal circulation patterms pull the El Nino warmed water into the arctic.

        Your desperate need to believe that disaster is around the corner is just so darned cute.

      • And this ; The new “pause” .. (and confirms the old pause ) ..Our share of atmospheric CO2 declining since 2000 ..Surprised this paper not headlined on WUWT ..Drives Warmists insane ,got me banned on medianatterers-

        “Since the start of the twenty-first century, however, the airborne fraction has been declining (−2.2% per year, P=0.07; Fig. 1b), despite the rapid increase in anthropogenic emissions”

        https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428/figures/1

      • “Griff May 11, 2017 at 1:04 am

        Its still below 2012 at this point and in worse condition.

        There’s no way (sadly) this isn’t going to be another record low year…”

        Another record low (For 2017)? You have made that prediction before…we’ll see…

        As a reminder, Al Gore predicted the Arctic would be ice free within 5 years. 5 years later in his prediction (Apparently based on “science”), which was 2013, ice was…strangely…stubbornly…*STILL* there and there is no unusual volume or extent. Funny that!

      • Patrick MJD (Quoting Griff)

        “Griff May 11, 2017 at 1:04 am

        Its still below 2012 at this point and in worse condition.

        There’s no way (sadly) this isn’t going to be another record low year…”

        Another record low (For 2017)? You have made that prediction before…we’ll see…

        As a reminder, Al Gore predicted the Arctic would be ice free within 5 years. 5 years later in his prediction (Apparently based on “science”), which was 2013, ice was…strangely…stubbornly…*STILL* there and there is no unusual volume or extent.

        I will remind Griff, and any other hand-wringers reading, that Spring 2012 was one of the very few recent periods when Arctic Sea ice was ABOVE its 1979-1989 daily average sea ice extents. Yes. The year Arctic sea ice hit a record low sea ice minimum in September was the only year Arctic sea ice was above average in spring – just 4-1/2 months previous to the Sept minimum! Historically, low spring sea ice means higher September sea ice minimums. Low sea ice in September means higher sea ice levels the next spring.
        Now, the recent Arctic sea ice trend is steady – oscillating at -1.2 to -1.5 Mkm^2. Not getting greater. Not getting much smaller either. This is because, over the course of the entire year, less sea ice means more heat losses from the Arctic Ocean. The much-hyped Arctic amplification of sea ice melt causing more radiation absorption causing more sea ice to melt is a short-term, 4 month phenomenon that stops in mid-August. Thereafter, between the end of August and the end of March, less sea ice means more heat losses to the Arctic air, which then radiates that energy to space.

        The opposite happens around Antarctica: Down south, the sea ice DOES reflect about 1.7 times the energy over the entire year that the Arctic sea ice does.

    • Ristvan, you say, “we have been naturally warming out of the LIA.” Could you please explain to me the physics that cause this?

      • That is your job. You and your alarmist cohorts need to explain all historic climate changes as part of the science. If you don’t understand them then you are pretending to understand climate.

      • We’ve been warming for 10,000 years. Are you saying that was man-made warming from 10,000 years ago?

      • Richard, maybe you can help ristvan out here. What is “natural warming?” I would like to install some of this “natural warming” in my house, because it gets cold here in the winter.

      • Ha! Can you?

        You seem to have no grasp of Science, and the Scientific Method.

        The onus is on you and the Carbon Propaganda Mongers. Do you not realize this?

      • john harmsworth, no, we have not been “warming for 10,000 years.” Per Milankovitch cycles, we’ve actually been cooling recently. Go see Marcot, but chop off the instrumental record off the right hand side of their graph.

      • Reg Nelson, please help me out here. Ristvan says “we have been naturally warming” and john harmsworth agrees….but neither of them has provided the cause. Do you know what the cause is?

      • I see enargpia is doing is patented pedant act.

        Natural by definition is anything not man made.
        The fact remains that the world has been warming since the end of the LIA. The null hypothesis is that whatever caused that warming is continuing. It is up to you to prove that the null hypothesis is wrong. In order to do that you have to prove that whatever caused the previous warming is no longer operating.

      • Funny man, enargpia. The fact remains. We have been warming. I don’t have to know how a refrigerator works to know that it cools.

      • MarkW, so what you are saying is that “naturally warming” has no cause. So, according to your theory, I can get a pot of water, put it on my kitchen table, and it can naturally boil?

      • MarkW says: “The fact remains that the world has been warming since the end of the LIA. ” I don’t care about the statistical inference null hypothesis, because this isn’t about statistics. I just want to know what the cause of the warming since the LIA is. Are you telling us it is “magic?”

      • Sorry Bob Armstrong, there are no equations that I know of that explain “natural warming”

      • No need to. Just is. Natural variation is proven by MWP Greenland Viking burials that are now encased in permafrost, and by the last LIA London ice fair 1814. No need to explain why, although I of course have suppositions about possible physical explanations. You want me to turn the null hypothesis upside down. Mann’s abominably bad (both data and math) hockey stick tried to erase climate history and therefore erase the proper null hypothesis. Nope.
        What you have to do to disprove the properly stated climate null hypothesis ( limate changes, nothing to do with CO2) is explain using physics why GHG overwhelms the proven background natural climate variation that must be still ongoing. I comcede you this headstart: CO2 is a GHG, and a doubling should, ceterus paribus, inhibit IR cooling such that the equilibrium troposphere temperature will rise about 1.16C. The rest is your to do physics.
        Please cover model parameter tuning for best hindcasts, lack of modeled tropical troposphere hotspot, lack of constant relative humidity as assumed by AR4 WG1 blackbox 8.1 (covered in my previous book), and cloud physics (essay Cloudy Clouds in most recent book).

        Your physics to do on feedbacks is way bigger than your ability to do those physics. A specific example that affects both water vapor and clouds is convection cells such as thunderstorms. Due to computational constraints, the finest climate model gridcell in CMIP5 is 110 km per side at the equator. It takes about 50 days to do one such run per UCAR on the world’s best supercomputers. To adequately resolve thunderstorm convection, numerical weather models use gridcells 2 thanks to the CFL constraint on numerically solved partial differential equations). So to get the ‘physics’ of feedbacks ‘right’ is 110/55/27/13/7/4/2 six orders of magnitude beyond present computational capability. Or, you can start such a run and get the results in about 50,000,000 days. Good luck with that.
        Advice: never bring a rubber knife to a pro gunfight. Baiting with the improper null, not knowing about the computational intractability that forces model parameterization that automatically drags in the natural/AGW attribution problem… hang around and you might learn some stuff. Or, just read my most recent inexpensive ebook, which covers all this and much more in illustrated and footnoted detail for laypersons.

      • Earth has warmed since the LIA. We know it warmed but we don’t yet know what caused the warming. The climate models cannot reproduce the warming since the LIA, so whatever caused it is not represented in the climate models. That alone should give everyone cause to doubt that the climate models are of any use at all.

      • Ristvan, are you telling me that “natural warming” is caused by “natural variation?” If I place a thermometer in a pot of water, will it go up and down due to “natural variation?” How can I prevent “natural variation” from changing the temperature of my pot of water?

        Now you are incorrectly applying the “null hypothesis” construct because that is only involved in statistical inference. We’re not doing statistics here. I just want you to explain to me what the cause of the warming since the LIA is. From what I know, asking such a question is within the realm of “science.” Please try and focus, this isn’t about GHG, Mann models or any of the other diversionary tactics you are employing to avoid saying “I(we) don’t know” You would have not earned my disrespect if you said that.

        You write this sentence: “Your physics to do on feedbacks is way bigger than your ability to do those physics.” I never mentioned “feedbacks”….What on earth are you talking about?

      • THANK YOU Mike Jonas……” but we don’t yet know what caused the warming.” …..Mike, please explain this to “ristvan”

      • When he can’t move the goal posts, enargpia’s second favorite trick is to just act stupid.
        For example, I say “we don’t know the cause” from which our newest troll declares “so you say there is no cause”.

        You got to give the troll credit for being so willing to embarrass itself for a paycheck.

      • MarkW, what caused the “natural warming” since the LIA? (PS….MarkW, does your refrigerator work if you unplug it?)

      • Markw: ” I just want to know what the cause of the warming since the LIA is. Are you telling us it is “magic?”

        You have yet to respond to my question.

      • Engarpia, you apparently have low reading comprehension. I spent half an hour replying at length more than you were due, in the apparently vain hope you might learn something. Please state the scientifically correct null hypothesis. Please address the model physics.
        Repeating warmunist bullheaded wrong religious beliefs will not carry you far here, or anywhere else. Simply repeating logically wrong arguments wins you no points except as a stupid troll. Be gone or reply with substance. I expect you will/can do neither. You already lost this round in the eyes of many. Don’t persist in being Monty Python’s Black Knight.

      • Ristvan, you spent half an hour bullshitting. You are incapable of “teaching” me anything. Let me “teach” you something. The “null hypothesis” is a tool of statistical inference. We are not arguing about statistics, so you bringing it up shows your ignorance of “science.” We’re not discussing “models” so bringing them up is irreverent and diversionary on your part. I asked you a question. Asking a question is NOT a “warmunist bullheaded wrong religious belief.” Asking a question is not illogical, it is the basis of science. I have lost nothing, because YOU HAVE FAILED to answer the question.


        You stated: “we have been naturally warming out of the LIA.”

        I asked you: ” Could you please explain to me the physics that caused this?”

        Do you have any formal training in physics?

      • “The fact remains that the world has been warming since the end of the LIA. The null hypothesis is that whatever caused that warming is continuing.”

        Of course the world has been warming since the end of the LIA. That is just the definition of LIA. Saying that is responsible for warming is just saying it has warmed because it was cold before.

        That “null hypothesis” would justify linearly extrapolating any data indefinitely. The point of a null hypothesis (the meaning of null) is that, if it can explain the data, no further explanation is required. Saying a trend will continue does not do that.

        Of course there is an explanation. It has long been known that if you put a whole lot of CO2 in the air, it will warm. We put a whole lot of CO2 in the air.

      • Nick, if one uses temperature records that have not been stepped on, the problem with the simple “CO2 controls temperature” model does not follow temperature changes for periods of tens of years. Declines in temperature despite increasing CO2 makes that model inadequate, such as 1940-1975.

      • Engarpia, you persist in confusing post volume with post quality, inverting the null hypothesis, and such. Not worth further engagement with such a demonstrably closed warmunist mind that thinks loud colume drowns out calmly and quietly stated indisputable historical facts.
        Grok this. Except for a now still rapidly cooling 2015-16 El Nino blip, there has been no warming this century except by Karlization. Yet this century comprises ~35% of the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1958, Explain using your physics.

      • Ristvan, I asked a question, I did not “invert” any hypothesis. Are you incapable of answering a simple quesiton?
        ..
        Now you post: “Grok this. Except for a….” Except??????? Why pick THAT cherry? If you have to eliminate any data to “prove” your point, all you have done is shown that you pick cherries. Your “except” is equivalent to the “Karlization? no?????
        ..
        You posted: ” Except for a now still rapidly cooling 2015-16 El Nino blip,”….then I posted this link:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2015/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2015/trend
        ,,,,
        You failed to respond to that.

      • ” Yet this century comprises ~35% of the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1958, Explain using your physics.”
        .
        .
        .
        Two words: “Thermal inertia”

      • I already rested my case. Multiple subsequent replies from you I shall ignore since you are imprevious to scientific logic or basic facts does not improve your stance, no matter how many additional times you continue to post your manifest stupidities for all here to see indelibly. First rule of Army holes: when in one wanting out, stop digging.

      • Nick said ‘We put a whole lot of CO2 in the air.’

        This is not entirely accurate, there has been an extraordinary amount of outgassing from the warm oceans.

        It was only a coincidence that temperatures rose last century at the same time as CO2, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

        Historians will look back and wonder how we could have got it so wrong, scientists, politicians and media didn’t give a second thought to our over active star.

      • ” I already rested my case. and you continue to reply. LMAO…..
        ..
        ” subsequent replies from you I shall ignore ” …..Good nice to know you’ll ignore me. Too bad you failed to answer the question I posed.
        ..
        I feel sorry for you Ristvan, because you think “natural warming” has no cause. I believe it has a cause, for which Nick Stokes provided a reasonable explanation. If you are incapable of providing one, please go away, and let the scientists do their work.

      • ” I already rested my case. and you continue to reply. LMAO…..
        ..
        ” subsequent replies from you I shall ignore ” …..Good nice to know you’ll ignore me. Too bad you failed to answer the question I posed.
        ..
        I feel sorry for you Ristvan, because you think “natural warming” has no cause. All measured events have a cause, one of which Nick Stokes provided a reasonable explanation. Have you provided a reasonable explanation? Nope, you posted gibberish, ducked and dodged the question and shown a lack of understanding of basic physics.

        Again, what caused the “natural warming” from the LIA?

      • el gordo says: ” there has been an extraordinary amount of outgassing from the warm oceans.”
        .


        OK, can you tell us what caused the oceans to warm?

      • OK, can you tell us what caused the oceans to warm?

        ENSO remains an enigma, but I feel in my water that its a determinate.

        There were more La Nina during the LIA and as you know a strong El Nino has a warming effect.

      • el gordo, El Nino and La Nina are not energy sources. In order to warm the oceans, you need a source of energy. What is the source of energy for either El Nino, or La Nina?

      • engarpia claims: “El Nino and La Nina are not energy sources”

        Hmmmm. I don’t think anyone has ever claimed La Nina is an “energy source”. However, we know for a fact that every single El Nino results in an increase in global temperatures. I can only chuckle that you think that warming happens without energy.

        You continue to make a complete fool of yourself, son. It appears you don’t have even a basic understanding of science. So let me help you out. The actual energy originally comes from the sun and the Earth’s core. Face-palm.

      • Richard M…..glad you could join the discussion, please tell us what caused the “natural warming” from the LIA? I understand enough about science to know that the warming from the LIA has a cause. Do you know what that cause is?

      • Tell me Richard M, has the earth’s core warmed up since the end of the LIA? Has the sun warmed up since the end of the LIA?

      • el gordo,
        “This is not entirely accurate, there has been an extraordinary amount of outgassing from the warm oceans.”
        Not in terms of net flow. We have burnt about 450 Gt Carbon. There is about 250 Gt extra in the atmosphere, since 1900. Most of the rest went into the sea. That is the direction of net flow.

      • engarpia – I’m not sure why you think we need to explain the ’cause’ of natural warming to convince you that it has happened. That seems pretty silly. Science has always worked the other direction. We observer a phenomenon, then try to come up with a hypothesis to explain it. We then use that hypothesis to make a prediction. If the prediction comes true then the hypothesis MAY be true.

        Take Gravity. We didn’t know how Gravity ‘Causes’ things to be attracted to each other, but we could measure that is does. Then Einstein came up with his hypothesis that gravity ‘bends’ spacetime. That hypothesis predicted that the bent spacetime around the sun would cause the view of stars past the sun to shift by a spacific amount. When they were eventually proven to do so it ‘proved’ the hypothesis.

        The same is true for natural climate variability. We don’t know what causes it (although there are some theories) but we have measured it. It happens.

        In short, it is simply wrong to equate not knowing a cause with there not BEING a cause.

      • engarpia asks: “Richard M…..glad you could join the discussion, please tell us what caused the “natural warming” from the LIA? I understand enough about science to know that the warming from the LIA has a cause. Do you know what that cause is?”

        Energy from the sun and/or the Earth’s core was released into the atmosphere at a higher rate. Really quite simple, son. But I already told you that. Why you do ask questions that have already been answered?

        Let me help you out again. It doesn’t matter what the cause is only that it was natural. You’ve already had this explained to you. The only thing that matters is we know it did warm and we know that AGW was not the cause. Meanwhile, you continue to make a complete fool of yourself. LOL.

        engarpia then asks: “Tell me Richard M, has the earth’s core warmed up since the end of the LIA? Has the sun warmed up since the end of the LIA?”

        Wrong questions, son. They could both warm or cool and the atmosphere could do the opposite. Since the heat capacity of atmosphere is so small compared to our oceans, all it takes is short term, small and possibly chaotic variations to warm/cool the atmosphere independent of those energy sources. I realize science is tough, son. But you really should learn a little and quit making yourself look foolish.

      • engarpia@gmail.com:

        You wrote:

        Thank you Nick, your explanation seems reasonable.

        No, the explanation from Nick Stoes is NOT “reasonable” and if it were then it would be a first from him.

        The question was an explanation for the intermittent warming from the Little Ice Age (LIA) which began centuries ago.

        Stokes “explanation” says

        Of course there is an explanation. It has long been known that if you put a whole lot of CO2 in the air, it will warm. We put a whole lot of CO2 in the air.

        Nonsense! The warming from the LIA began centuries before “We put a whole lot of CO2 in the air”.

        Only trolls like engarpia and Stokes would claim an “explanation” is reasonable when the effect began centuries before its claimed cause.

        In reality, nobody knows the true cause(s) of recovery from the LIA but we do know as certain fact that there is no recent alteration to that intermittent warming which would warrant suggestion of recent change to its cause(s) (such as ‘we recently put a whole lot of CO2 in the air’).

        Richard

      • Nick Stokes:

        I see you again adopt your common practice of reframing (i.e. distorting) an issue when you write

        el gordo,

        “This is not entirely accurate, there has been an extraordinary amount of outgassing from the warm oceans.”

        Not in terms of net flow. We have burnt about 450 Gt Carbon. There is about 250 Gt extra in the atmosphere, since 1900. Most of the rest went into the sea. That is the direction of net flow.

        el gordo was and is right.
        CO2 “outgassing from the warm oceans” is orders of magnitude more than anthropogenic CO2 emissions during each and every year.

        At issue is why the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen. There are several possibilities but the most likely is adjustment to the alteration of the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle induced by the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age which has been happening intermittently for centuries. Some mechanisms in the carbon cycle have rate constants of years and decades so it takes decades for the system to adjust to an altered equilibrium. A major delay is transfer of carbon between deep ocean (where there is almost all the CO2 flowing in the carbon cycle) to the atmosphere. Hence, the most likely explanation for the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is adjustment of the carbon cycle with CO2 from the warming oceans providing a lag of decades of the CO2 rise behind the temperature rise.
        (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )

        Richard

      • “engorgio@proboscis May 10, 2017 at 2:49 pm
        Richard, maybe you can help ristvan out here. What is “natural warming?” I would like to install some of this “natural warming” in my house, because it gets cold here in the winter.”

        Engorgio!

        Surely you recognize that “natural warming” is the null condition of Earth science!?

        Unless and until the source for every erg of energy is absolutely proven beyond doubt, replicated and verified by all interested; then all warming is “natural”.

        That warming is indistinguishable from warming periods of any other century or millennia.

        To date; every alarmists scheme is to desperately avoid proving where any bit of warming energy originates, is stored and emitted to space.
        Instead alarmists much as engorgio@proboscis does; is to assume every bit of observed warming is ‘not’ natural.
        The antithesis of scientific methods.

      • ATheoK:

        It seems you have difficulty reading. I wrote

        In reality, nobody knows the true cause(s) of recovery from the LIA but we do know as certain fact that there is no recent alteration to that intermittent warming which would warrant suggestion of recent change to its cause(s) (such as ‘we recently put a whole lot of CO2 in the air’).

        And you have responded

        Richard, maybe you can help ristvan out here. What is “natural warming?” I would like to install some of this “natural warming” in my house, because it gets cold here in the winter.”

        I don’t know what part of “nobody knows” you don’t understand, but there are many possible causes of “that intermittent warming” which is “recovery from the LIA”.

        For example, a small change to ocean currents could alter transport of heat from tropical regions to cooler regions. Sea surface temperature is constrained to a maximum of ~32°C tropical regions by evapouration and associated cloud cover. Hence, increased transport of heat from the tropical regions to cooler regions makes little or no change to tropical temperatures which obtain reduced evapouration and cloud cover, but it warms the cooler regions with resulting increase to global average surface temperature (GASTA).

        Richard

      • Atheok:

        It seems my post in reply to you may have been erroneous because for some unstated reason you were quoting engarpia@gmail.com in response to another Richard.

        If so, then I apologise.

        Richard

      • engarpia@gmail.com May 10, 2017 at 3:48 pm wrote: “THANK YOU Mike Jonas……” but we don’t yet know what caused the warming.” …..Mike, please explain this to “ristvan”

        Engarpia, the warming is caused by the Sun.

      • Dear, dear enargpia. Please stop before you hurt yourself.
        First off, you were the one who posted the question about the refrigerator being unplugged. Is your brain so weak that you can’t even remember what you wrote a few hours ago?
        My point was that I don’t need to know how a refrigerator works to notice that it makes things cold when placed in it.

      • You should thank engarpia for invalidating AR4 with this:

        ” Yet this century comprises ~35% of the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1958, Explain using your physics.”
        .
        .
        .
        Two words: “Thermal inertia”

        Thermal inertia in AR4 caused the authors to indicate that the predicted rise from about 2000 to 2030 was supposed to be about 0.3C/decade. It is important to remember, according to the IPCC, that past 1958 or so, the increased warming was due to anthropogenic CO2 releases. In order for the numbers to work out a maximum of 0.1C/decade for natural variation was used for this period. Present numbers indicate that once again the temperature is increasing about 0.15C/decade. This thermal inertia was the “heating already in the pipeline” as some chose to call it.

      • engarpia,

        Only once….

        The question is what caused the little ice age, not what caused the continued warming after the LITTLE ice age.

        The answer is natural variability. When you get to talk to God (or griff) you can learn the ins and outs of natural variability.

      • Gump you’re not going to get the last word on my watch sunshine.

        The general theory that CO2 causes global warming is badly flawed, as evidenced by the massive model failure, so we are left with some internal dynamic and a bright star.

        Whatever took us into the LIA also brought us out, depending on the oscillations at the time. Natural variability is what it is, no need to split hairs.

      • TA wrote: “Engarpia, the warming is caused by the Sun.”

        Engarpia, I noticed you didn’t try to rebut my assertion above, so can I assume you agree with it?

        The Sun adds the warming, and the Earth’s rotation and inclination and position in orbit stir the atmosphere up and move it all over the Earth as weather. No CO2 needed. CO2 was not an issue with the warming from 1910 to 1940, so why should we assume the current warming isn’t driven by the same natural processes, since the current warming is the same magnitude as the 1910 to 1940 warming?

      • For Nick and engarpia:

        We also know that if we put a whole bunch of bullsh$t in a pile it will warm… no, let me rephrase that- it will get hot, really hot. Composting works. GCM’s with CO2 as the control knob? Not so much.

        In fifty years, engarpia will most likely look a fool. I’ll be dead but my grand children will be just fine. Unless the Carbon Taxes have destroyed the west and the BRICS are running the show. Though that might not be so bad anyway.

      • “In fifty years, engarpia will most likely look a fool.”

        Engarpia looks a fool now.

  5. From what I know about the status of foreign executive agreements, like Paris, they do not bind Presidents other than the one who declared it. As far as I can tell, there has been no Supreme Court ruling on foreign executive agreements, so if Paris is treated like domestic executive orders, Paris is a dead letter unless Trump makes a positive choice to enforce it on his own authority.

    • Technically, yes, but this is something he promised to do. He needs to send a message, and he should have already done so. The fact that he hasn’t is speaking volumes already. And what it it is saying is not complimentary to him, nor does it bode well for his political future.

      • “Technically, yes, but this is something he promised to do. He needs to send a message, and he should have already done so. The fact that he hasn’t is speaking volumes already. And what it it is saying is not complimentary to him, nor does it bode well for his political future.”

        Trump is obviously using this issue for some reason. It has now been reported that the decision will be delayed until after Trump goes to the G7 meeting in Europe at the end of May. I don’t know what Trump is up to but I still think he is going to pull out because there is no good reason for the U.S. to stay in.

        It would be interesting politically if Trump were to remain in the Paris Agreement. The vast majority of Republicans in Congress are against the Paris Agreement, and I would expect a LOT of pushback from Congress, were that the case. I can see Congress demanding that Trump put the Paris Agreement before the U.S. Senate for approval or disappoval.

        So even if Trump were to stay in the agreement, that doesn’t mean the U.S. will not eventually pull out of it.

        Trump should not get on the wrong side of a lot of Republican congresscritters by oking the Paris Agreement. He needs every one of them for his big agenda, and sticking with the Paris Agreement is going to cut the number of Republicans cooperating with him drastically and may just stifle his agenda.

        There is no good reason for the U.S. to stay in the Paris Agreement.

    • they do not bind Presidents other than the one who declared it.
      ===================
      Congress gave the President the power to regulate immigration, but all it takes is one judge to overturn the Law.

      The Paris Agreement was specifically worded to bind future Presidents, by allowing the courts to overrule the President.

      • ferd, there are no Supreme Court cases on foreign executive agreements, but if the decisions on domestic executive orders applies, Paris is not binding. The rule is that executive orders use the lawful authority of the President to be effective, but do not bind future presidents.

      • “The Paris Agreement was specifically worded to bind future Presidents, by allowing the courts to overrule the President.”

        The Paris Agreement does not overrule the U.S. Constitition. Obama cannot bind the U.S. to anything with this agreement.

        One judge can make a stupid or politically partisan ruling but the Supreme Court is where the real decisions are made. These lower court judges are just a speedbump. They will be overturned.

      • there are no Supreme Court cases on foreign executive agreements
        ==========
        exactly, so to say Paris will not be binding is naive, because there is nothing to stop the court from ruling as they will. much better to avoid the courts.

        the best way to deal with this is to take it to the Senate for a ratification vote and make the senators show their true colors.

        if that is judged too risky, then bail-out. do not go before the courts because then the courts are then making the law that the Senate should have made.

        and are far as renegotiating, hopeless. eventually you are back in the courts. much better to say “your $100 billion a year is never going to happen”. the whole agreement will explode overnight. or China will have to step in and pony up the money. win-win for the US.

      • Don’t worry – Trump will get there soon enough – meanwhile Mickey Mann is digging his way to Paris ….the slow way.

      • ferdberple, Tom Halla and TA:

        I write to ask a genuine question.

        Prior to the existence of the Kyoto Protocol the US Senate resolved

        Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations… (Passed by the Senate 95-0)

        see http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html

        Elsewhere I suggested

        I am not aware that the resolution … has been revoked and so … it applies to the Paris Accord which is an example of “any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations”.

        If it were a vote in the UK Parliament then my suggestion would be true. However, I obtained a refutation that said

        A “Sense of the Senate” resolution cannot bind a future Senate. The cast of characters has changed a lot since 1997. They might re-affirm the same thing today, but it would only express the “sense of the Senate” for the present, through the election of 2018.–

        Unfortunately, that refutation was from a resident troll and, therefore, I don’t know whether to believe it.

        A Parliamentary vote applies unless and until Parliament revokes it with another vote; e.g. the controversial Climate Change Bill still applies although there has been a series of elected Parliaments since it was passed. And to me that British system seems to be a democratic principle.

        Can you please confirm or refute the assertion that a “Sense of the Senate” resolution cannot bind a future Senate.

        Richard

      • I did do a web search on the issue of international executive agreements, and as far as I could determine, there has been very little Constitutional law on the subject. The Supreme Court, as far as I could tell, has never ruled on the subject.
        If one treats foreign executive agreements the same as domestic, they rely on the lawful authority of the President to have effect. It would have been interesting if the Clinton administration had tried to bring the Kyoto Senate vote to court, or tried enforce it anyway, and had someone else bring it to court. As far as I can tell, the Senate vote on Kyoto had no legal effect, but surely some lawyer could make a case otherwise.
        As far as I can tell, and I am not a lawyer, Trump has a defensible position if he ignores any previous executive agreements, as they do not bind future presidents by current constitutional precedents.

      • “richardscourtney May 11, 2017 at 12:42 am

        ferdberple, Tom Halla and TA:

        I write to ask a genuine question.

        Prior to the existence of the Kyoto Protocol the US Senate resolved

        “Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations… (Passed by the Senate 95-0)”

        “see http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html Instead, I suggest
        https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105sres98ats/pdf/BILLS-105sres98ats.pdf or
        https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-106shrg67624/pdf/CHRG-106shrg67624.pdf

        Only official sources for Congressional, Judicial or Administrative branch actions should be considered.
        All too many ‘private’ legal sites obscure or rephrase key portions. There are a number of Law University discussion sites where additional background can be ascertained, but even these must be verified against official law sources.

        Richard, your blunt truncation of Senate Resolution 98 leaves the salient reasons for the resolution obscure. I doubt this is your intention, but it is the reason I post the full S Res 98.

        “richardscourtney May 11, 2017 at 12:42 am
        Elsewhere I suggested

        “I am not aware that the resolution … has been revoked and so … it applies to the Paris Accord which is an example of “any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations”.

        If it were a vote in the UK Parliament then my suggestion would be true. However, I obtained a refutation that said

        “A “Sense of the Senate” resolution cannot bind a future Senate. The cast of characters has changed a lot since 1997. They might re-affirm the same thing today, but it would only express the “sense of the Senate” for the present, through the election of 2018.–

        Unfortunately, that refutation was from a resident troll and, therefore, I don’t know whether to believe it.

        A Parliamentary vote applies unless and until Parliament revokes it with another vote; e.g. the controversial Climate Change Bill still applies although there has been a series of elected Parliaments since it was passed. And to me that British system seems to be a democratic principle.

        Can you please confirm or refute the assertion that a “Sense of the Senate” resolution cannot bind a future Senate.

        Richard”

        Federal frameworks for what actually constitutes law and binding agreements are clearly laid out in the Constitution.

        When a sitting Senate body, chooses to discuss, debate, resolution vote on international matters under negotiation; they are signaling to the sitting President, the Presidents’ Administration, or as in this case, especially the Department of State, exactly where the Senate stands on possible treaties emanating from ongoing discussions.

        Senate Resolution 98, clearly informed the President and his Administration that as international discussions stand, the Senate will not approve any treaties that:
        “A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or
        (B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.”

        The United Sates of America did not agree to a Kyoto treaty.

        Your point, Richard, regarding “A Parliamentary vote applies unless and until Parliament revokes it with another vote; e.g. the controversial Climate Change Bill still applies although there has been a series of elected Parliaments since it was passed. And to me that British system seems to be a democratic principle.”

        Conflates one method of Government as burdening other methods or generations of Government.

        One vote, especially where the voting body is clearly signaling dissatisfaction with negotiations status, is just that! A vote informing another branch of government that specific negotiation status is “dead in the water”.

        The Senate left a perfectly normal opening by leaving the possibility that “some day, somewhen, by trustworthy and patriotic elected representatives” they may revisit a similar topic and actually correct every Senate concern.

        By no means, get your hopes up. The Kyoto and several similar attempts are officially “dead in the water”.

        “richardscourtney May 11, 2017 at 12:42 am
        Can you please confirm or refute the assertion that a “Sense of the Senate” resolution cannot bind a future Senate.”

        When the Senate voted on S. Res 98; they left a clear possibility that future negotiation/treaty would deal with similar concerns, providing that future negotiations would not damage or harm USA efforts and that said treaty would actually have real benefit; leaves considering such agreements quite open, i.e. the senate discussing/debating and voting on similar proposals.

        A) In effect, the senate did bind future senate votes, but that does not imply future senate discussions/debates/votes are restricted!
        A precedent was established regarding senate expectations for such negotiations..
        But a legal framework or regulatory law is not established. Legal or regulatory binding of future senate gatherings/discussions is not impaired.

        Senate Resolution 98, commonly referred to as “Byrd Hagel Resolution”:
        “Whereas it is desirable that a bipartisan group of Senators be appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate for the purpose of monitoring the status of negotiations on Global Climate Change and reporting periodically to the Senate on those negotiations:

        Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that
        (1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the
        United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would

        (A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or
        (B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

        SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the President.”

      • ATheoK:

        Thankyou for your lengthy answer to my question. However, your answer is not clear to me.

        The matter has importance.
        Is the Senate Resolution made in 1997 still binding on the US Senate or not?
        If it is then President Trump is not required to do anything for him to fulfill his election promise to remove the US from the Paris Accord because the US Senate took all the needed action in 1997.

        Firstly, the link I provided ( i.e. http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html ) does quote the entire resolution so, clearly. I had read it (many, many times over the decades since 1997).

        Secondly, I did not say anything that,
        “Conflates one method of Government as burdening other methods or generations of Government.”
        I stated the British Parliamentary system which causes my reason for asking the question. As I said,
        “I write to ask a genuine question”.

        That said, I repeat that I am not clear what answer you have provided to my question which was

        Can you please confirm or refute the assertion that a “Sense of the Senate” resolution cannot bind a future Senate.

        Your reply says

        A) In effect, the senate did bind future senate votes, but that does not imply future senate discussions/debates/votes are restricted!
        A precedent was established regarding senate expectations for such negotiations..
        But a legal framework or regulatory law is not established. Legal or regulatory binding of future senate gatherings/discussions is not impaired./blockquote>
        Then quotes the Senate resolution saying

        Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that
        (1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the
        United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would

        (A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or
        (B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

        Yes, I knew that. It is why I asked my question.

        The 1997 US Senate resolution decided “the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter”. And the Paris Accord is an “other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992” that was adopted “thereafter” “December 1997”.

        Is the Senate Resolution made in 1997 still binding on the US Senate or not?

        Richard

      • “Can you please confirm or refute the assertion that a “Sense of the Senate” resolution cannot bind a future Senate.”

        A “Sense of the Senate” vote is not binding on future Senates, or anything else, it only expresses the opinion of the Senate at the time the vote was taken.

        The “Sense of the Senate” vote having to do with the Kyoto Agreement, was taken to demonstrate that the Senate at that time, had no interest in passing the Kyoto Agreement, and so the president saw this and did not submit the Kyoto Agreement to the Senate for certain disapproval.

      • richard, resolutions aren’t binding.
        From a legal standpoint, they aren’t much different than taking a poll. Just more formal.

        To become a law, and hence binding, the bill would have to pass both houses of congress and be signed by the president.

      • Tom Halla:

        Thanks also to you. Your post had not appeared when I wrote to thank the others.

        Richard

      • ATheoK May 11, 2017 at 3:14 am

        Excellent comments on the “Sense of the Senate” issue, ATheok.

  6. Agreed that Pres. Trump and the USA must dump the Paris agreement, but the President’s office must explain why it must be dumped in terms that the MSM must report. . It is no use just making a statement that USA is not going to ratify the agreement, the reasons must be explained in terms that laymen, and even warmists, can understand.
    Even then, I hae ma’ doots that much of MSM will report it properly.

    • the President’s office must explain why it must be dumped in terms that the MSM must report

      I agree. It would have to be a pretty long press conference though.

      • Nope. Could be quite short and dramatic. Less than an Apprentice segment.
        1. The science is NOT settled. Offer some charts like the pause, lack of modeled tropical troposphere hotspot. A couple of the Christy stuff from most recent Congressional hearing. Plus, a lot of the science is junk or worse. My fav would be temperature fiddles, sudden SLR, and Pacific oysters. All three comprise academic misconduct.
        2. India and China refuse to play, so any US contribution is futile yet harmful to US.
        3. Thanks to fracked natural gas, US has already cut CO2 emissions more than any other country despite not joining Kyoto (here dig a few culprits like Germany and Russia)
        4. Obliged by 1990’s laws to cut off UNFCCC anyway since they recognized Palestine in 2016.
        5. Paris Wasn’t about climate change anyway. Cite Figueres and the Green Climate Fund extortion. Quote Schellnhuber’s glee on the made up 2C goal.
        Paris Agreement and UNFCCC, you are fired.

      • I hope that Trump’s delay is due to his team’s preparing a thorough explanatory document.

  7. Nice summary. Book marked for future reference.
    In a nutshell, the Paris Accord is premised on a supposed problem that exists only in climate models, the beliefs of Warmunists like Figueres, and the climate ‘science’ troughers. Those models theoretically cannot work, and empirically do not. They run hot because of faulty parameter tuning attribution. (See previous guest post The Trouble with Models.) Observational ECS is half of modeled; there is no eventual need for mitigation. Even if there were, China and India won’t play so the whole exercise is not only useless, it is futile. Several valid legal reasons to exit both Paris and UNFCCC under both domestic US and general international law. Trump said he would. High time he kept his campaign promise to the Deplorables.

  8. I suppose the Paris Agreement has now been changed from a domestic to an international issue. Meida says that Trump will consult with European leaders on this, I doubt if he will be much reassured. But it may be a wise course to take, to talk to other politicians and not just scrap it out of hand, if this is the outcome.

    • talk to other politicians
      =====
      that is what got us into the problem in the first place.

      a lawyer is someone that gets paid to lie on your behalf. a politician is someone that can tell two lies at the same time, out of opposite sides of his mouth, on his behalf.

  9. The French have made a growth strategy out of getting the developed world to locate permanent offices of study groups in Paris like OECD and IEA. They would now like to have a permanent office of Climate Alarm.

    • Exactly! Got a few billion to spend on the LHC? France welcomes you1 Want to waste a few billion more on a fusion reactor? France welcomes you. European Space Agency? They’re your boys! They farm international crap science rather than attempt anything competitive.

  10. Trump should submit the COP21 Paris Agreement that Obama signed to the Senate as a treaty requiring ratification.

    Then Senator McConnell brings it to Senate floor for a vote needing the 67 yes votes for ratification. When it falls short, then it is constitutionality dead. No amount of legal manuevering by Left could bring it back to life or even suggest that it be followed.

    That’s called playing to win.

    • The person who should have tried to make the Paris accord a treaty was Obama, if he wanted it to be binding. Trump does not have to do anything but ignore it.

      • “Trump does not have to do anything but ignore it.”

        There’s a good point.

        Trump doesn’t really have to be in a hurry to do anything. As long as he is not giving these people U.S. taxpayer money, it’s no harm, no foul. Although Trump really ought to be kind to his supporter’s and think of their blood pressure and end this nightmare quickly, so we can all relax.

        The suspense is killing us, Donald!

      • Trump does not have to do anything but ignore it.
        ===========
        not true. anything Trump tries that exceeds Paris limits can potentially be tied up in the courts for years. how long has Steyn been fighting Mann? 5 years and counting. Ball even longer.

        The courts don’t deliver justice. they deliver punishment. until the parties tire and are willing to settle.

      • Trump does control the presidency for the next three and a half years, so a bit more vindictiveness towards his opponents will at least stop the greens from imposing any of their own policies. Another vote on the Supreme Court, and he might be able to reverse much of the former administration’s policies.

    • It’s a losing strategy win you consider the RINO status of the Senate itself. It would turn into a Greenshirt circus in very short order.

      Obama did everything to avoid ratification when the optics would have been horrible while they were in power. They shouldn’t be rewarded now after the fact. Executive action in, executive action out.

  11. As it has nothing to do with warming but all with getting rid of carbon based “fossil” fuels it will be interesting to see what will happen.
    China will keep on pushing for the agreement and will make themselves look like the great hero as they have now realised that by staying on the Paris course will be good for their solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing industries. Not to forget their almost total control, at the moment, of the rare earth minerals required.
    The money receiving nations will want to keep it all going, Europe is unlikely to pull out. China can see the money.
    The US might find itself isolated here just for calling a spade a spade.

  12. According to NSIDC … May 9th, 2004 had 12.894 km^2 of Arctic sea ice while May 9th 2017 has 13.004 km^2 of sea ice. I would add this to the list of facts to present when withdrawing from the Paris agreement.

    • Be sure to add the supporting details on ice volume, thickness, amount of multi year ice and examine where the ‘extra’ ice is and its concentration.

      which will demonstrate that thin low volume ice broken up and dispersed by storms is not equivalent and is much more likely to melt.

      • Back to the real world. The thin ice that Griffie assured us would melt quickly isn’t. One of the slowest melt seasons on record, caused by cold water. Water that cooled precisely because there was less ice than usual in the arctic.

  13. I had understood trump was going to make a decision after the forthcoming g7 meeting.

    Is that because he is open to lobbying from the other members before he makes a final decision, or has he already made a decision but dies not want to announce it before the meeting because he knows he will get it in the neck from all sides?

    Tonyb

    • Tony, dunno but a supposition. The stay in camp includes Tillerson based on diplomatic impacts. So Trump goes to G7, gauges such impacts for himself, then makes a decision. He can ask a lot of sharp questions. One example: Frau Merkel, you back Paris and your own Energiewende, which bynthe way is driving some of your industry to the US. Thank you, beautiful formus. So how come your CO2 emissions have risen anyway while the US has fallen?

      • ” So how come your CO2 emissions have risen anyway while the US has fallen?”
        Merkel could well point out that the rise by world bank data was from about 9 to 9.4 tons CO2/capita in 2013, after coming down a lot post-Kyoto, while the US has also come down but still stood at 16.4 tons/capita in 2013.

      • Merkel could well point
        ===========
        meaningless drivel. Germany is the 1/2 the size of Texas. Folks in Texas have driveways longer than some highways in Germany. By the time you hit the border in Germany you are still shifting up into top gear in Texas.

        Thus the puny liters you use to fill cars in Germany. In Texas you fill the 4×4 with gallons, otherwise they’d have to make all the pumps wider to fit in all the digits.

      • ferdberple May 10, 2017 at 5:19 pm
        yay for treating this matter with the respect it deserves – mockery!
        i lolled!

      • ferdberple – that may have been the best ‘Everything’s bigger in Texas’ speech I’ve ever heard.

        ^¿^

      • Post Kyoto? You mean the era after re-unification when all the inefficient East German factories were being closed?

  14. In evaluating the work done with climate models over the years, considering what has worked and what has not worked, and factoring in the paleoclimate record, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record and there is plenty of scientific rational that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. But even if we could some how stop global climate change, extreme weather events and sea level rise are part of the current climate and will not go away if the climate stops changing. For those that still believe that the so called greenhouse gases cause warming, the total radiant greenhouse effect is dominated by H2O so much so that if we could completely remove CO2 from the Earth’s atmosphere, it would make no sifnificant difference. The Paris agreement does nothing to reduce H2O emissions and hence does not significantly reduce total greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. So for those that believe that greenhouse gases cause warming, the Paris Agreement does not significantly reduce total greenhouse gases and will hence not significantly reduce greenhouse gas induced warming. The Paris Agreement represents a huge expendature with no real benefit.

  15. The WH said yesterday that the USA will wait to discuss with G7 leaders by end of month before making any decision on Paris. That, and his failure to even send it to the Senate for a vote should be telling where he is leaning on this. He could have washed his hands of this by sending it to the Senate, which will fail to gain the 2/3 majority vote to keep it alive at home anyway. Plus the public debate that would ensue would assist in kicking the AGW premise to the curb, and more people everywhere around the planet would be skeptics as well after hearing details such as above about actual facts of climate data. Something nobody but us here does anyway discussing real climate data/facts, and when did facts matter anyway to a politician?

    Maybe he is afraid of the protests it would cause, but it appears that Trump is chickening out on this particular promise. Or at least that is what he wants us to believe this particular week. Maybe he wants to kick it to the curb at the G7 conference, for major effect, but I would be surprised if he were being advised to do this. And I doubt he would want to act completely alone at his first gig abroad (after the Middle East peace tour) and wants to be respected abroad. Maybe he wants to think he can renegotiate the Paris Agreement, but I doubt that could effectively happen although that may be his way of slowly strangling it to death over several years.

    There is a lot of money to be collected in carbon taxation as is seen where it is done already. It is just pretty much a tax on everything, and brings in boat loads of cash. Something Trump understands, and he does need a lot of cash coming in if doesn’t want to completely explode the deficit and the debt. He probably sees now that his re-election in 2020 is 50-50 at best, and probably losing his majorities in the Congress in the mid terms. His poll numbers are dropping like a rock.

    So he has nothing to win rejecting Paris now, and maybe tens of billions in cold hard cash collecting carbon taxes if he could implement that with the help of the democrats and the Blue Republicans. While the specifics of the Paris Agreement state USA and 10 other OCED countries are the ones collecting the 100 Billion per annum for distribution to about 200 other countries, there is is still a lot of surplus cash left over and above what would be given away to the Paris bureaucracy if he were to implement a carbon tax on the USA. It appears that this is the way it is headed, at least in not scrapping the Paris Agreement otherwise he would have kept his promise already. I hope I am wrong.

    • I can’t see Trump being in favor of raising taxes, CO2, or otherwise.

      The Paris Agreement is such a waste of U.S. taxpayer money, I can’t see how anyone could go along with it. The U.S. is being played for a sucker.

  16. Great summary, President Trump has focused greatly on economic cost from the regulatory perspective. While valid it leaves the core academic and political forces largely unquestioned. They’ve shown little interest in challenging the Green political/cultural enclave that is the essential driver of the climate pseudoscience from inception which actually preceded the AGW claim itself.

    Yes, Paris should be shredded but the science team to reject the entire UN cabal is required. It leads to total and massive science and academic reform and the expected reaction will make the Berkeley speaker riots seem tame. There can be no moderate policy with forces designed to destroy individual freedom which is the essence of climate advocacy. That’s the truth the President must deliver if he hopes to prevail over the longer term in the climate war, it is a war by the way.

  17. The Paris Agreement is Trump’s “read my lips”. It will be the pivotal moment that determines if Trump is a 1 term footnote in history, or a 2 term president that made history. Having grasped greatness, will he let it slip from his fingers?

    • Yes, it will certainly generate a lot of turmoil if Trump makes the wrong choice. Lot’s of bad ramifications.

      • there will be huge turmoil either way. the question is who will be upset. the folks that already hate you, or the folks that love you?

  18. “Those arguing that the U.S. should continue to support the Paris process but negotiate new and different provisions are naïve and fail to appreciate that the Paris process of political and scientific corruption disqualifies it serving as a credible vehicle for advancing legitimate future climate policy proposals.”

    I would love to see some details about the arguments being made for the U.S. to stay in the Paris Agreement. I would love to have the opportunity to rebut them. So far, not one good argument has been put forth in public.

    • I agree TA, but the silence is chilling and no one in his inner circle is even actually advancing any arguments about what their strategy is or how they may implement it or sack it other than for now proceeding as originally planned by Obama. Maybe he is worried any rash action on his part would have the courts being involved quashing whatever he does, as they did already with his two immigration Executive Orders. But he could easily circumnavigate all that by sending it to the Senate for a debate and a vote. So something is happening that is leading to a lot of speculation. Maybe it is good they are thinking all this through and taking their time so as not to put a foot wrong. Plus there are other fish to fry now that he fired FBI leader James Comey. There are a lot of ‘cooks’ in the WH kitchen now, not least his own daughter and son-in-law.

      Over a month ago now, I vividly recall Trump himself saying in public he would have a major announcement about the Paris Agreement within a few weeks, and the only thing we got after a month was yesterday’s statement that he would wait until the G7 meeting to make any statement/decision. What this means I have no idea, but the longer the delay in keeping the promise makes it appear the promise will not be kept. Perhaps not and we will know soon enough. This was one of his main speaking points (cancelling Paris) about the whole climate change business for the election, so he probably realizes if he ignores his base and breaks the promise, then he is toast in the eyes of his dedicated followers. Especially on this point!

  19. The stay in camp includes Tillerson
    ================
    the leave camp includes the lawyers that recognize that Paris is a trap that Obama set for future presidents.

    Paris is legal quicksand. it doesn’t bind you, it drowns you.

    • If it morfs into “stay” the word “swamp” must be stricken from both Trump and his supporters forever.

      It’s far worse then “read my lips” betrayal. The punt to Senate idea is as dumb/obtuse as it gets as well politically also.

      I support the article and a hard Line Paris withdrawal but the abundance of tables, climate data distracts and shows the classic rabbit hole skeptical debate failings. As the debate expands to the mass population it’s only the Greenshirt culture that inspires the needed reasoning to prompt political rejection. Data arguments have a place in the background but are sure losers as the past 45+ years mainstream have proven. Skeptics put off by pure political labeling of the Green globalist reality of AGW should grow up or shut up. It’s the “about science” puritanical cult skeptic that has helped put the world a hair from the Orwellian super state Iron mask that Paris actually is at the gate. The same lesson was learned by the seemingly innocuous UN IPCC formation and the fools belief a total inability to find the AGW empirical proof would kill the political designs 25 years ago. How obtuse was that belief system? Skeptics are slow learners or so internally conflicted they can’t voice actual resistance to the core AGW agenda directly or adequately.

  20. President Trump correctly assessed the situation . Climate change is real as always but the notion the climate has a fever caused by human use of fossil fuel is a dishonest and very expensive “hoax ‘.
    A hoax that fronts an effort to transfer a $trillion dollars from USA tax payers to fund a UN globalist agenda and pay grant dependant “renewable ‘ company executives until they flame out thus screwing tax payers .
    The USA is in the enviable position now of being completely energy independent and at least in the near term able to keep prices down which helps return manufacturing and the USA compete against lower wages of other countries .
    The President promised voters to walk away from a “agreement” that was never approved by congress
    and in his own words based on a hoax .
    In addition he claimed the USA was going to stop losing .
    Sending USA citizens money (which is all new debt ) to countries, some of which spy on you , steal your trade and USA jobs can not be an example of winning .
    No disrespect but if true what is an unelected daughter doing running around trying to cut a deal
    that promoters like Al Gore are behind ? The USA did not support Kyoto and those that did never honoured there commitments any way .
    The whole thing is an international annual junket club paid for by tax payers based on failed climate models predicting doom that has been proven to not occur . Besides global warming when it happens is good .

    Please keep the promise Mr. Trump the USA doesn’t need to prop up a $ trillion dollar hoax any longer . Much , much bigger issues to solve .

  21. Hopefully Trump will learn from History.

    Your enemies will hound you when you don’t give in to their demands. However, if you ever do give in they will smell blood and will settle for nothing less than your head.

    You enemies will never love you, no matter what you do. If they sense weakness they will tear you apart. When you go to a party, make sure to leave with the person that brought you.

  22. The Paris Agreement depends upon the AGW conjecture being true but the AGW conjecture has many holes. It is true that CO2 has LWIR absorption bands but CO2 is not as strong an IR absorber then is H2O. Good absorbers are also good radiators so besides being an LWIR absorber, CO2 is also an LWIR radiator. So in terms of radiation CO2 does not trap heat energy. The radiant heat energy it absorbs, it also radiates away with no net heat trapping. In the troposphere, heat energy transport by conduction and convecton dominates over heat transport by LWIR absorption band radiation, so besides absorbing and radiating LWIR absorption band photons, CO2 loses and gains heat energy by interacting with other molecules in the atmosphere. If is the non-greenhouse gases that are very poor LWIR radiators to space so if any gases in the Earth’s atmosphere trap heat it would be the non-greenhouse gases. To affect climate change the Paris Agreement would be more effective it it concentrated on reducing N2 in the Earth’s atmopshere than CO2 if only it could be done. The only way that CO2 could cause warming is to somehow increase the insulation effects of the atmosphere. One measuse of the insulation effects of the atmosphere is the lapse rate, how temperature changes with altitide. If more CO2 really caused warming then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measueable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.

    One researcher has pointed out that the initial calculations of the Planck climate sensivity of CO2, that is the climate sensivity of CO2 not including feedbacks, is too great by a factor of more than 20 because the initial calculations do not take into conseideration that the doubling of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause a slight but significant increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So that rather then 1.2 degrees C, the Planck climate sensivity of CO2 should be .06 degrees C which is a rather trivial amount.

    To make the climate sensitivity of CO2 seem significant the AGW conjecture assumes a positive feedback provided for by H2O which causes an amplification of CO2’s warming effect by a factor of 3. The idea is that CO2 based warming will cause more H2O to enter the atmopshere which will then cause more warming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas with LWIR absroption bands. One problem with this idea is that positive feedback systems are inharently unstable yet for more than the past 500 million years the Earth’s climate has been stable enough for life to evolve because we are here. The AGW conjecture is notorious for being based on only partial science and it ignore’s what actually happens in the Earth’s atmophsere. Besides being a so called greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface which is mostly some form of H2O to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to energy balance models, more heat energy is moved by H2O then by both LWIR absorption band radiation and convection combined. Evidence of H2O’s cooling effect is that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate. So that rather than a positive feedback, H2O provides a negative feedback so that rather than amplifying the warming effect by three, H2O retards CO2 warming by a factor of 3 yielding a climate sensivity of CO2 of less than .02 degrees C which is a trivial amount.

    In the paleoclimate redord over the past 600,000 years it is evident that warmer temperatures correlate with more CO2 in the atmophsere but a closer look at the data showes that changes in CO2 follow changes in temoerature. It is well known that warmer oceans cannot hold as much CO2 as cooler oceans so what has been observed would be expected. There is no real evidence that the additional CO2 adds to the warming. In the IPCC’s report they published a wide range for their range of guesses as to the climate sensivity of CO2. In their last report, the IPCC published the exact same range of values so that after more than two decades of study the IPCC has found nothing that would allow them to refine the range of their guesses one iota. So there is no real evidene in either the paleoclimate record of the modern climate record that CO2 has any effect on climate. Yes, Mankinds use of fossil fuels is causing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere to increase and we are in a warming period that is somewhat similar to the Medieval Warm Period roughly 1,000 years ago but there is not real evidence that the increase in CO2 has caused any warming.

    At the beginning of the 20th century it was shown experimently that a real greenhouse does not stay warm because of LWIR heat trapping. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. There is no radiant greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm but rather it is a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm. So too on Earth. The atmosphere keeps the Earth on average 33 degrees C warmer due to a convective greenhouse effect caused by gravity. The 33 degrees C convective greenhouse effect has been derived from first principals and has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. The convective greenhouse effect is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the pressure gradient, and the depth of the troposphere and accounts for all 33 degrees C that has been observed. Additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed. The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands but such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system. Without the radiant greenhouse effect the AGW conjecture is nothing by science fiction. Hence the rational behind the Paris Climate Agreement is based on science fiction. With a huge National Debt, and huge annual trade deficits, the USA should not be wasteing money on science fiction. We should be working on real problems that Mankind does have the power to solve and not ficticious problems that Mankind does not have the power to solve. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

    • @ willhaas
      May 10, 2017 at 5:49 pm: Hear, hear! By similar attention to atmospheric physics etc., I found the same, along with scientists who did the initial checking of solar system satellite readings, eg the Voyagers, Magellan, Veneris etc.. Pity some are too smart to see this, but the truth stands….
      No tri and polyatomic emitters would mean, apart from no life, also loss of atmosphere by evaporative cooling, and again no life (that’s twice!).

      • The USA does not have any money to spend on this. We have a huge National Debt and huge yearly trade deficits. We need to first concentrate on avoiding a financial desaster. Before we even consider spending any money on this we need to pay off our debts and correct our trade deficit problem.

  23. What do informed bloggers think of the 5 min Prager Uni videos? Here’s 2 recent examples that should help the layperson easily understand that the extremists CAGW is just a fra-d. And not a very good fra-d.

    Lomborg in this short 5 min video provides evidence, facts and available data to prove that they are telling porkies to the people all around the world. They’ll waste endless trillions $ until 2100 and beyond for no measurable change to temp or co2 levels or anything else. Just ask China, India and the rest of the developing world.

    Here is Dr Richard Lindzen providing the facts and evidence in another 5 min Prager Uni video. Like the Lomborg video this informative message is well worth 5 mins of your time.

    • Dr. Lindzen is core to rational skepticism. My only critique is that he’s too dignified for the blood lust AGW advocates that formed “consensus” so long ago now.

      I know it’s a short quick piece but there is plenty more to say about group “A” government funded science that is just left off the table. They’re largely consensus collectivists and activists as a rule. It’s just another cultural enclave of the academic left that always has existed and simply expanded from softer liberal art fields like History, economics, sociology, arts and literature now into another science area. This politicization happens all the time in backward communist academic cultures and it has now happened in the West. It might have to do with academic proliferation of excess government/debt and funding expansion. A society and economy that can’t really absorb these areas of study. Hence there is a desperate need of large groups such as “environmental studies” that couldn’t migrate to private sector employment due to lack of demand. Thousands more, maybe millions can’t leave the academic reservations that have been created. We’ve seen the underlying anger at the recent marches etc.

      If climate fraud was displaced what would happen to the tens of thousands dependent on the growth scenario all but counted upon in the Paris Climate mediation?

      Sure, it was a fine 5 minute video and probably OK for the millions of casual climate political observers. Group “A” scientists still were given the soft touch they so clearly don’t deserve. The opposite would never be true in AGW propaganda. Dr. Lindzen who has actual ancestors who were victims of the actual Holocaust is routinely called a “denier” in reference to Holocaust Denial. I hope you see the point here.

      Dr. Lindzen has actually improved over the years but still hasn’t reached the appropriate levels of offsetting snark, condescension and flat out nastiness that probably is going to be required to match the climate establishment adversaries. “Political”? You and I might know what that means in the video but “Leftist fanatical ideologues” clears up so many more missing parts regarding “Group A” government funded science driving climate policy and the IPCC. It should be called what it actual is, “political” is a confusing euphemism given the stakes.

      Look President Trump should give him the Medal of Freedom by now. There are hundred worse issues then Dr. Lindzen’s modesty and fair play his adversaries certainly don’t deserve. It’s still worth pointing out.

  24. “Those arguing that the U.S. should continue to support the Paris process but negotiate new and different provisions are naïve and fail to appreciate that the Paris process of political and scientific corruption disqualifies it serving as a credible vehicle for advancing legitimate future climate policy proposals.”

    man, somebody has been asleep thru this whole carnival?
    they are not naive, duh. whoever thinks they are is.
    they do not fail to appreciate that the paris political circus and the scientific corruption are exactly what qualifies it to serve as a credible vehicle for advancing worldwide wealth redistribution.

  25. The entire foundation of “Climate Science” and their Homocentric Universe, aka Anthropogenic Global Warming and all other variants stems from a scene in the 1984 film Adventures of Bakaroo Bonsai Across The 8th Dimension where Dr. Emilio Lizardo (character) uses home-made electro-shock therapy to remember his role in events from the 1930s.

  26. Larry Hamlin,

    Good post. It’s always good to read from Dr. Curry. Nice recap and a daily dose keeps me sane. Additionally, the spaghetti graph is always a knockout blow every time!

    Winning after all these years is good!

  27. Larry Hamlin, maybe there is something wrong with my brain tonight, but this doesn’t make sense to me.

    The UN IPCC AR5 WG1 report concludes in the Summary for Policy Makers Chapter that:

    NOAA tide gauge coastal sea level rise data measurements encompassing the 46 year period from 1970 through 2016 do not support and in fact clearly contradict the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 conclusion regarding supposed man made contributions to increasing rates of sea level rise since the early 1970s.

    The UN IPCC AR5 WG1 report concludes in the Summary that the NOAA tide gauge coastal sea level rise data measurements do not support and contradict the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 ???

    • I’ve been reading and re-reading this. Perhaps it is the awkward construction, or attempting to say too much in one sentence.

      Are you saying:
      The UN IPCC AR5 WG1 report concludes in the Summary that the NOAA tide gauge coastal sea level rise data measurements are wrong. The UN IPCC AR5 WG1 claims that man’s contributions have increased sea level rise since 1970, and claims [or seem to claim] NOAA’s 46 years of observed data and hard measurements are meaningless and don’t count.

    • The Summary For Policy Makers (SPM) is notorious for making alarmist claims which are not supported by the data provided by Working Group 1, The Scientific Basis.
      Apparently, the idea is that policy makers will read the SPM, and never delve into the hard science of the report chapters provided by WG1. This, de facto gives the SPM the last word on the issue.

      Meanwhile, many people have made a game out of locating direct contradictions between what is in the SPM and what is in the WG1 chapters. All this is part of the ongoing soap opera which is the IPCC.

  28. Larry you can’t be so naive! You are right we should dump the Parisite Agreement but you are suggesting it should be replaced? Now I understand why your essays read so oddly. You believe the problem is just bad science. You believe that “both sides” have to communicate properly and engage in a goodwill exercise.

    No, my friend it is not about the science at all. All the wonderful graphs you have put together to convince the warmer proponents they need to re-evaluate the science has been done relentlessly to not an iota of give on their part. The reason is, the whole CO2 thing is being used as a tool to effect destruction of the political economy, particularly of the “holdout” USA. The rest of the west is already captive and the East and Far East have it largely in place. They are hell bent on imposing a Nouveau Monde Order of elite тоталiтаяуаи global governing system to control every aspect of our lives. Are the scientists in on this? My guess is most actually are not, but money and celebrity showered on them has corrupted the main bunch and they are essentially useful idjits.

    Larry, you are a more dangerous man than I had realized. You don’t read. You only pontificate on bringing poor dumb lambs to the table so we can hammer out an agreement on climate. So far, there is nothing wrong with the climate. Look up Maurice Strong who created the UNFCC and the IPCC and the Kyoto accord and even the Stockholm Treaty on environment. Google his quotes on bringing down western civilization (our duty to do so) . Look up UN climate head, Figueres and read her quotes. She even said the whole thing is to redistribute wealth! While you are at it, look up Orwell’s 1984 and animal farm. Larry I fear the warm researchers have been bought and you are doing it for nothing.

    • No Gary, this is not what they are doing.

      They are hell bent on imposing a Nouveau Monde Order of elite тоталiтаяуаи global governing system to control every aspect of our lives.

      They don’t give a s**t about your life. Do what you want with it: they are jurisdiction-free. What they want are multo-USD tax- and payback-free (!) because they know the US federal government creates the USD. Limited supply. (Something I have been trying to impress upon this august group here about how the federal monetary system transactions operate for two years. But many prefer the socialism or Keynesian argument without having a clue what they are talking about.)

      Maurice Strong was Edmond de Rothschild’s (Geneva) major domo, and he was charged with effecting the global warming setup in September 1987. And, oh, David Rockefeller was going to be “Mr. Deveopment.”

      • WHOOPS!!! Major typo.

        Should read Unlimited supply.

        Also, should read Mr. Development. I have a temporary bum right hand.

      • So take your money and shut down cheap energy and ration flights and activities with a carbon tax and this won’t control you. Of course they don’t care about us. I didn’t think they did. People don’t show interest in your monetary thoughts because it too is a tool for bigger things.

      • People don’t show interest in your monetary thoughts because it too is a tool for bigger things.

        Monetary thoughts? Gary, learn to read the federal government’s daily checkbook. The numbers tell the truth. It’s called the Daily Treasury Statement. The Bureau of Fiscal Services–the federal government’s accounts receivable dept–publishes it every day at 4 PM for the day before. I don’t believe in fiscal fairy tales (or economic theories spawned on the NY Times’ op-ed page). It’s like the IPCC ignoring NOAA’s tide gauges and coming up with fairy tales about sea levels.

        The numbers are either there or they ain’t. Period.

  29. Trumpy humours and seeks to educate his daughter by exposing her to the venal hypocrisy of Paris IPCC. She can be a blue team to his red, just for interest’s sake, could be informative. He knows it is a bad deal, has made that clear, but will never telegraph his hand. C’mon, he’s already shown his mettle and how he does the job – no warning, let ’em all ramble on, then just chop them off.

  30. Unless the USA it’s spending and revenue imbalance it is unsustainable .
    The climate caper is a hoax that is consuming scarce public resources yet it remains despite Mr. Trumps promise to get the USA out of it . Why ?
    My bet is Republicans know there is no way out of this budget crisis without a fuel tax and possibly other
    end use value taxes .

    Put the Paris Agreement to a vote which will cancel it properly .
    Follow through on income tax reductions and simplification followed by an infrastructure fuel tax .
    This will save an easy $Trillion from the ” the earth has a fever” fraud and have a steady stream of income to fund infrastructure .
    Suggestions that Ivanka is the go between are not a good sign .

    • “My bet is Republicans know there is no way out of this budget crisis without a fuel tax and possibly other
      end use value taxes .”

      I have seen news reports about Trump possibly proposing a gasoline tax. I hope that’s not true, because a gasoline tax is the worst possible tax that could be imposed. It harms the poorest segments of our society the most, and harms everyone else, too, and for every $0.80 increase in a gallon of gasoline, it reduces U.S. GDP by one percent.

      Gasoline tax; Worst tax idea Evah!

    • Fascinating how some people always assume that the only way to close the deficit is always more taxes.
      The idea that taxes are already to high and the solution is to slash spending never occurs to them.

  31. “In year 2030 US CO2 emissions are forecast by EIA to be 5,210 million metric tons (without Obama’s EPA CPP) which is a reduction of 790 million metric tons and over 14% below peak year 2007 CO2 levels.”

    worse case a 14% reduction…

  32. No one cares what Ivanka believes or does not believe. No one cares what Jared thinks or does not think. No one even cares what Donald considers to be factual or not factual. Whomsoever wishes to destroy the economies of the West based on a hypothesis had better bring a very great deal of very compelling evidence in support of that hypothesis. Having completed that successfully they had better further bring a very great deal of very compelling analysis of how they intend to change the claimed human-driven climate trajectory and provide an economic case to justify the whole thing as opposed to an adaptation strategy. Thus far I have seen precisely zero evidence of any kind in support of the hypothesis and a great deal in refutation. I haven’t seen a whiff of any sort of remotely sensible way in which, if it even exists, the claimed climate change may be mitigated. And lastly there is’t a scintilla of rationalisation for the inevitable Cosmologically huge economic cost.

    • If action on AGW will “destroy the economies of the West”, then why does virtually all of corporate America (and companies in other countries) support taking action? Before you say “for financial gain” please enlighten me as to how Wal Mart, Nestle, General Mills, Unilever and Staples (among others) will benefit if action is taken on AGW.

      • You probably know better than that. Virtue signalling and rent-seeking are powerful influences, along with pure political cowardice. Companies sucking up to presumably powerful interests is as common as flies in a dump.

      • You probably know better than that. It’s easy to trot out those accusations about pretty much any issue that affects companies – minimum wage laws (supporting them makes you more popular with working class folks), environmental regulations (supporting them makes you more popular with greenies and urbanites) – yet companies have fought against both of those tooth and nail. So it’s patently false that companies will support any issue that might garner them public support.

  33. There is no logical reason for him to wait until the G7 meeting. None. It’s a stalling tactic, and doesn’t bode well.

  34. No one cares what Ivanka believes or does not believe. No one cares what Jared thinks or does not think. No one even cares what Donald considers to be factual or not factual. Whomsoever wishes to destroy the economies of the West based on a hypothesis had better bring a very great deal of very compelling evidence in support of that hypothesis. Having completed that successfully they had better further bring a very great deal of very compelling analysis of how they intend to change the claimed human-driven climate trajectory and provide an economic case to justify the whole thing as opposed to an adaptation strategy. Thus far I have seen precisely zero evidence of any kind in support of the hypothesis and a great deal in refutation. I haven’t seen a whiff of any sort of remotely sensible way in which, if it even exists, the claimed climate change may be mitigated. And lastly there is’t a scintilla of rationalisation for the inevitable Cosmologically huge economic cost.

    What we do have i abundant measure is slobbering insane ideologues driving the entire climate circus for altogether different political agendas. I have to seriously doubt Trump is going to let the ideologues get in the way of his planned economic recovery but we’ll see.

  35. Re Mark W “slash spending never occurs to them ” . Agreed, however how many politicians ever cut spending when they can buy people with their own money …. OK now debt ?
    Entitlement programs are sacred cows , military spending promises made , health care out of control . The only way this ends is a very hard landing . Each successive President hands a bigger financial disaster off to the next one . The music is going to stop soon unless something dramatically changes and maybe it ‘s the only way to reset priorities . The consequences for 50 years will be devastating but without new sources of cash and spending frozen it is inevitable . Better a controlled crash than the cowardly handing off of a live grenade as happens now .
    Tweaking spending would no longer going to do it unfortunately and besides it isn’t happening anyway . In Canada the federal income tax act was about 6 pages when introduced as a temporary measure and is now over 3300 pages . The USA has seen a similar pattern of tax pork barreling resulting in economic undertow .
    – Reduce taxes on effort and raise them on consumption
    – Make the tax act understandable to citizens and cut out the pork from special interest lobby groups
    – The scary global warming fraud is the easiest $Trillion dollars President Trump will ever save . Punt .

  36. The key flaw of the Presidents anti-climate fraud message is that it isn’t designed to totally destroy the underlying academic and social corruption AGW policy represents. He hopes to trim the hedges of Greenshirt energy authority but he hasn’t embraced the existential threat the green blob is to individual freedom. Many skeptics suffer from various forms of this equivocation.

    I think he’s sincere to a point but my fear it was just one of many talking points from an election campaign and the huge money of the world is betting with the fraud not against it. Hence we have a Tillerson and the idiots delight of a carbon tax in the room as just one example. Hence not a single cut of climate fraud subsidies has been outlined in any budget.

    If he chokes on climate policy he’s a one term lock. Paris has to go, no Senate fiasco required. The odds are still against him and the fanaticism of the globalist establishment makes itself know via every MSM news segments 24/7 for potentially the next 8 years. Then all the history books will be Orwellian altered to fit their narrative yet again in the future. The Millennial generation memory hole, larger then the Grand Canyon, is already another painful reminder of the long term damage of agenda culture and PC domination. Climate is a glaring example but there are many others as well. Critical thinking and social dissent are being purged all around us. Climate is the canary in the coal mine of lost freedom. Paris isn’t even enough, the whole UN protocol should be axed.

  37. cwon14 You are right keeping the climate fraud embers alive and the globalization agenda out for recess
    is everything President Trumps claims he is against . Walk away from a central election promise
    won’t be forgotten and attempts to reframe will be blown right out of the water .
    If Mr .Trump is serious about draining the swamp punting this scam should be a no brainer .
    Guess we are about to find out . Pretend friends like Al Gore and Steyer bag men will be in full suck up mode .
    It’s simple do the right thing for the USA and keep a key election promise unless one term is really the plan . There are enough enemies without selling out your base .

  38. Dr. Curry claims that climate models are “useful tools.” Is she correct? Whether she is correct depends upon what is meant by the term “model” for in the literature of global warming climatology this term is polysemic (has more than one meaning.” In one of its several meanings “model” means “predictive model.” In another, “model” does not mean “predictive model.” In the former case Curry is correct but not in the latter.

    • “Dr. Curry claims that climate models are “useful tools.” Is she correct?”

      Yes, she is. Those models demonstrate just how wrong the climate alarmist really are with their wild predictions of CAGW destruction. Very valuable models.

  39. Does anyone know when Trump is going to announce whether or not the US is going to withdraw from the Paris scam? Has anyone heard anything? The recent actions of Tillerson and Ivanka worry me. I still live in hope but the noises I’m hearing don’t bode well. I thought Trump was a realist (AGW sceptic). He made enough confident comments during his campaign to give that impression, and has often stated he intended to dump the Paris accord overboard, but now I’m having doubts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s