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.
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.
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:
.
Dr. Curry concludes with three key points about climate model capabilities:
Climate 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Dr. Curry then clearly articulated the “war on science” that has been conducted by government climate science alarmist politics during the past decades:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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?
“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!
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.
Yup. That is the bottom line. So out.
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.
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 .
Stay in and you get the next five levels of globalized advocacy and the call for carbon taxes.
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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
“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.
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.
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!
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 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.
BTW, Larry, I think your post is a keeper.
As I happen to think most of your stuff is.
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.
Parisite Agreement. Good one.
No Gary, this is not what they are doing.
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.
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.
“I am the daughter of a revolutionary and I feel very comfortable with revolutions,”
– Christina Figueres Politico
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.
I’m too much of a sceptic to take comfort with speculation. Trump makes me nervous.
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.
“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…
14% of Sweet-F-All is *STILL* Sweet-F-All.
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.
There is no logical reason for him to wait until the G7 meeting. None. It’s a stalling tactic, and doesn’t bode well.
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.
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 .
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.
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 .
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.
TA:
That the climate models make predictions is a common misconception. Actually they make projections and there is a crucial difference between a prediction and a projection. This is that a prediction provides one with information but a projection provides one with no information. With information in hand there is the potential for regulating the climate. Without information there is no such potential. To experience nil information, power up your HDTV, tune to a channel and then pull the power cord.