Trump declines to endorse Paris Climate Accord

Via Breitbart: Despite heavy lobbying from G7 leaders, President Donald Trump declined to endorse the Paris Climate Agreement in a joint pledge of support for one of former President Barack Obama’s signature achievements in office.

Trump’s decision upset world leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, desperate to convince the president of the agreement’s merits.

“The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said, describing discussions with Trump about climate change “very unsatisfying.”

For opponents of the agreement, the decision is a welcome development after the president’s economic adviser, Gary Cohn, told reporters that Trump was “evolving” on the issue. But it still was not a fulfillment of his campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement.

The president announced on Twitter that he would make the decision next week of whether to remain in the agreement.

Advertisements

355 thoughts on “Trump declines to endorse Paris Climate Accord

  1. I say stay in it and play it…..you have no voice if you leave the room

    Trump declines to endorse Paris Climate Accord…and flips the entire conversation to Illegal immigrants and muslim terror….and that really wigged them out

    • A voice only makes a difference if you are talking to rational people about rational things. Discussing climate change with watermelons and kleptocrats is like discussing whether you wan to be boiled or spit roasted with cannibals.

      • You should also be aware that if the Paris non-Treaty is not duly dejected by the Senate and Formally denounced by the president,the Supreme Court will order the US Government to enforce it and to pay multiple Gigadollars over to the UN to be distributed to needy third world kleptocrats whose countries are suffering from climate.

      • Mr. Sobchak, I understand your concerns, they have some basis. However, in U. S. jurisprudence, the courts apply conflict of laws principles. The U.S. Constitution’s requirement that this be a Senate-ratified treaty to be enforceable will control. There is NO Paris — anything. It is legally meaningless except in the most ephemeral of ways.

      • The Paris deal was a frawwd, pulled together in the dying hours of Obamah’s last term. He knew he could not get constitutionally required senate approval so he got it changed to an “agreement” and unilaterally signed on behalf of the US.

        The US does not need “a voice in the room ” because if it pulls out of UNFCCC the whole thing will fall apart. That will be the just return for an ‘agreement’ which is based on falsified science and was forced upon the world, including the US, by lies and manipulation.

        The main winners at the moment are the Chinese who will do nothing other than was is in their best economic interests while the developed nations swear themselves to economic self-flagellation.

      • candidate Trump said : “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop.”

        Now he is in a position to ensure that happens : GET ON WITH IT.

      • As the Paris agreement is basically a mutual economic suicide pact, I would think anyone with an interest in sovereignty and economic stability would certainly reject commitment.

      • “The U.S. Constitution’s requirement that this be a Senate-ratified treaty to be enforceable will control. There is NO Paris — anything. It is legally meaningless except in the most ephemeral of ways.”

        I wish I could agree with you. And you are absolutely correct about what the US Constitution says. Unfortunately there are only 3 justices who care about what the Constitution says (Thomas, Alito, and, we hope, Gorsuch). Kennedy, and the Dirty Little Coward John Roberts, sometimes care, but some times they don’t, and the other four are liberals who only care about what the NYTimes says.

        As long as Paris non-Treaty is not duly disapproved and denounced, it could come up at a time when the Court is made up of 9 wise Latinas, and hell will be out for breakfast. You can’t give them any excuses. They will seize power and you will be helpless.

        “I say we takeoff and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”

      • Discussing climate change with watermelons and kleptocrats is like discussing with cannibals whether you want to be boiled or spit roasted.

        I wish there was an edit function on this website.

      • There is an edit function on this website, Walter. Just let your eyes defocus and move on to the following knowledgeable comments.

      • I did enjoy the discussion between Janice and Walter. Both are correct, because one is arguing the law (Constitution), and the other politics. The 2 are rarely the same.

      • “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” – Winston Churchill

      • “That sounds like appeasement.”

        I liked PM Margaret Thatcher, “I smell the subtle stench of appeasement”.

      • Dave Fair May 27, 2017 at 2:54 pm

        I love it, Latitude; I get a voice in the size of the knife used to cut my throat.

        For some reason that reminds me of:

        Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. link

    • {repeated from yesterday — as it seems to be needed….}
      1) The United States is not “in” the Paris environstalinist deal. That was purely the former president’s hobbyhorse. What he did matters as much as his replacing the flowers on the Whitehouse tables with bowls of — ooo, doesn’t that look SO lovely (cough) — fruit.
      **********************
      2) Take heart! All is well.
      (1)

      For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan …. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution ….
      The Trump Administration is also committed …. to reviving America’s coal industry ….

      (Source (copied yesterday): https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy )
      (2)

      US President Donald Trump on Tuesday rolled back a slew of environmental protections …. to untether the fossil fuel industry.
      In a maiden trip to the Environmental Protection Agency, Trump signed an “Energy Independence Executive Order,” a White House official told AFP.
      The new president unveiled a series of measures to review regulations curbing oil, gas and coal production and limiting carbon emissions. ….
      Trump said his order would “end the war on coal” and would usher in more jobs and energy production.
      Critics said it reverses Obama’s climate change commitments.
      “It will make it virtually impossible” for the US to meet its target said Bob Ward, a climate specialist at the London School of Economics. ….

      (Source: https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-28/trump-about-end-obama-era-emissions-cuts-how-will-co2-emissions-change )
      Donald J. Trump is by no stretch of the imagination pro-AGW
      (the trollish snide comments of the video’s maker nicely underscore the above. 🙂 )

      (youtube)
      00:26 A big scam.
      1:42 {renewables} not economically viable
      (and China is doing the smart thing by using coal)
      2:22 This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bu11sh1t has got to stop.”
      (Donald J. Trump tweet, 1/2/14)
      *********************
      MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN — LIVES!
      #(:))
      *****************************************************************
      *****************************************************************
      For the U.S. to join in the play in the Paris AGW Futbol Games is to be sent out onto the field with our shoelaces tied together while China, et al., gleefully sprint along, laughing all the way.
      Only a:
      1) FOOL
      or
      2) America hater
      would bind the U.S. to such a deal.
      (and, btw, Trump can’t do that anyway — it still requires Congress to ratify)

      • Merkill”s comment really says it all

        ““The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said, describing discussions with Trump about climate change “very unsatisfying.””

        there in lies the problem–today’s globalism (and of course tomorrows is even more important) which is a nice way of saying one world unelected government –EU on steroids — to rule us all.

      • Latitude: He can just as effectively shout that from across the street. He has a pretty big megaphone, you know… :)

      • Hey Janice! Happy Memorial Day weekend!

        …I think Trump enjoys doing it face to face….across the room with this media, nah
        Besides he can run all over them when he’s there….and he just did and proves that
        Much more effective to be there and turn it on them…anything they say, he can answer right then, in their face

      • Latitude! Thank you.

        I have no doubt that Trump will NOT indulge his preference for communicating mano a mano at the GREAT expense of crippling the U.S. economy.

        What happened in Paris had best stay in Paris…. in their world-famous sewers would be a good place.

      • “Trump declines to endorse Paris climate agreement and turns the entire conversation to radical muslim terror, illegal immigration, and a bunch of freeloading NATO sponges”…in their face

        …but they might not invite him back either!

      • they might not invite him back

        And that’s a problem? It would save the U.S. taxpayers thousands of dollars in transportation and other costs. It would be great for President Trump’s family (dad home is the best). If they don’t want the U.S. there, it’s a win-win.

        MAKE — OUR — DAY.

      • I actually read Art of the Deal….and this is exactly the way he says to do it

        Muslim immigration…EU wants it their way not Trump’s way……deal
        NATO….EU wants it their way not Trump’s way….deal
        Climate Change….EU wants it their way not Trump’s way…deal

        When you look at it that way…he’s doing it exactly the way he said to do it in his book
        …and he can’t leave the room and do that..he’s using this for his own platform and did it

        Like it or not..just walking out is not really an option…we will need to work with them on so many other things
        …and Trump hammered them on three of those other things right at that meeting

      • Without America’s money and military EU is screwed, so yes, walking out is the thing to do. Make them come calling, hat in hand. Just as Art Of The Deal says it should be done. Let them dangle for a year or so. They are the ones in the toilet begging for a bailout.

      • How many times do we: Europeans screw up, America fixes it at great cost, America props up Europe, Europe entangles America into multiparty B.S. [RINSE AND REPEAT]

      • Walking out on a ridiculous “deal” with the globalist warmistas is an option, and if he wants the continued support of people like me who voted for him ( and I would have even if CAGW was the only thing he got right).
        Walk out, slam the door, and forget to turn off the lights!

      • Latitude, how does all the things we need to deal with the world relate to the one, small CAGW non-topic?

      • The art of any deal is being prepared to walk away. As soon as the other side knows you need the deal, they can demand the moon and get it.

      • “What happened in Paris had best stay in Paris…. in their world-famous sewers would be a good place.”

        Hi, Ms. M., what is it with parisian sewers anyhow? i once read the unabridged version of Les Miserables and in it there was a whole chapter about sewers. (fifty pages of nothing but sewers!) Most boring chapter of any book that i ever read. i just don’t get it. What’s up with them sewers?!

    • The Paris Climate Accord isn’t a room. It’s a cell.
      And it’s ATM only allows the US to deposit, not withdraw.

      In the absence of US green, let the UN (et al) go through withdrawals.

      PS I know other nations are being tapped to provide the UN (et al) its green “fix”, but many of those nations’ leaders still seem to be addicted to “feel good” policies.

    • Sorry Latitude… no one will have a voice wrt to Paris climate agreement if we withdraw. The whole Paris thing falls apart in short order without the US. You apparently keep thinking it actually has something to do with mitigating climate change… it does NOT. It has everything to do with the new world order.. and without the US on board…well.

      • Exactly right Alcheson.
        The treatment of the Chinese is only the most obvious way that it can be proven it is not about CO2 or climate change.
        As if a bunch of idiotic and clueless politicians know the first thing about physical reality.

      • “It has everything to do with the new world order”

        From the goat’s mouth !!!

        ““The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said,”

      • You apparently keep thinking it actually has something to do with mitigating climate change… it does NOT

        You must be new….but love the way you projected that! LOL

      • Acheson

        America did not sign the kyoto agreement and that persisted for years. Why would the Paris agreement-whether you agree with it or not- fall apart without Americas participation?
        Tonyb

      • By the US (Trump) declining to join the agreement, it puts several nails into the coffin of the whole global-warming farce and extortion game. This is the only course to take since joining even w/o Senate ratification will be still be seen outside the US as an endorsement by the US. The overwhelming majority of people outside the US known nothing about Senate ratification, and those who do either ignore it for propaganda purposes or do not understand it.

      • Merkel’s comment in the article-” The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization.”

        I think this pretty much says it all. If you don’t favor globalization, get out of the Paris agreement.

      • it’s the G7…..sign it or not sign it…..we’re in it
        …it’s about more things than global warming
        Trump is still going to be in the room whether he signs it or not….and he didn’t sign it
        …and if he never signs it, he’s still going to be in the room

        Personally I love the fact that he went…didn’t sign it…and used it as a platform to call them out on NATO, immigration, muslim terrorism and on and on….he understands the G7 is not just about Paris

      • Climatereason – The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty, not an accord or agreement. Treaties are binding on the signers (and the US Senate did not and hopefully never will ratify Kyoto.). Paris is not a treaty. Obama purposefully made sure it didn’t take on the language of treaty for the sole purpose of bypassing Congressional advice and consent, and has very little binding language in it. Obama and his team were very careful to make sure Congress wouldn’t have to be involved, by invoking existing treaties and US law as much as possible, and using non-binding language for whatever’s not already binding by way of previously ratified treaty commitments.

        As such, all President Trump has to do is say “America has changed its mind” and ignore it. He doesn’t even have to formally withdraw.

        Since the Clean Power Plan is pretty-much DOA, and that’s one of the hooks Obama tried to hang Paris on, all that’s left is the previous commitments in the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (which was foolishly ratified, binding the US to its commitments enumerated in that treaty).

      • It’s not a treaty, it’s an agreement between heads of state, including former President Obama. In the interest of clarity Pres. Trump should sign an executive order countermanding the previous order, and withdraw from the UNFCCC and stop spending on bad UN programs. When future problems come up, similar to the UN appointing Iran as chair of the Human Rights Clowncil(sic) he can withdraw funds for that.

        As far as the Supreme Court goes, be ready to go the distance and control the issues by bringing suit first to prevent others from setting the agenda.

      • UNEP Inquiry

        “Mobilizing the world’s capital is essential for the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy.”

        “Inquiry: Design of a Sustainable Financial System.”

        Scroll down to Advisory Council members which include:
        Kathy Bardswick, Canada
        Rachel Kyte, SE4All
        Adair Turner, also with INET
        And others.

        http://www.unep.org/inquiry

        Another UN organization.

      • UNEP

        Inquiry: Design of a Sustainable Financial System

        ‘Aligning The Financial System With Sustainable Development’, January 2015, 34 pages

        The Inquiry’s Knowledge Network includes:
        IISD, Manitoba, Canada
        World Bank
        PRI
        CIGI, Ontario, Canada
        Carbon Tracker
        UNEP
        And others

        The Inquiry’s Country Engagements include:
        Kathy Bardswick, Canada
        Adair Turner, also with INET
        And others

        http://gstss.org/2015_Norfolk_4th_/Documents/Aligning_the_financial_system.pdf

        Networking.

    • “I say stay in it and play it…..you have no voice if you leave the room

      But you leave with your wallet intact

    • It appears that the mod is off for a well-deserved Memorial Day weekend break, so, once again — minus a bad word (oops) ….
      *****************************************

      {repeated from yesterday — as it seems to be needed….}

      1) The United States is not “in” the Paris environstalinist deal. That was purely the former president’s hobbyhorse. What he did matters as much as his replacing the flowers on the Whitehouse tables with bowls of — ooo, doesn’t that look SO lovely (cough) — fruit.

      **********************

      2) Take heart! All is well.

      (1)

      For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan …. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution ….

      The Trump Administration is also committed …. to reviving America’s coal industry ….

      (Source (copied yesterday): https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy )

      (2)

      US President Donald Trump on Tuesday rolled back a slew of environmental protections …. to untether the fossil fuel industry.

      In a maiden trip to the Environmental Protection Agency, Trump signed an “Energy Independence Executive Order,” a White House official told AFP.

      The new president unveiled a series of measures to review regulations curbing oil, gas and coal production and limiting carbon emissions. ….

      Trump said his order would “end the war on coal” and would usher in more jobs and energy production.

      Critics said it reverses Obama’s climate change commitments.

      “It will make it virtually impossible” for the US to meet its target said Bob Ward, a climate specialist at the London School of Economics. ….

      (Source: https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-28/trump-about-end-obama-era-emissions-cuts-how-will-co2-emissions-change )

      Donald J. Trump is by no stretch of the imagination pro-AGW
      (the trollish snide comments of the video’s maker nicely underscore the above. :) )

      (youtube)

      00:26 A big sc@m.

      1:42 {renewables} not economically viable

      (and China is doing the smart thing by using coal)

      2:22 This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bu11shit has got to stop.”
      (Donald J. Trump tweet, 1/2/14)

      *********************

      MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN — LIVES!

      #(:))

      *****************************************************************
      *****************************************************************

      For the U.S. to join in the play in the Paris AGW Futbol Games is to be sent out onto the field with our shoelaces tied together while China, et al., gleefully sprint along, laughing all the way.

      Only a:

      1) FOOL

      or

      2) America hater

      would bind the U.S. to such a deal.

      (and, btw, Trump can’t do that anyway — it still requires Congress to ratify)

      • I agree with everything you’ve said Janice but I still worry that without Trump either coming out and killing the deal outright or letting the Senate kill the deal outright that this ‘Accord” will be used as ammo for the ecolawyers to try to lawfare their way into compliance with it. Wasn’t there a post yesterday or the day before about protests against climate change? We already have seen activist judges throwing the Constitution overboard with the immigration rulings, what makes any sane person think that they wouldn’t CHEERFULLY do the same with Constitution with respect to the Paris Agreement?

      • Fear not, dear Rhoda. :)

        The case(s) would ultimately end up in the U.S. Supreme Court where what the law is will soundly defeat all those enviroprofiteer-funded lawsuits.

        Donald Trump will not be intimidated and he would no doubt say about that: Believe me. Not going to happen.

      • The Climate Action Plan was Obama’s path to meeting his Paris commitments. By canceling the CAP, President The Donald effectively canceled Obama’s unilateral promise to the socialist world.

      • Janice

        Though I agree with much you’ve said I disagree with the action that should be taken. I say treat it as a formal treaty and send it to failure of ratification in the Senate. It takes 2/3 majority to ratify and that ain’t gonna happen. This ambiguous status of an “agreement” such as this by the executive would be dangerous any time but with the left holding so much sway in the courts it is even more so now. I say kill it! Tear off it’s head and bury it in a bag full of garlic. Drive a stake through the heart and leave the rest in eternal sunlight. If we don’t it WILL come back to haunt us. I can’t see a better time for punitive and definitive action on this whole issue of CO2 as a pollutant. And I don’t want any possible justification left for someone to declare CO2 a pollutant ever again because other nations have and that key point is the whole premise of this “agreement”. The POTUS and our legislature and thus both elected branches of our Federal government needs to be on record as having rejected that premise.

        And as far as domestic politics goes I want to see the senators of both parties put their markers down as to where they stand on the issue. A vote will force them to do that.

        We don’t need a place in the Paris accord room no matter if one thinks it’s an attempted suicide pact for industrialized nations or just Kabuki theater. This news now is coming out of the G7 and we’ll be there no matter what is done about this Paris piece of feces. Just as we will be in the UN if we defund the IPCC or any other initiative that body of mostly authoritarian governments has or creates that is counter to our National interests. Kill or be killed!

      • Janice, for those items in Paris that are binding (most of it is written not to be binding), it is within Presidential authority to enter into certain agreements provided there is supporting law or precedent. See Circular 175 for the process to determine legal international agreement under the President’s constitutional authority. Because it was not written as a treaty, Congress doesn’t have to ratify – all it takes is a letter of acceptance from the President. I am truly surprised that Obama did not issue an official acceptance before he left office.

      • jstalewski (7:50am today): Circular 175 is not law. Given ad arguendo that Circular 175 along with Japan Whaling Ass’n v. American Cetacean Soc’y make Obama’s actions voidable, not void, this helps President Trump (and also argues against sending it to the Senate for the needless delay of rejecting the Paris deal).

        That is, the Circular 175 argument cuts both ways: it says that, likewise, Trump has the authority to rip it up and throw it into the garbage (where it belongs, imo).

        So, your point is relevant and of interest, but, moot.

    • No no no. They need America and will respect us more for telling the truth about this sham

    • Climate fraud needs no US validation, should leave the entire UN pseudoscience protocol right now as well.
      Dr. Lindzen should get the Metal of Freedom and the entire WH should filled with skeptic science experts denouncing 40+ years of fraud.
      We may need to fund climate propaganda deprograming centers across universities. A cult needs to unwind, it isn’t going to be quick or easy.
      A clean Paris break is a start but globalists are far from defeated.

    • Paris is the ultimate Tar-Baby, crafted by Obama to entangle future Presidents.

      So long as it exists, it will be the courts and lawyers that decide America’s economic future. If you think the EPA is a monster, imagine what Paris will become.

      As has happened in the EU, what started out as a Trade Agreement has grown so that it now regulates every aspect of life. The people are not governed by elected officials, rather by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels, drafting even more cumbersome regulations. While the EU parliament is a powerless joke.

    • “no voice if you leave the room”

      On the contrary, there are many instances where you have a much larger voice if you leave. The simple action of leaving can be the biggest shout-out you can do. Also, you are expected to follow the rules inside the room, whereas outside the room you can point out how badly the rules have been rigged to silence dissenters.

      • Thanks for the link, Latitude. Not mentioned is Trump’s only (I think) substantive public assessment of the Paris Stupidity. In his 100 days speech he described it as, to paraphrase, a crazy one-sided deal where China and India go gangbusters with coal while the USA goes broke letting them do it. I would expect that, not climate, will be his premise of tanking the deal.

        Another encouraging angle in that report is that the White House has asked Pruitt, a sceptic’s Godsend, to zip it until a formal announcement is made so that the decision will be seen as a “victory for Trump, not Pruitt”.

    • If you don’t walk out and kill it, it will grow back. The goal as clearly stated is to consume all the money of the world to solve a theoretical issue. Now, if the Arctic was ice free as Al baby had predicted, something other that babbling and hysteria to go on, that would have been a totally different discussion.

    • There are few moment in history when 1 person can change the world.

      Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan Margaret Thatcher, Gorbachev seized these moments and made the most of them.

      This is Donald Trump’s moment.

      It would be difficult to argue the case for catastrophic global warming. World temperatures as calculated by NOAA have risen just 0.8 0C since 1880. Since 1998 man has emitted 1/3 of all CO2 emissions yet world temperature, as measured by more accurate satellites, has remained constant. (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/06/a-problem-nearly-one-third-of-co2-emissions-occured-since-1998-and-it-hasnt-warmed).

      Temperatures vary by 10 degrees or more from day to night or from city to city with no ill effect. World crop and grain harvests continue to increase from year to year yet we are led to believe that we are facing disaster which can only be avoided by closing our reliable power generators and spending billions building solar and wind generators which cannot be relied on for constant supply.
      Europe and much of Australia is already well down this path of destruction. China is the world’s largest emitter of CO2 and has promised not curtail its development of new coal fired power until 2030.

      Donald Trump is the only man who can save America and the World and reveal that the climate change emperor has no clothes. Cancel Paris, or give it to the Senate to dispose of.

      Seize the moment. Please. For the world.

      • Great overview, LittleOil. May I submit a small addition before, hopefully, the moderator transmits your comment direct to the White House.
        “World temperatures as calculated by NOAA have risen just 0.8 0C since 1880”
        on the way out of the Little Ice Age.

    • “A voice in the room” of an asylum? Best thing is to get the hell out of there.
      Vision of an “unsatisfied” clutch of Merkel mad types has made my day.

    • The specific climate goals are thus politically encouraged, rather than legally bound. Only the processes governing the reporting and review of these goals are mandated under international law. This structure is especially notable for the United States—because there are no legal mitigation or finance targets, the agreement is considered an “executive agreement rather than a treaty”. Because the UNFCCC treaty of 1992 received the consent of the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to take effect.

      I predict Trump will send it to the Senate for ratification.

    • Wrong. Trump didn’t wish to cause even more uproar (after the NATO and the trade discords) while in Europe. Next week he is back in the USA on the home ground where he feels as the King Donald I and will be looking after his loyal subjects, as for the rest they have to like it or lump it.

    • Change the news cycle time is what time it is.

      Oh the Russians stole the election by….

      … well how knows what they did, because everything is so Fake in the News today, but exposing somebody’s emails is just exposing who they really are and then we don’t have to fall for their fake public personna anymore.

      Leak everybody’s emails so we know who they really are. I’m fine what that.

      ——

      But back to topic, probably good for Trump to get CNN off the the FakeNews and get them onto the “global warming” storyline again.

      No matter what the FakePolls say, people do not want to pay MORE for energy and to pay Carbon Taxes. Ask the politicians who lost elections based on the green fantasy taxes. All of them.

      But then, there is no real difference if one signs onto the Paris Accord or not because it has no enforcement mechanisms. Anything happen to any country that did not meet their Kyoto Protocol targets? What Kyoto Protocol targets? Which countries exceed their targets and which did not meet them? Nobody has a clue or cares one iota.

      Which countries have put the most money into the new UN Green Climate Fund. Nobody knows because you can’t find out because they hide all the information..

      So what. Sign the darn Accord. Nothing needs to change at all and nothing happens if you don’t live up to it.

      But change the news cycle back to something less FakeNews-like and that is worth something.

      • because it has no enforcement mechanisms.
        ==============
        not true. the white-house lawyers certainly don’t believe that, nor did Obama. The cost of going to court is the enforcement mechanism. Environmental pressure groups can force public policy via the courts rather than the choice be left to the public via the ballot. In effect the levers of government move from the elected officials to the appointed judges.

      • The EPA “sue and settle” games with green NGOs short circuited Congress, and even the Executive, at times. We need to get all that crap off the books.

  2. “I will make my final decision on the Paris Accord next week!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2017”

    That exclamation point on Donald’s tweet makes me think he is going to exit the Paris Agreement. He wouldn’t be excited about making the announcement otherwise, imo.

    • Either you or Latitude above will be disappointed. Me, I have no expectations, so I will be neither disappointed nor surprised by anything Trump does. I think David Brooks (whom I mostly detest) nailed the guy:

      But Trump’s statements don’t necessarily come from anywhere, lead anywhere or have a permanent reality beyond his wish to be liked at any given instant.

      We’ve got this perverse situation in which the vast analytic powers of the entire world are being spent trying to understand a guy whose thoughts are often just six fireflies beeping randomly in a jar.

      https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-classified-data.html

    • Ditto! The endorsement, so far approved only by Obama, needs to be ‘considered’ as a treaty and referred to Congress.

    • @ TA…I looked up some of his past interviews and talks after his nomination. He certainly was animated in many of them while speaking clearly as he followed his thoughts on a given subject. My opinion of him improved a good bit after listening to him in his younger years.

      • Trump is not stupid.

        Of course the MSM and the Left always portray Republicans as being stupid. Remember “Bush’s Brain”, Karl Rove, who the MSM claimed was doing all GW’s thinking for him. The same with Reagan. They called him an “amiable dunce”. They currently claim Bannon is Trump’s brain. The Left is like a broken record playing the same tune over and over again. The Left has gotten to the point where they believe their own lies and propaganda.

  3. Scott Adams said he shouldn’t just come out with a decision made from behind closed doors. I tend to agree with him. He needs to hold a livestream debate between the two sides, then he can say, well such and such refused to show up or they had no answer to some of the points brought up by the other side etc.

  4. First off, Merkel says the agreement “shapes globalization”. Notice that she doesn’t say it fixes any climate problems, real or imagined.

    Second, the Paris agreement would cost something like a trillion dollars per year and result in cooling of MAYBE a tenth of a degree maximum. This is clearly the world’s worst and most inefficient refrigeration system.

    w.

    • Well, on the surface of it, it seems ridiculous in the first place to try and micro-manage the for-God’s-sake CLIMATE, by micromanaging one species contribution to it, when that species contribution is only something like 3% or so, and the Greenhouse gas in question only amounts to about 3% of that.

      As far as Trump goes, I think he’s leveraging, just like he does.

    • Merkel’s “shapes today’s globalization” comment should be sufficient motivation for Trump to “blow it out of the water”.

      “Sighted sub, sank same.”, Donald Francis Mason

    • +1
      There are no surplus GDP funds to force spend, on green scams that do not work, ignoring the surreal issue that almost the entire warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes.
      Drain the dam swamp.
      The IPCC science, economics, and engineering is/was 100% incorrect/fake.
      The Paris stupid ‘accord’ is a future legal black hole for the special interest groups.
      http://www.justfacts.com/images/nationaldebt/debt_gdp-full.png

    • Quite so. Nothing to do with any warming.

      And, one would guess that “shaping globalization” will not ring any nice bells on Trump. Desperate move.

      • “The end justifies the means” is only seems a just justification for those whose standards reach no higher than themselves.

      • Look, all these multi-party agreements devolve into the lowest common denominator. You have supposed climate agreements spinning off into SJW nonsense.

        What happens is one party will hold up consensus to get an advantage or a political objective. Multiply that by the square of the number of participants and you get a sense of the mindless crap in climate and trade agreements.

        Have any of you actually read any of the UN and IPCC drivel? TPP Trade Agreement?

        Bilateral agreements are manageable. Who the hell needs the rest of the world agreeing to a deal between sovereign states?

    • Willis:

      Thanks for that info. I have a question.

      Do you or anybody know what Merkel means by the agreement “shapes globalization”?

      It seems to me that it could mean anything (unless, of course, somebody knows different).

      Richard

      • Her “shapes globalization” means nothing more than “we all agree to constrain American exceptionalism.”

        Left to its own devices, America engenders worldwide constitutional freedoms and economic expansion through capitalism. Obama showed what happens when America is hamstrung by world socialism.

      • richardscourtney May 27, 2017 at 12:00 pm
        “Do you or anybody know what Merkel means by the agreement “shapes globalization”?”

        WR: To unify countries you need a common enemy. When there is no common enemy, you need to create one: Catastrophic Antropogenic Global Warming.

        And where do you do so? In your common institution: the UN. An IPCC is created and the IPCC creates the problem. And then you get all noses in the same direction. Remember the emotional pictures at reaching the Paris agreement. For example: http://16005-presscdn-0-36.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/paris-agreement.jpg The photo expresses the common thing: ‘Together we will make it’.

        It is all orchestrated. And there is no real climate problem. I suppose that is why the Paris Agreement is no real treaty: everyone can leave when he wants.

    • “The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said, describing discussions with Trump about climate change “very unsatisfying.”
      Could not agree more. This is the money quote above. Globalization. Nothing to do with the environment.

    • Since it is and always about a political order the impact on climate was always a facade. Time for technical skeptics to admit how wrong they always have been in their treatment of climate policy as a serious science proposal. A key reason we were brought to this brink of a social critical thinking collapse.

    • Willis you say “Second, the Paris agreement would cost something like a trillion dollars per year and result in cooling of MAYBE a tenth of a degree maximum”
      ——————
      The problem is, if as you, and hopefully everyone, desire to enable the 3rd word countries to become 1st world countries then their energy if derived from dirty sources will more than 8 times the pollution – co2 and other, this will make considerably more than 0.1C rise in temperature.
      Hopefully if the 1 trillion dollars helps them avoid following this path the we all benefit. What proof have you that it will not have this effect. I understand you accept a doubling of co2 will add 1C to temp. So with all the 3rd world polluting to attain the west standard of living you would be looking at least 3C rise in temp. I would hope you see this as a poor outlook.
      http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cop21-richest-10-per-cent-produce-half-the-world-s-co2-emissions-a6756511.html

      • So with all the 3rd world polluting to attain the west standard of living you would be looking at least 3C rise in temperature.

        That depends on IGPOCC’S hypothesized positive feedback, which is very iffy.

      • Seriously, Smueller? Pollution? Read up on CO2.

        According to you, a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm would lead to a 1 degree C global temperature increase above pre-industrial. It follows that a further doubling from 560 ppm to 1,120 ppm would result in another increase of 1 degree C. To get to your 3 degree C number, CO2 would have to rise to 2,240 ppm.

        Show me a study.

      • No way to get 3C rise at 1C per doubling. Are you actually projecting 8X times the present atmospheric CO2?
        That’s 3200 ppm! I hope you see your projection as physically impossible. Remember, all the scary climate stories depend on ludicrous amounts of positive feedback.

      • Smueller- there is no way to predict what will happen with the climate over the next hundred years. The IPCC models do not model “the” climate they model “a” climate cannot be detailed enough to work because the climate is chaotic, it is not deterministic. It doesn’t follow a single path from one time to the next, it can follow any of hundreds of paths and because the models are all inadequate they cannot predict which path the climate will follow. To me it appears that the best that can be done is explain how the glaciations and ice age work. Then we’ll have a bit of an idea when to expect the next global temperature drop of 9deg.C . The glaciations and interglacials seem to an example of an attractor in a chaotic system.

    • Merkel grew up and was educated as a chemist in East Germany (Leipzig) under communism, became political post Berlin Wall at age 35. One must wonder how deeply anti-democratic her indoctrination was in her formative years. Does she recognize she’s on a path to Marxist Totalitarianism?

  5. “President Barack Obama’s signature achievements” Really? The treaty was never ratified by Congress, so it is null&void, non-binding, meaningless. And DJT has yet to throw this trash out so it can still cause problems.

  6. Please explain to me how remaining in a flawed “non-treaty” is necessary for the U.S. to develop advanced energy technologies and participate in the global economy?

  7. “Six against One”… looks darn one sided, doesn’t it?
    But that’s OK to the USA, Chancellor Merkel!
    We’ll wait while EU’all go get some more help to ‘even up the odds’!

      • If France, Germany, and Italy are part of the European Union, which has its own governing body, why are they allowed their own individual reps at the G7? And the UK is still part of the EU, too, although on its way to the exit, so maybe they’re a special case. Why not just one rep for the EU? Canada, Japan, the U.S., and the EU should be called the G4 (but maybe consider the UK to make it G5?).

  8. I particularly liked the article mentioning that not being a part of it won’t stop things and just makes you late to the party… I say, excellent. Lets say that renewables eventually do get awesome. We can buy the awesome ones cheaply, instead of the crappy ones that cost dearly. Win win. If it’s inevitable, let someone else do the heavy lifting for once.

  9. For contrast the Guardian report of the same story is here.

    A quote from that article:

    Computer simulations suggest earth temperatures could rise by as much 0.2C if the US pulled out of the UN treaty altogether.

    Strangely, they don’t say why that was a reason for the US to be worried.

    • M Courtney May 27, 2017 at 10:30 am

      And i know exactly which computer it is.

      michael

      • Daisy, Daisy, give me you answer true.
        I’m half-crazy all for the love of you.
        It won’t be a stylish marriage, I can’t afford a carriage;
        But you’ll look sweet. Upon the seat of a bicycle built for two!

    • Not simulations – computer models. ‘Model’ is a more general term. ‘Simulation’ a kind of model. Climate models are not simulations because 1) they parameterize too many things, 2) ignore most of the factors affecting climate, and 3) model climate at too coarse a grain.

  10. Merkel said, describing discussions with Trump about climate change “very unsatisfying.”

    Good!

    In fact GREAT! :)

    As in, “Make America GREAT again!”

    • Yeah, if it is very unsatisfying to Merkel, then it is probably very satisfiying to Trump’s supporters. We don’t see eye-to-eye with Merkel on very many things.

      • Mutti made the most cosmologically stupid move in all of political history. Kiloparsecs beyond any insanity perpetrated by all of the addled despots of yore combined. The English language – rich and expressive as it undoubtedly is – fails miserably as a medium in which to describe quite how lunatic Merkel and her unilateral decision to fulsomely invite the entirety of the Muslim third world into Europe are.

      • I think Merkel is just generally clueless. She actually thought inviting millions of refugees into Germany and other European nations was a good thing. She seems oblivious to the fact that her actions have gone a long way towards killing the established civilizations of Western Europe. She invites the enemy into the camp and expects good things to happen.

        Merkel is not alone. There are many millions on the Left who are just as clueless. It must come with the territory.

      • “Merkel and her unilateral decision to fulsomely invite the entirety of the Muslim third world into Europe are.”

        Trump may finally have Merkel and NATO on the right track. Trump got them to sign off on military action against the Islamic State Terror Army, which was one of Trump’s complaints about NATO, that they were not focusing on terrorism. Now they are.

        Had Merkel and NATO focused on the Islamic Terror Army back about 2012, they could have stemmed the flow of refugees being generated by the attacks of the Islamic Terror Army.

        What is so pitiful is a well-trained force like NATO could have taken down the Islamic Terror Army is short order if they put their minds to it. Instead, they did nothing, along with Obama, and sat back and watched as the Islamic Terror Army disrupted the whole Middle East and created millions of refugees, who are now flooding into Europe.

        And then there is their stupid move to remove Kaddafy from power in Libya without providing for putting Libya back on its feet *after* Kaddafy. Instead, NATO and Hillary killed Kaddafy and then went home and washed their hands of the situation, and the terrorists took over in Libya and now there are thousands of Libyan refugees adding to the onslaught.

        Merkel and general Leftwing inaction and stupid actions have brought a large percentage of their problems on themselves.

        Brexit was the first official revolt from this path.

      • It’s Communist strategy to break down and destroy an existing culture, in this case European culture, in order to fill the void with Marxism/Totalitarianism. Merkel was indoctrinated and ingrained with East German Communism. The flooding of Western Europe with overwhelming numbers of poverty-stricken refugees of a different culture is bound to hasten the breakdown process along with the economic suicide of fighting CAGW.

    • haha, Trump is doing almost nothing to make America great again. Kinda sad to see so many people who go through live living on slogans, rather than actual accomplishments.

      • Lets see… Gorsuch, two oil pipelines, opening up federal lands to exploration, attempting to rescind the massive land grabs by Obama, trying to restrict immigration from terrorist locales without a good vetting system in place, Pruitt in at EPA, Sessions in at DOJ, Progressives/Libs heads exploding…. those are just a few of the things I could quickly come up with. Of course if he would actually get some help from Congress he would get a helluva LOT more done. Like Tax reform and healthcare overhaul.

      • Engarp,

        Garland could not have been approved. From where would he have gotten 60 votes?

        Clearly you know nothing of our system as it was then.

        Do you seriously believe that Thomas was as qualified as Bork?

        You can’t possibly be an American. You sound as if you’re not even of this world.

      • Engarp,

        I’m the very opposite of misogynist. I love women.

        But that doesn’t change the fact that Sotomayor and Kagan are Lesbians. Which status can’t help but affect their rulings on a wide range of issues.

        I don’t know Sotomayor, but I do have a mutual friend with Kagan, so have met her socially now and then. She’s likeable. So much so that Scalia hoped Obama would nominate her, as the best of a bad lot.

        But not having a family does affect your world view. Kagan herself is wise enough to realize that the USSC has gotten far too regional. It now consists mainly of people from a narrow class from a narrow region. Even the few justices from outside the Acela Corridor have long lived in it and been affected by its statist provincialism. Even Ginsburg realized that nationalizing abortion and same sex marriage wasn’t good jurisprudence. Unfortunately that recognition didn’t stop her from doing it.

        Gorsuch helps restore some national balance to the court, as the only current resident of the West and Protestant on the court.

      • And you apparently don’t know that it’s possible to keep a vote from coming to the floor when 60 votes are needed.

      • Engarp,

        That’s right. Thanks for admitting I’m right.

        Garland couldn’t have been approved, so your lame-brained assertion is shown false, by your own admission.

        The GOP changed the rules in the same direction as Reid had already done. Otherwise, there would have been no ninth justice.

        At least now the USSC is one small step closer to representing America. If the court looked like America, it would have six Protestants, two Catholics and one Other, ie Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, pagan or infidel. It would have three Southerners and two each of Northeasterners, Midwesterners and Westerners.

        In its present configuration, it’s not even close, except for one black and one Latina, which is about right as to ethnicity ratio.

      • ” I guess you have forgotten that the basis of our system of government follows the 1st Amendment, which sort of requires us to keep “church” and “state” separate.”

        The requirement is that the State not establish a religion, a State religion, like the British used to have.

        There is no law that says the State and Religion have to avoid each other.

        The law also says the State cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

        So, the State cannot establish a State-controlled religion, and the State cannot interfere in the free exercise by private citizens of their religion.

        The ACLU wants to turn this law on its head. They want the State to suppress the private exercise of religion in public places in the name of not establishing a State-controlled religion. But allowing a religious group to practice their religion is not the equivalent of the State establishing a State-controlled religion, it is merely allowing the religious group to practice their religion without interference.

        Unfortunately, the ACLU wants to interfere in all public displays of religion on the grounds that this is equivalent to the State establishing its own religion. The U.S. Constitution says they are wrong.

    • If Merkel is unhappy, its a good thing.
      Still can’t believe Germans haven’t run her out of office.

  11. The whole business of Climate Change ceased being meaningfully scientific with the publication (and accompanying hype) of Michael Mann’s ‘hockey-stick’ paper. President Trump occupies a high political office and you may be sure that his decision will be overwhelmingly dominated by political considerations. He will have little trouble finding scientific reasons to justify his decision … whatever it is.

  12. Trump seemed much more interested in spanking Merkel and Macron for non-compliance on NATO funding levels. It is still hard to tell what is going on with Paris.

    • Macron had some nice things to say about Trump after the G7 was over. One thing he said was Trump was very good at listening to the various points of view. Very engaged.

  13. It’s not “climate change”.
    It’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
    A prophecy of futures possible
    And failed models past.
    Conceived in dreams, born in inference,
    And progressing at the twilight fringe.
    The age of liberal abandonment has passed.
    Deep Plunger(s) has exposed your Water Closet(s).

    Hey, Merkel. It wasn’t carbon dioxide that forced the refugee crises.

    We want [positive] progress, not peculiar prophecies, and redistributive schemes.

    Stay strong, Mr. President.

  14. If Paris was worth its salt, Obummer would not have circumvented the formal process of formal treaty ratification. The whole accord is just another redistribution scheme to lower the standard of living in the USA over time while funneling the resources we are not permitted to use to the other, nearly 200, countries with their hands out picking the USA pockets. They see it as reparations for the past American exceptionalism. I see it as embezzlement in the name of climate.

    • It’s just another attempt to use the weaponized, SJW-infested court system to sidestep Congress. Democrats may not be able to get elected any more, but they don’t need to when they can just rule from the courts.

  15. Trump refuses to sign on to a joint statement about climate change, and there is no hint of any renegotiating of the Paris Agreement, so what’s not to like?

    If Trump was interested he could have got in on the joint statement. The other G7 members would have bent over backwards to get him onboard. They would have let Trump write the darn thing. But Trump declined. Not the actions of a man who is going to join an agreement.

  16. I [think] I told Trump that I would not give a dollar for his campaign unless he reneged on the Paris agreement. [I get his e-mails asking for money but I am not sure if he gets my response to those e-mails?]

    • I had a word in his ear about those chinese hoax comments. I expect his endorsement “golf courses don’t grow on trees.”

  17. “The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization.”

    Yep, nothing to do with the climate!

  18. “The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said, [drone drone drone]…”

    Which is precisely why he needs to upset these these people a hell of a lot more than they are currently claiming to be upset. They need jolting into a different mindset.

    C’mon Donald, return the favor. Publicly blow this stuff off, and help make it an issue in the UK election. If we are going to have perdition forced on us, at least help make it something people thought they had an opportunity to vote for. Recent history suggests the general electorate are not quite as stupid as CNN thinks.

  19. Participating in the Paris deal is not consistent with ‘Making America Great…’ I think he (Trump) recognizes that.

  20. Every day Mr. Trump delays exiting the Paris Agreement he risks a Judge forcing America to stay in Judicial fiat and allowing climate extremists band climate profiteers to dictate energy and environmental policy via the courts.

    • I agree. He should have struck while the iron was hot.

      I don’t care what is being threatened or offered to him behind the scenes. They can’t threaten anything worse than undermining the whole fabric of the Western economic way of life, and they can’t promise anything better than to agree to not do so. This is what the issue is about. All he is doing is allowing them to marshal their forces, which are very considerable.

  21. Well OK, so far so good. For now, I’m going to ignore the possibility that he might not withdraw or disavow, and concentrate instead on the delicious worldwide hue and cry, the wailing, moaning, and teeth-gnashing from the America-hating, humanity-hating Watermelons when he does. It will be epic.

  22. ““The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said,”

    How out of touch can Merkel be!!! This is the prime reason to stay out of it. I will replay Pearse’s foreign affairs 101: When a big player joins a multilateral klatch, it becomes a minority voice and things get decided against it (it also gets to pony up the majority of the cost). When a big player joins a bilateral deal, he gets what he wants or he withdraws. Only the little guys are sensible to sign multilateral deals. Look how votes go in the UN. US has a veto but so do China, Russia, UK and France – the big player should not be happy with the odds for its favored policy. Tillerson and Cohn need to read this simple “101”. Like the Brexit fears of almost half the UK, I chided them with their history (Britannia ruled the waves (brave warriors), English is spoken by a couple of billion people (hugely advantageous trade, investment situation), These countries have the same traditions of freedom, rule of law, fair play, etc. And in their spare time, the British invented all the games we play!)

      • To the subtle reader, the meaning was that we are a “club”. Thanks for informing me that they even invented ping pong, too! Why avoid doing business with the people we really know. I could have added that the UK invented the industrial revolution, economics, banking…. and the English speaking world garnered 90% of the Nobel prizes in science (80% of course in the US). Continental Europe’s biggest contribution was Mаяхйзм, a failed system that they can’t lay to rest. Fortunately, Brexit was done when it was because in another few years the fearful would have been the majority. Trump’s win, too, would not have been possible a few years from now. Now that may be bad or good news to you.

    • I forget who said this.
      “He who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.”

    • Gary, the UN IPCC is driven by majority vote only. No Security Council vetoes.

      This is how the kleptocrats and socialists push climate agreements to extreme, ludicrous ends.

  23. Amazing how a real leader, stands out amongst todays “World Leaders”.
    Trump is the one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind, while these treacherous worms are trying to impose globalism,via the UN and CAGW, Trump points to the death worshippers walking freely amongst their people and reminds them , national defence has a cost.
    They respond by attempting to ignore him and continue to blather about CC.
    I predict a rather entertaining speech coming up on Climate Change,globalism and responsibility of politicians.

  24. If he doesn’t just go with the settled science that the accord will make no measurable difference to global temperature and is thus an admitted statist suppression of human welfare for some perverted sense of virtue , he should , as a number of people have suggested , kick it to the senate where it will surely be voted down .

    • The U.S. Senate has ENOUGH ALREADY to deal with! Aaa! How many working hours do they have until their summer break?? There is no need to involved the Senate. Just a WASTE of time.

      The Paris deal/thing/Plan/Programme/whatever is NULL AND VOID. It is not voidable. It is void.

    • Taking it to Senate is bad idea. You got three problems.
      Democrats are in Lock-step with AGW sham. Party before Country.
      GOPe (Elitist Rs) who want their piece of Power and Profit Pie.
      Republicans who lack Spine to say No to AGW scam.

      • Let’s see any of them, Democrat or Republican, justify, the enormous amounts of spending that will be required by U.S. taxpayers in order to comply with this agreement. And while the U.S. taxpayers are hit with Trillons of dollars in expenditures, most of the rest of the world is paying nothing, and China and India aren’t even playing the game until 2030. Let’s see them justify giving American money away on this boondoggle.

      • A fourth problem with submission to the Senate is that it would provoke the “resistance” to stage unprecedented demonstrations in DC and other unheard-of levels of petitioning and lobbying of congress that might overawe it. Bear in mind that only 22 of 52 Republican senators signed last week’s open letter to Trump urging him to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The greens would only need to get 19 of the remaining 30 to vote in favor of it to pass the treaty.

        Probably most Republican senators have a weak grasp of the subject and would be impressed by the sort of seemingly impressive talking points that were prominently spouted by Dems in the House during their sit-in on the topic last year. There would not be time or the atmosphere for a thoughtful debate.

  25. The Paris accord fails to recognize CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
    A potentially larger mistake than failing to recognize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate, is failing to realize what actually does. The still-rising water vapor is rising about three times as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone.

    The warmer temperature is welcome but the added WV increases the risk of flooding. IMO all rainwater retaining systems (dams, dikes, etc.) should be upgraded from design for 100 yr floods to design for 10,000 yr floods.

  26. There is close to a ZERO probability Trump will withdraw completely from the Paris Agreement next week, which can be added to a long list of broken promise: no Obamacare repeal, no tax rate cuts, no WALL, nonmajor spending cuts, no major business regulation cuts.

    About the only major promise he made was his excellent selection of SCOTUS Justice Gorsuch, which was great, but that’s reality it.

    He’ll “compromise” by lowering US’ non-binding CO2 sequestration targets to appease the loony Left, which will be a completely meaningless gesture, and will still waste $100’s of billions, if not $trillions for absolutely no reason whatsoever..

    • You are likely wrong. Replacing Obamacare and restructuring the tax code are ultimately up to Congress, as is appropriating funding for the Wall. Trump can unilaterally withdraw from UNFCCC and Paris. He just needs a good speech—three main points: science isn’t settled, renewables are intermittent abd expensive, China and India won’t play. Withdrawing helps make America Great Again, rather than pandering to overblown alarm based on faulty models.

    • Trump has been under constant attack from day one of his presidency. Imagine how much more his administration could have done except for the fact that the top Dems are at war with him.

      • It hasn’t been the top Dems that are the problem but rather the top Republicans who are causing most of the delay. I get the feeling that Ryan positively hates Trump and will do pretty much anything to shove a spoke into his agenda. McConnell is just a K Street mouthpiece at this point in his career which would be fine except he’s also Senate Majority Leader. I wish someone would find where the GOP hid their spines.

  27. “The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said.

    In trying to understand what Merkel means by “globalization,” I found this explanation on Wiki:

    “Globalization refers to the free movement of goods, capital, services, people, technology and information. It is the action or procedure of international integration of countries arising from the conversion of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture. … Further, environmental challenges such as global warming, cross-boundary water and air pollution, and overfishing of the ocean are linked with globalization.”

    The free movement of goods and technology sounds OK to me. But the free movement of people, the idea of “international integration,” and the environmental aspects of globalization worry me a great deal. It’s easy to see how these concepts have influenced the policies of both Merkel and Obama. Instead of helping refugees in or near their own homeland, they are spreading them around the world. I always wondered why they would go to the extra expense and risk of moving people into faraway lands and cultures that are strange to them. But if your goal is to water down the local culture and create a more globalized world view, these things begin to make a little more sense. It seems clear to me that these actions will create far more problems than they solve.

    What Merkel, Obama, and other elites really want is to create a global government like an expanded EU that will govern the entire world. They don’t care what damage they cause in the process. Sadly, even the last few Popes have called for a “world political authority” with “real teeth” to accomplish certain goals. They listed these goals as “to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace, to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration.” According to the Pope, such a global authority would also “open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale” It’s almost as if these people are all reading from the same script. After having just met with many of them, will Donald Trump be able to resist joining them in their attempt to rule the world? We will soon see.

  28. Merkel hasn’t changed her view on globalization since her days with the DDR’s Stasi. The wall came down, but who actually won?

  29. “The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said.

    In trying to understand what Merkel means by “globalization,” I found this explanation on Wiki:

    “Globalization refers to the free movement of goods, capital, services, people, technology and information. It is the action or procedure of international integration of countries arising from the conversion of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture. … Further, environmental challenges such as global warming, cross-boundary water and air pollution, and overfishing of the ocean are linked with globalization.”

    The free movement of goods and technology sounds OK to me. But the free movement of people, the idea of “international integration,” and the environmental aspects of globalization worry me a great deal. It’s easy to see how these concepts have influenced the policies of both Merkel and Obama. Instead of helping refugees in or near their own homeland, they are spreading them around the world. I always wondered why they would go to the extra expense and risk of moving people into faraway lands and cultures that are strange to them. But if your goal is to water down the local culture and create a more globalized world view, these things begin to make a little more sense, although it seems clear to me that these actions will create far more problems than they solve.

    What Merkel, Obama, and other elites really want is to create a global government, like an expanded EU or expanded UN, that will govern the entire world. They don’t care what damage they cause in the process. Will Donald Trump be able to resist joining them in their attempt to rule the world? We will soon find out.

    • Louis:

      I know what globalization is, but I want to know is what Merkel means by by the agreement “shapes globalization”?

      As I said above, it seems to me that “shapes globalization” could mean anything (unless, of course, somebody knows different).

      Richard

      • I think that it may refer to CAGW being their most important tool in their box to advance their agenda. It will bring in massive amounts of money from taxes/carbon credit schemes, while at the same time it gives bureaucrats the power to wield regulatory control over the lives of billions of people in the name of CAGW.

      • As the quote says, “environmental challenges such as global warming… are linked with globalization.” Merkel clearly believes that climate change and immigration help shape globalization. She also knows these policies require a global authority to enforce. Even the Pope called for a global authority with “real teeth” to enforce climate, immigration, and redistribution policies. So climate change and immigration provide the excuse needed to setup a world government. Once that is in place, the rest of their agenda will follow. They will then be able to shape globalization to their liking. But to accomplished this, they need Trump to play along.

      • Richard,
        Have you ever read “1984” by George Orwell? That’s what UN globalism is in a nutshell. Climate is proxy to that agenda.
        Of course you don’t know.

      • cwon14:
        Of course I have read 1984.
        I asked if anyone knows what Merkel meant. Others gave given their opinions but make clear that they also don’t know. Your (rather extreme) opinion is also not knowledge.
        Richard

      • Your pandering AGW skepticism and political denial are emblematic of the dark road the world has had to experience in the name of globalism and it’s UN creature claiming global climate authority.

        Back bench skeptics who refused to connect the dots and reek of the same establishment condescending tones. You’ve been wrong in core principles for years on this forum.

      • cwon14:

        I asked “what Merkel means by by the agreement “shapes globalization”. Not knowing the answer you could have said nothing, but instead you asked me a question and stated a silly and extreme opinion. I answered your question and you showered me with childish and untrue abuse.

        I am not a “back bench skeptic” and it is ludicrous to suggest that I “pander” to AGW skepticism. I have been an opponent of the AGW-scare for decades and can reasonably claim to represent the front bench of AGW skepticism.

        On the other hand, you are an anonymous internet pop-up who has yet to be seen to be right about anything.

        Richard

      • RC, you cling to that regressive myth that climate alarmism is part of a valid science premise rather then a political imperative of the globalist and collectivist variety. A totally counter productive skeptic premise as the horrid history of alarmist gains have proven. Yes, facilitating and collaborative skepticism.

        The anonymity claim is bogus, it’s your content that I judge not your internet handle. It’s completely impersonal to me, your ideas are what I find weak, obtuse and repelling. Don’t take it personally.

      • cwon14:

        Your posts only consist of irrational and unsubstantiated rants together with personal abuse thrown from behind the coward’s screen of anonymity. Do take it personally.

        Richard

      • Just remember RC, it’s Trump that brought the victory of Paris not pinhead skeptics babbling “it really is a science debate” when it was always collectivism driving the agenda and actual science into the dirt. Which form of skeptic had the lion share of credit for defeating Paris? You and your nonsense that AGW beliefs were driven by “science” or I and defacto the Trump skeptic that called climate the Marxist proxy that it always was??

        No need to reply, I already know the answer. It’s a good day, I’ll just put your comments back on the ignore file.

      • cwon14:

        I am replying to your nonsense for the benefit of others.

        President Trump seems to be ‘digging in his heels’ in rejection of the Paris Accord. If so then it is because some people – including me – have successfully informed his advisors that the global warming scare is economically damaging for the USA and is scientifically dubious.

        Anonymous and abusive internet trolls such as yourself were no help in achieving the influence on President Trump.

        Richard

      • The delusion;

        ” then it is because some people – including me – have successfully informed his advisors that the global warming scare is economically damaging for the USA and is scientifically dubious.”

        No Richard, no. That was clear 35 years ago. The reason Trump ran on the Paris exit is that core parts of the skeptic community know climate policy is a vast globalist, leftist central planning agenda that voters despise. A force you refuse to acknowledge after decades of plain in sight evidence.

        Enough already, you’re too obtuse to deal with. The SINO as bad as the RINO. Decades of technical ambivalence while ignoring the core Marxist narrative that invented the AGW narrative to begin with. You don’t even have hostage value in the climate war. The other side knows your maximum value to them is your claim as a “skeptic”.

      • cwon14:

        Margaret Thatcher started the global warming scare and she was not a Marxist.

        I am a skeptic of man-made global warming and an opponent of the global warming scare so I bow to your superior knowledge of “the other side”.

        Richard

  30. How about just keeping a promise ? Why should USA tax payers go further into debt to support a hoax ?
    Why should USA tax payers support anything that will cost them $ Trillions , do virtually nothing at all
    to alter the climate and hand “have not countries ” American jobs ?
    This is a no brainer and if people like Al Gore don’t like it then you know punting it is a bloody good thing .
    The Obama globalization “legacy ‘ was a con job and sell out of USA interests .
    The oh so scary global warming swamp needs draining and Mr .Trump is about the only one with the balls to do it . His supporters are counting on it .

    • To keep his campaign promise, Trump will have to turn down a seat at the table with all the other world elites. That is not an easy decision for Donald Trump, especially with family members and some advisers pushing him to join the other world elites at the table. To do the right thing, he will have to make his ego secondary to his integrity. If he can do that, it will be a good sign for the rest of his Presidency.

      • I see your point, Louis, but, I think President Trump’s “ego” will work for</b him here.

        Trump: And as for that Paris climate thing? Gone. {holds up high the piece of paper signed by B. Hussein, and rrrrrrrrrr–IP! — SMILE — immediately signs an Executive Memorandum of Repudiation formally denouncing B. Hussein’s deal}

        Merkel, et al.: How DARE you! No seat at our table for YOU!

        Trump: {smile} That’s fine, Chancellor, that’s just fine. I actually prefer it over here at the adults’ table with Nigel. Say, you guys need me to send over more serviettes? Doin’ okay for mustard for those hot dogs? Remember what we told you: you’ll have to eat all your peas to get dessert, now.

      • No, it is Donald’s table they all want to sit at, he is the one who is expected to pick up the check.

  31. To be safe, just give it to the Senate to approve which will take months over the summer break to deal with. It will have zero chance of ever being approved, and due process was followed. Plus Trump will be off the hook for having killed Paris, as far as USA interests are concerned. That would be the easiest, safest and proper way of dealing with a very bad agreement made in Paris.

    • Are you “Bob Armstrong”??

      In case you didn’t see this:

      The U.S. Senate has ENOUGH ALREADY to deal with! Aaa! How many working hours do they have until their summer break?? There is no need to involve the Senate. Just a WASTE of time.

      The Paris deal/thing/Plan/Programme/whatever is NULL AND VOID. It is not voidable. It is void.

      (me, above)

      Signed,

      One Who Signs the Paychecks of Two U.S. Senators

      • Not sure who you are talking about Janice, about “Bob Armstrong”. Maybe fill me in?

        Trump already has enough daggers in his back, he doesn’t need to take the blame for killing Paris, when he can have the Senate do it for him. And let Paris stew on the back burner for another 6 months. I would bet anyone dollars to donuts that this is how it unfolds. As it should.

      • Obama knew this would never make it through Congress, that is why he tried the K Street Two Step. Put it on Senate’s to-do list and the first thing will be a motion to place it on the House’s to-do list, since it has to go there first either way. Long, slow, convoluted process, time it actually worked FOR America.

      • Au contraire, Trump will take the CREDIT for putting a dagger through the heart of the Paris Sc@m.

        Re: “Bob Armstrong” — he sounds almost exactly like you! (I realized that it was unlikely you are using two names, just sort of kidding there)

      • Oh I see what happened Janice…I opened the comment page about 11:30 Am and started writing, and then went and made lunch, and then posted my comment an hour or so later. I see a Bob Armstrong made a similar comment above after I had refreshed my browser. Hence your puzzling comment about ‘Bob’. I thought maybe that was a new lexicon name for something…

        But seriously, what if the courts tackle Trump and rule against him on any Paris decision he makes unilaterally? If the Senate makes the decision, then it is Judgement Proof. Do I have a point?

      • Hi, Mr. Williams…. oh, WILLIAMS, is it? lololol :)

        I’ll just copy in what I wrote above (I’m lazy):

        Mr. Sobchak, I understand your concerns, they have some basis. However, in U. S. jurisprudence, the courts apply conflict of laws principles. The U.S. Constitution’s requirement that this be a Senate-ratified treaty to be enforceable will control. There is NO Paris — anything. It is legally meaningless except in the most ephemeral of ways.

        And add that there is no cause of action. There is no statute or common law principle or treaty upon which to base a claim for relief. President Trump will simply be making it perfectly clear where the U.S. stands. The “deal” is void. Not voidable, but void. It was never ratified by the U.S. Senate.

        In other words, but for anti-constitutional rulings (the “agreement” is only advisory in the flimsiest of senses, here) any lawsuits trying to enforce this nullity will be thrown out on a Motion for Summary Judgment (for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted — and also because there is no issue upon which the plaintiff could reasonably expect to prevail at trial). And those anti-constitutionalist judges’ rulings will, ultimately, be overrulled by the Supreme Court of the United States.

        You seem to consider as nothing my point that the Senate has far too much already to accomplish to clog their proceedings up with THIS. Pragmatic thinking is what an effective executive excels at: Trump will kill it himself.

      • Janice, I get your point about clogging up the Senate with this issue. And it is an important one. But it is a very important issue that should be navigated properly so as global diplomatic channels are kept open and the USA doesn’t get labeled as an unreliable partner, being that everyone in favor of Paris would blame Trump personally if he kills it, perhaps impacting other important international matters along the way over the next 3-8 years.

        You make some interesting legal points… (You are perhaps a lawyer or paralegal? I am not a lawyer) but I think some lower level liberal courts could say that the Executive Order that Obama used to sign onto the Paris Accord, was legal since it is that international ‘agreement’ that was signed by the USA and could be deemed legally binding by a lower court. If your logic that the Paris Accord is already void, why didn’t any Court already strike it down? The point being that Trump reversing a signed international agreement may not be able to be undone by a similar EO by a future sitting President. I wonder if there is any precedent for a case similar in structure to this matter?

        Prima Facie, I think that is what would happen with a lower court overruling Trump’s EO if Paris is unilateral rejected by Trump. Whether or not SCOTUS would uphold a lower courts decision is speculation. Perhaps not, but it is a risk. We will find out with the immigration cases when they make it to the SCOTUS, and that is jurisdiction that POTUS does have jurisdiction over. The one thing we both agree on is that Paris is a bad Agreement, and it should not be implemented by the USA as written.

      • By the simple expedient of dropping the Clean Power Plan (CPP), President Trump gutted Obama’s Executive Agreement formalizing the legal commitment of the U.S. to the Paris Accord (Agreement). The CPP was Obama’s linchpin for the Agreement; without the CPP, the Individually Determined Contributions of the U.S. could not be met.

        Make no mistake about it; the Executive (our President) has the legal authority to commit the U.S. to international agreements on his own hook. Ask Rud.

        The cleanest way out of the mess Obama left us with is to withdraw, after giving one year notice, from the UN’s fundamental climate agreement.

    • I have to disagree with sending it to the Senate. That gives Obama’s or any other President’s personal agreement the status of a Treaty potentially binding the US.
      The Executive Branch has incrementally gained more power than it was ever intended to have. (ie The IRS, the EPA etc. All parts of the Executive Branch.)
      Trump needs to do no more than say “NO” just as Obama said “yes”.
      The MSM will blame Trump for killing Paris, but so what? They’ll “blame” him for anything he does until he “tows the line”.
      I didn’t vote for him because he would “tow the line”.

    • I think the economic aspects of the Paris Agreement would kill the deal all by itself. Once people realize that the USA is stuck with most of the bills, they will reject it. I want to hear some Democrat Senators get up and defend wasting Trillions of dollars to accomplish little or nothing.

  32. If Trump approves this deal he will gut his base. This is a key campaign promise that he must keep.

  33. Ann Coulter, a prominent US conservative and early backer of Trump, has already put him on notice to start implementing.his campaign promises. Trump is a news junkie and undoubtedly knows this. If he backtracks on such a substantive issue, he loses her and any hope of conservative backing in the next election.

      • The politically docile skeptic base only helps the climate fraud agenda. Paris goes or Trump goes, he’s committed already.
        He deserves criticism for the fence straddle. Nothing looks mission ready next week.
        If follows though there will calls for climate war trials from his enemies. It will dwarf the election usurping in scale.

  34. Look at his track record re campaign promises, and the actions he has or has attempted to make. Its pretty good. This was a big campaign promise. That sort of indicates the direction he is likely going. Otherwise it would have been two easy to issue a G7 communique as Merkel wanted, come home, and explain it. What Trump needs either way is a televised speech to explain his decision and its reasoning. My supposition is that he has the decision but not yet the speech.

    • From over the pond, my impression is that trump has to date enacted few of his campaign promise, mostly because they have been blocked. I would say he needs the credibility of getting something really big through the system. If he doesn’t come up with the goods on this one surely that will damage his standing with his voters?

      Tonyb

    • What would be really great would be for Trump to reject the Paris agreement at the same time he announced putting skeptics into key positions at NOAA, NASA, etc. Do it all at once. Of course, the media will come unglued but it is better to do it all at once than give them ammo again and again.

      This would also allow these skeptical scientists to counter the media attempts to claim it is anti-science. The media would be arguing with real scientists. It would force them to face a lot of science that they ignore today.

  35. One of the things that we here can do is to write to Pres Trump and let him know how you feel. He’s a big man with broad shoulders but it doesn’t hurt to let him know there is a peanut gallery that is cheering for him.

    • It would be a good idea for all of us to write all our representatives and tell them how we feel about the Paris Agreement. Let them know how you feel and that you are watching.

      • The cheering should be reserved for when the entire leftist UN climate apparatus is socially and politically rejected by the US. No more IPCC, no globalist political funding dressed under “climate”.

        Paris withdrawal will be a win but the follow up is even more important. There’s no point leaving the entire state climate fraud funding system in place as a leftist advocacy cartel which is what it always was.

        I can hope President Trump understands the “dagger” with the Greenshirt cause. They must be eviscerated as the blowback will be enormous, far in excess of the election over turning effort.

  36. Trump is right. “Nonsense remains nonsense, even if it is written on hand-made paper”. The Paris accord is, imho, such a nonsense.
    This proverb is attributed to Frederick Lindemann, 1st Viscount Cherwell, advisor to Winston Churchill.

  37. Well. In case Memorial Day in the U.S. goes unobserved at WUWT, here:

    They did not fight so that a German Chancellor could tell the U.S. how to run its economy.

    (youtube — “Will You Remember” — kind of a whiny singer, but, try to hear, really hear, the words — especially those quietly spoken by the old man in the white shirt….)

    The U.S. soldier, airman, marine, or sailor did not fight so wind and solar and Tesla-like sc@mmers could bilk the U.S. taxpayer.

    He did not fight to “save the planet.”

    Back in ’45, he was fightin’ for me.

    Make. America. Great. Again.

    @ President Trump: ….you know the story, you can say, “Nuts!” to them that stand in your way.

    #(:))

    HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL!

    (all around the world!! — ALL enjoy the benefit from the sacrifice of our war heroes currently serving and past: a free and strong United States of America).

    • Trump gave a good speech today at a U.S. military base in Italy right before he left Europe.

      Trump told the story of an American sailor who was 23 years old and was sitting off the coast of Sicily in 1943, during World War II, awaiting the invasion by Allied forces. Thousands of troops and equipment were just off the coast of Sicily and the Germans were unaware of their approach.

      This American sailor spotted a fire on a small American ship which threatened to give the invasion away if the fire reached the explosives that were onboard the vessel, so this sailor fought his way through very thick smoke and found the object that was burning and grabbed it with his bare hands and carried it over to the rail and threw it into the sea, and saved the invasion from discovery.

      The sailor died shortly thereafter because of all the toxic smoke he breathed while doing this heroic deed. Just an average guy who rose to the occasion when he was called upon. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor postumously.

      Yes, God Bless them all. You’ll never know all the heroic acts that take place on battlefields. Heroic acts are commonplace. Especially appreciate the troops of today because they are all volunteer and their small numbers require them to make mulitple trips to war-torn areas.

      I thought two tours in Vietnam was a long time, but these guys today are doing six and even more tours. That has to be rough on everyone involved. They do have the internet though, so they can keep in touch a lot better than anytime in the past, but still, there’s no place like home. A video screen is a poor substitute.

      I remember one of the first books I read at the library, when I was about 10 years old, was a book about Congressional Medal of Honor winners, and it had about a dozen cases in the book with a short story about what they did to win the medal.

      And I thought how *glorious* it must be to do things like that, and I wanted to be just like them. But I noticed something a little disturbing. It seemed that in the process of getting their medal they were killed.

      This caused me a little consternation, but I consoled myself by telling myself I would be one who lived, if I ever got in that situation.

      I read all the military books the library had after that. :)

      • Dear TA,

        Thank you for sharing that moving story. Even more, thank you for fighting against the spread of communism in Vietnam. South Vietnam (and lots of other regions) are doing quite well today, thanks to your efforts. Two tours in Vietnam! That was equal to about twenty of today’s (given the equipment, theater, Walter Cronkite, Jane Fonda, etc.).

        And what a cool little boy you were (like so many of your era) — to WANT to serve your country like that. The wonderful thing is, the free world still has thousands of such freedom-loving, valiant, little boys and girls, thousands who love life more than the 1s!am!sts love death. Some of them just headed off to boot camp….

        America will stay free, so long as there are enough of us who love it (i.e., the Constitutional values and the principles like free markets and honest dealing (including in science) which it stands for along with the deep, deep, devotion which all mentally/emotionally healthy Americans not brainwashed out of it have — both native born and naturalized — it’s in our blood somehow; we simply love our country). As it stands, we number in the millions. America is.

        Gratefully,

        Janice

      • Parle was indeed a sailor, but also an officer, the lowest possible, an ensign.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Joseph_Parle

        Excuse my nitpick, but it’s not the “Congressional Medal of Honor”. Its official name is “Medal of Honor”, however given in the name of Congress. It’s normally granted through the recipient’s military chain of command, hence the Executive branch, but can be awarded upon an act of Congress.

        Trump disgusts me as a lying, cowardly, silver-spoon-in-mouth, draft-dodger during the Vietnam war, who now presumes to speak on behalf of men infinitely better than he. But I voted for him anyway, because Clinton is an even bigger crook and liar.

      • And contributed to his campaign, for which sin I’m now paying the price of an endless stream of dunning emails from his 2020 campaign, which may or may not even happen.

      • “The wonderful thing is, the free world still has thousands of such freedom-loving, valiant, little boys and girls, thousands who love life more than the 1s!am!sts love death. Some of them just headed off to boot camp…. ”
        Thanks for that, Janice.
        I think the secret to our (America’s) success is we do have a lot of really good solid people in this country. My experiences in the military gave me a confidence in the American people that maybe a lot of people don’t have.
        Americans rise to the occasion. They do what it takes to win on the battlefield. You would see a guy who was just an average joe, someone you would never think would become a fierce warrior, and when the going got tough, all of sudden this quiet, unassuming fellow would become John Wayne, and do incredible feats under some of the most horrendous conditions. And this happened all the time. Time after time. Many unsung heroes out there.
        It was like the people on Flight 97 back during the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. They found out what was going on over their cellphones, realized the situation they were in, and collectively decided to storm the cockpit and take on the terrorists. They succeeded in preventing the aircraft from getting to Washington DC, even though it cost them their lives.
        They rose to the occasion. Americans always rise to the occasion. We have all seen them do it. We should take comfort in that.
        Concerning Flight 97. I recall the story about the stewardess whose part in the attack on the cockpit was to prepare a pot of boiling water to throw on the terrorists once they got the door open. I’ve always wondered if she managed to hit her target. I hope she did. I hope she got at least one of them right in the face.
        I wonder what those terrorists thought when they saw all those people breaking into the cockpit. These guys are serious!

      • “Parle was indeed a sailor”

        Thanks for that, chimp. I missed his name when Trump was giving the speech, so didn’t incude it in the story.

      • “Trump disgusts me as a lying, cowardly, silver-spoon-in-mouth, draft-dodger during the Vietnam war, who now presumes to speak on behalf of men infinitely better than he.”

        I volunteered for Vietnam service. After reading the Medal of Honor stories, how could I do any less. :)

        Btw, the lying MSM were the impetus for me going to Vietnam. They were just as Liberal and just as partisan back in 1968, and they were definitely anti-war, and they lied me right into the Vietnam war.

        I was initially sent to Wildflicken, Germany out of Advanced Training and was there for about nine months, and during that time I kept reading newspaper articles and every one of them were telling a story of defeat and death in Vietnam. Reading these article, you would think the U.S. military was about to get kicked completely out of South Vietnam by the 10-foot-tall North Vietnamese army.

        And I kept reading this stuff and shaking my head and saying this can’t be true. There’s no way the U.S. can be losing this war. If that were true, then my whole worldview was wrong, and I had to find out, and so I went down and voluteered to transfer to Vietnam. Five other guys out of my unit went with me and did the same thing. I guess skepticism comes natural to me. :)

        I thought it was the right thing to do to pushback on communism in South Vietnam. I was a believer in the Domino Theory and still am, so I thought there was a need for us doing what we were doing, which was defending South Vietnam from the communist North who were backed by the Soviet Union and China.

        I arrived right after Tet 1968 and figured the U.S. was really going to go after the North Vietnamese now that they had launched that nation-wide attack. I figured we were going to be marching into Hanoi in the near future.

        But as time went along I realized we were not going to march into Hanoi and end this war, we were going to sit south of the border and allow them to continuously attack us from their safe haven. For years.

        So I didn’t sour on the reason for the war, but I did sour on how the war was being run. Allowing the enemy a safe haven and not knocking them out of the picture when you have the ability, is not the way to run a war. That’s the way Liberals run wars.

        My brother was three years younger than me and when I came home from Vietnam he asked me what I thought he should do, because he was old enough to be subject to the draft, and I told him to do whatever he could to keep from going because the U.S. had no intention of winning that war.

        The Liberals were in charge of the war effort, and all they wanted to do was get out of South Vietnam, not win any war there. The U.S. military eventually won the war even with all the restrictions put on it, and then, after all that blood, sweat and tears, two year later, the Liberals in Congress threw South Vietnam to the wolves by refusing to help when North Vietnam broke the peace agreement and invaded South Vietnam again.

        By this time the South Vietnamese were well aware that the American Liberals were selling them down the river, and so when the North Vietnamese forces attacked, the South Vietnamese just threw down their weapons and ran away, because their last ally had abandoned them. This took place two years after all American combat troops had been withdrawn.

        I can’t speak for the motivations of others concerning going or not going to Vietnam and how they handled the situation. That’s for them to contemplate.

        As for Trump, I think Trump *does* think of the military as “his betters”. He even said as much not too long ago. I think he has genuine respect for the military and what they do. Don’t know anything about his draft status or how he handled that.

      • Trump was in school (Maritime Academy) under near-military training and discipline.

        He was NOT a “draft dodger”. His record then compares to the democrat’s dear favorite John Kerry – who served 96 days in Vietnam (including indoctrination time and leave), got the medals he put himself in for, and left to return to Boston to serve out his “year” of Vietnam service working in the air conditioned spaces of the Boston office of his US Senator. His target the entire time. 96 days. And a few band-aids.

      • TA (11:25PM): A fine, accurate, complete, summary of that whole liberal betrayal of “do the right thing.”

        Yes, indeed.

        Let’s roll.

        Todd Beamer, September 11, 2001

      • Janice, gotta love you.

        Before being allowed to board any American flagged airliner, each passenger must accurately identify Todd Beamer’s picture, and loudly state: “Let’s roll!” Additionally, every crewmember must touch his picture and say: “Thank, you.”

        The lessons of 9/11 have been forgotten by a majority of Americans.

      • must correct one point about lying john kerry, NO band aids were used on his self inflicted wounds…….3 purple hearts but not even ONE band aid needed for his “wounds”.

      • With regard to Trump respecting the members of the military, keep in mind that he had military training in a military school, so probably understands the mindset better than most, and I watched him one day in a conference room with a couple of dozen military members, a few weeks ago, and at one point Trump said something to the effect that being with these military people made him feel small. So I think Trump does indeed respect the military.

        Probably even more so now that he sees what a good job they are doing for him. Trump handles it properly: He sees a problem he wants corrected, he tells the generals, and then he lets the generals decide the best way to accomplish that task and doesn’t micromanage it.

      • RACookPE1978, in case you skipped arithmetic classes while you were in grade school, 96 days for Kerry is greater than 0 days for President Bone-spurs.

  38. During the election time Trump was striding with a sure step down a river of clear water, but now, now he is wading trough the muddy swamp. Time doesn’t stay still, it is another time, it is another water, and albeit ‘another’ hopefully wiser man ; no man can walk twice down the same river of time.

  39. For the legal beagles touting how the US Justice system works, etc., just remember the 4th Circuit decided that campaign rhetoric is just reason for the Federal Courts to rule a legal, valid order by the President is unconstitutional but would be OK if Hillary had issued it were she President…basically anyone but Trump. The vaunted “rule of law” is now the “rule of a Federal Judges” thinks another person may be thinking while doing lawful act. Don’t be at all surprised if Kennedy decides to agree with the 4th Circuit and go out in a blaze of discovered rights for all humankind including elimination of all borders and enforcement.

    This means the Federal Courts have become the Courtx of Final Oligarchy Rule. Any conjecture that the Federal Courts would not enforce the Paris climate accords over US laws and Constitution is simply wrong.

    • Relax a bit. Free advice from a non-practicing but still registered lawyer. That ruling is being taken to SCOTUS per DoJ. There are two routes, one ‘fast’ and one ‘slow’.
      This is just more swamp critter stuff. If US gets a Paris like attack in the meanwhile, Trump gets an automatic second term and progressive judges will never recover.
      4th appellate reasoning will very likely not stand up on either SCOTUS route, given current SCOTUS composition and legal interpretations. For example, in contracts what you say in negotiation is irrelevant; only what the signed final contract says is binding. Many other equivalent precedents to be applied to the written terms of his second executive order pursuant to an act of Congress. Porting Congessional intent notions to Exec Orders is beyond novel. Illegit.
      Not to mention separation of powers arguments. The executive branch has national security powers delegated by Congress, in addition to its own. The judicial branch does not have the constitutional authority to nullify both other branches unless both the first and second branches constitutionally errored in some reasonably clear fashion.
      This is why Gorsuch is a big deal. And why Robert’s Obamacare ruling was a really big deal. It was total future judo on legislative over reach, disguised in a Marbury v. Madison cloak. We will shortly reach the dividends of that decision in other venues than this controversy.

      • It is my understanding, Rud, that Roberts essentially said that Congress really meant the Individual Mandate was a tax, not a fee. A Justice’s ability to ignore plain language in making constitutional opinions scares me. That, and wise Latinas.

    • The G7, NATO and the UN have long since outlived whatever usefulness, if any, they ever had.

      US out of UN, NATO and G7!

      • Well, Chimp; we agree on a few things, at least.

        Most multi-lateral global agreements have gone beyond their expiration dates. They are mostly used to hamstring American efforts to actually improve things worldwide. Obama’s perfidy will live on.

    • Turgid nonsense from the fancypants crowd. That nations actually pay people to sit around dreaming up such random associations of words is an indication of our mutual decadence.

      When everything is “of concern, important, priority, etc.” then nothing, in fact, is. A pile of words to be ignored until the next opulent confab.

  40. He may have declined to endorse it, but he says he’s going to make a final decision next week. I’m not too optimistic as I was 2 months ago….

    It is imperative that he get us out of that deal.

  41. It’s time to pull out of it once and for all and should be easily done, especially since the Senate never ratified it in the first place. Otherwise, it’ll drag out like the Kyoto Protocol and achieve nothing except pick the taxpayers’ pockets.

  42. It’s all gesture politics anyway. All these countries agreed to was to blather a lot while business as usual while nature decides whether the temperature goes up or down. I’m sure they all wholeheartedly agreed to their Nato commitments at one time too.

  43. It’s the crossing the Rubicon moment, the difference of being a great President or a failed one. Paris has to die right here right now or it’s a one term lock. No pandering or more research shilly shally.
    The Lindzen UN exit on the climate protocol should follow very quickly. Where is the science team to back this?
    He’s leaving a huge nebulous crater in the Greenshirt left that he’s going to defend on simple economic grounds without attacking the entire leftist subculture for variety of delusional reasons. If he does keep his word and hard exits Paris the social kiniption will be 10x the Russian meme to steal the election.
    Making the climate leftist social base would assure victory in 20′ and beyond. There will be no reward for allowing funding of the academic left through climate proxy, they are the worst of the worst. It’s total war from here on out, it’s a delusion to think otherwise.
    He’ll slow walk the subside cuts but the bubble is there and you bet who’s going to get blamed for popping it. A leader has to educate the general population as to what climate fraud was always about. About 100 trillion of anticipated commerce, phony as it may have been conceived, will now be discounted out of expectations. Keynesian deflation almost assured for effected climate players. How do you rationalize the Tesla climate change $7500 per car subside and denounce Paris next week?
    It’s a big move, half measures lead to disaster. A million fewer Greenshirt employed in academia and industry is a social plus long term but you better have plan to transition. You better know your story. Restoring critical thinking, a sound science method that requires empirical support are immeasurable benefits as well. Again this is hard turf to take from the condescending global elite that make all of their marketing claims based on being “smarter”.
    Even if Paris is canned next week, a hard fight seems inevitable for decades more. The political investment in climate authority is huge. The skeptic community is diffused and frankly weak as a political force.
    The study linking Paris climate policy drag to the death of millions of the world poor would a handy item about now. There’ll be talk of war crime trials if the hard exit is announced next week. Terrorist attacks will be inspired by cult members. This where the skeptic administration needs to prepare for and they don’t look ready to me. Neither does the imagined skeptic base found here.

  44. WaPo spin: (headline newly on google news) Trump FAILS to commit to Paris at G7. Breitbart headline this post lead: Trump declines to commit to Paris at G7. We are truely at verbal war here, progressives versus Deplorables.Trump says he will decide next week. Expect a full bombardment of chaff and futz both before and after.

  45. I get the feeling he is going to use the Paris agreement as a bargaining chip. He wants for money from Europe in NATO and he wants more help on terrorism and he wants better trade deals. Look for the deal.

    • Hope not. Paris is a bad deal in any deal. The other Nato nations made written commitments they did not live up to. Trump used the name a shame Paris mechanism to ‘stimulate’ them. They didn’t like that truth exposure. So, lets gets out of Paris which uses the same mechanism to force America down.

    • Sad but possible.
      It’s exactly that appeasement that pushes the climate scheme down the road all the time. It didn’t even matter the IPCC failed to make an empirical proof, they simply changed the science standard along the way and kept moving the agenda forward.
      AGW activism might stall a few years but the basic political model will remain intact even if Paris is withdrawn from. I don’t see the plan to eradicate the science authority system.

    • If the EU had not spent the trillion Euros or so on climate they would be the dominant military force in the world today.

  46. Considering that Merkel’s insistence on forcing wind and solar power as sources for electricity down the throats of the German people, whether they want it or not, and that it has failed noticeably and is THREE TIMES AS EXPENSIVE AS OTHER SOURCES, if Mr. Trump wants to thumb his nose at those idiots, let him.
    The whole thing is a scam foisted on people who can’t even afford to pay for it. As a result, they have no electricity, period, even in the winter when they need it the most.
    And does Angela Merkel do anything about that? Of course not. It’s not her problem, even thought she created it.
    Aint it just wunnaful?

    • It’s a gift of obtuseness that she would use the word “globalization” but that’s an EU speciality. This happens when you live in a complete bubble of ideas.

  47. I hope that Trump pulls the plug on the noxious Paris Accord. It is no use staying in it and talking to deluded Warmistas as they obviously have no reasoning power at all. Getting out wouldset the cat among the pigeons and force them to face reality. In this matter Trump already has a voice.
    They can now concentrate on a real problem like Musim migration and Jihadist terror that always accompanies it.

    • It doesn’t take Muslim migration, it just takes a Muslim reading the Quran. Islam is a doctrine of war, and the Quran is a tactical war manual.

  48. Gary Cohn has an espionage problem along with Jared Kushner together with Sergei Gorkov Chairman of Russian state development bank VEB and it is sitting at the table in the Board Room of Goldman Sachs.

    • And Pakistan will use slave/convict labor. China will love them long time, boom boom all night long!

  49. Trump had to listen the the best arguments of the G7 on climate, a group of climate amateurs talking climate policy. Should have brought in a few experts or talking heads from each side to cover specifics.

  50. Tear up this madness of an agreement, Mr. President. It is a trap left by your predecessor, who has left do many traps and so many messes. If you take the GHW Bush route and break your word you will lose supporters and still be hated by those who already hate you. Climate, Inc. is the swamp. Staying in Paris assures the extremists that they will eventually control it all. Stand firm for rational policy. St and firm to make America Great Again. Repudiate the Paris Accord.

  51. With this Merkel has stated the closest thing to the truth that we are likely to hear. The Paris agreement and the entire AGW movement is not about ‘climate’, it is not about the planet, it is not about ‘the children’, it is a plan by those in power to aggregate more power.

    “It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said.

    • Not to forget, a bunch of Faux Climatologists getting Taxpayer dollars for contrived research, high-tech toys, and professional partying.

  52. “President Donald Trump declined to endorse the Paris Climate Agreement”

    The Gore/Mann Global Warming Sham – Trumped by actual Science.

    • The Gore/Mann Global Warming Sham – Trumped by actual Science.

      No, it’s just common s(ci)ense.

  53. What happens if Trump does not support Paris? Does he need to get it through Senate to be effective?

    • No Senate is required, it was never a treaty. It was a massive Executive overreach from the very people who are trying to overthrow the last election result with their Conspiracy theory culture.

      • So, it is a failed treaty neither House or Senate would ever seriously discuss? Yep, you are right.

    • Trump can go through the U.S. Senate, or there are actions he can take himself to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement without going through Congress, although that kind of withdrawal takes several years to complete.

      There are pros and cons to doing it either way, although I think there are fewer cons going the Senate route. We could actually get a public debate about the science, and the economics of the Paris Agreement almost guarantee it will fail in the Senate.

      I see where California Democrats are balking at Governor Brown’s desire to impose a carbon tax on California. The Dems are worried that the voters are going to get really mad at them especially since they just passed a huge gasoline tax increase on everyone in California. Even California Democrat are wary of pushing things too far.

      Democrat U.S. Senators might also balk at supporting the Paris Agreement once it becomes public just how much U.S. taxpayer money would be wasted on this boondoggle. I want to see Democrat Senators stand up and fight for increased taxes and wasteful spending.

      This debate would be the perfect setup for the 2018 elections. A forum to expose the delusions that are rampant among Democrat Senators, which should show they are unfit to continue in Office.

  54. The heads up from the Washington Examiner is very encouraging this evening. The withdrawal from Paris confirmed. They are fairly reliable.

    Hopefully the whole climate cabal will fold in a somewhat orderly fashion but the green bubble is large and EU bubble even larger as forces counting on the 100 trillion “cost” to maintain their existence face disaster and panic. A financial crisis can’t be ruled out. Climate debts and expectations are huge.

    Long term the world seems to have dodged a huge totalitarian bullet but get ready for the Greenshirt onslaught. Next week you’ll see what the irrational Trump derangement syndrome was really all about. “Russians” were just a talking point reaction, prepare for another level of 60’s type treason in every leftist enclave.

  55. Ending the entire UN Climate protocol would by 10x greater then exiting but it’s still a huge win. The CO2 endangerment debunking might be the next big win on the table.

    It’s not this significant and there is huge battle to follow but good things do happen;

    We need the follow through but The President has a chance at greatness.

  56. If the U S pulls out and we prove up we are out due to Climate Change is luecbased it will be a mortal blow to the evil commie way!

    Stand the ground

    Fight

  57. The greens will now focus on getting states and cities to follow in California’s footsteps and (in effect) sign on to the Paris Agreement independently. They’ve been having success with this strategy already, and Trump’s backing out at the federal level will greatly strengthen their case for action at lower levels. They may be able to get half the US to commit, in substance, to Paris Climat. (Poor residents of those states will shiver in winter, like those in Germany and the UK; they will then truly be “blue.”)

    • No US state may enter into treaties with foreign powers.
      Any state governor trying that could end up charged with treason.

      • “Following in California’s footsteps” (see the very recent WUWT thread on Governor Brown’s latest proposals) means adopting laws mandating that a certain percentage of electricity must come from renewables by a certain date, that in-state CO2 emissions must decline by a certain percentage by a certain date, etc. “in effect signing on to the Paris Agreement independently” does not involve signing on in fact to the Paris Agreement. So no state doing as California has done would be entering into a treaty with a foreign power.

      • The House has no involvement with the treaty process? Wow, someone better let them know, one less thing they got to worry about.

      • The House has no roll. That is because the Senate represented the States (which were sovereign), so the States had to approve of new treaties, but not the people (the House). While we forget that this is the United STATES (note the plural), back 230 years ago, it was 13 States (independent nations) that came together to form a new union – the United States. That is why the roll of treaties is by the Executive and Senate only. Not the House.

      • And yet both “houses” of Congress are involved in the treaty process. That is why Barri did the K Street Two Step, and DJT just bent him over a table and a$$ f**ked him. Had he simply followed the process, ratification of a treaty by CONGRESS, his rectum would not be oozing blood tonight. Barrack Hussein Obama f**ked himself with this, Donald just did the honors.

      • “jawbone” That is what House debate on treaties is? Better tell them, not me, Congress(both sides of it) does have a say on treaties.

      • Outside of a “sense of the House” resolution, please show me in the U.S. Constitution where the House has any of your “… does have a say on treaties.” 2hotel9.

      • You need to convince the House they have no say on treaties because they think they do. That whole being part of Congress thing, ya know.

      • Us Constitution, Article 2, Second 2, Second Paragraph:

        He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

        The House has no role in treaties.

      • Again, you need to tell THEM, because they believe they do. Probably because the House has stopped treaties in the past. The Paris Climate Treaty was not ratified. Period. Full stop. Obama did the K Street Twostep because he knew it would never get through CONGRESS. House of Representatives + Senate = Congress.

  58. “I will make my final decision on the Paris Accord next week!”

    This is Trump showing his trademark lack of foresight. If anyone thinks our new pres should have stayed to formally (or informally) address Climate Change issues with Merkel and the other the European heads, I think you are mistaken. He can’t fire them, and he sure isn’t ready to discuss science with them. As for diplomacy… (sigh)

    Climate Change may have been politicized out the wazoo, but its assertions (true or not) are all rooted in science, and imo require a scientist to speak to them. Trump knows business and real estate, and with his cabinet now “complete”, there’s nary a hint of a science wonk among them. Ben Carson, a former neurosurgeon, he placed in Housing, and Tom Price, a family doctor, was assigned to Department of Health. Then there’s Jared Kushner, his Senior Adviser, and his daughter, both of whom have very pronounced views on the subject, and are apparently sharing them. Without a science guy to defer to, or to help him understand how to address this issue, his comments on the subject are destined to sound half-baked, half-dismissive, and 100% infuriating.

    Every president since Roosevelt has had a science adviser, some of whom left lasting imprints on our country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Advisor_to_the_President

    Trump, with his particularly shallow understanding of science, desperately needs an adviser to run interference for him, if only here at home. Deference to someone like John Christie at the G8, might have seemed pretty classy; without such an expert on his team, Trump has but one play in his playbook for every science dilemma that presents: punt.

    “America is in the process of reviewing its policies on climate change and on the Paris Agreement and thus is not in a position to join the consensus on these topics.” When his remarks are finally released, maybe they will have some semblance of an orderly, coherent analysis about them. Anybody holding their breath?

    It’s just that here’s a guy who tweets out bombshells impulsively each morning on every personally irksome subject that crosses his radar, but on the tar pit of global warming – a matter he’s already called a “hoax”, and which continues to threaten multi-billion dollar harm to the U.S. economy – he suddenly turns … (what?) thoughtful?

    • Climate change is rooted in political collectivism not science.

      The guard has changed and there are new discussion rules to be applied.

      I’m for a science post mortem to prevent pseudoscience abuses in the future similar to climate fraud but the days of pinhead leftist academia dictating the discussion rules are over.

      • Climate change is happening, and is a tangible reality. It’s the biased analysis and distorted interpretation of that reality that needs to be countered. The alarmist’s conclusions come from group think, as you say, but that doesn’t negate the suite of physical and earth sciences that underpin it. Domestically, Trump should do two things. He should demand that Congress turn off the spigot of government grants and funds to the purveyors of alarmism; but he should also see that the seeds of real science exploration and research are planted in our schools, universities and government science foundations.

        The postmortem you advocate can’t happen until the beast is dead, and it won’t die until its life-blood of
        government grants dries up. Right now it’s thriving. The curricula in every school in the nation have been re-written. Everybody in this country can probably name a friend or relative who derives some financial benefit from climate alarmism. Trump will not outlast the enclaves of pseudo-scientists, nor the trickling-down of the legacy grants they’ve created, but he can see that real science has the amplification of the “bully pulpit” to counter the messages they are churning out. What is required is not a single autocrat, but a new network of young scientists who approach their discipline without any agenda. In my opinion, the truth that they will demonstrate is that climate will continue to change with or without our help, and regardless of our alarm about it.

      • “Bill Parsons May 28, 2017 at 12:36 pm

        Climate change is happening, and is a tangible reality.”

        You have evidence of that outside a computer model?

      • Patrick MJD May 28, 2017 at 4:55 pm

        We have plenty of historical and archaeological evidence that shows that the Earth’s climate changes constantly. You don’t need prognosticating models to read the temp graphs of proxy data showing many colder and warmer periods in prior eras. Take a moment to re-read what I said. If you still think “climate change” means “global warming”, you’d better do some research of your own. I feel like my comment was windy, but clear enough if you read the second sentence: “It’s the biased analysis and distorted interpretation of (the realities of climate science) that needs to be countered.” We still need climate science and people to study it, imo.

    • Without a science guy to defer to, or to help him understand how to address this issue, his comments on the subject are destined to sound half-baked, half-dismissive, and 100% infuriating.

      Or a science gal. (Judy Curry has said she’s willing to work for the government in an advisory position. (She doesn’t want to be an administrator or have to be in Washington full-time; apparently she was offered such a job.))

  59. I do hope he pulls the US out, which should mean the UK will seriously think about following.

    He needs to move fast on many of his policies because they take a long time to have a public impact. He needs impact for re-election…

  60. The president needs to hear from us, now, to counter what he is hearing from Tillerson and Ivanka. Needn’t be long. My own contribution, via e-mail:

    I would urge you to explicitly reverse President Obama’s personal action endorsing scientifically questionable climate alarm and committing our country to economically destructive (and futile) efforts to restrain the forces of nature.

    But if you don’t see fit to take that stand, then the Paris agreement should be submitted to the Senate for ratification. A commitment with such serious effects should certainly be made by the collective representatives of the people, not by one man with a phone and a pen.

  61. “The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,”  — It’s about the climate like a pea is to 3 shells.

  62. A Presidential Commission regarding pseudoscience fraud and political manipulation of science should be established. Put Dr. Lindzen in charge of it. No reason to even mention climate “science” in the announcement- res ipsa loquitur

  63. Either President Trump pulls out of the “Paris Accord” or it’s “Lying Donald Trump” ever after !!

    • No, belatedly the exit is here. He deserves credit but I fear the scale of the social conflict is understated by the seriousness he granted climate advocates and crony interests such as Tillerson and co..

      Does he follow up with the full dismantling of the UN climate collective “protocol”? If not the monster just retreats to the academic and media cave, to the EU, The People’s Republic of NY and Kalifornia to plan again.

      There should be no mercy or rest. The Greenshirts should remain a primary target straight through 2020 and beyond.

      Remember the lesson of Hannibal (the original one);

      At Cannae in about two hours 60k Romans lay dead, a death rate not matched until the Battle of the Somme 2000 years later. Still about 10k escaped lead in part by the person who would later win the war for the Romans Publius Scipio Afrucanus. There was every opportunity pursue and finish the remaining army that would later be exiled to Spain and reverse the wars fortune. There was a political thought of mercy and reconciliation for peace in the decision not to pursue the defeated survivors. Perhaps changing the outcome of the war. These were the youngest and most fit in the front line if you’re familiar with the battles design.

      Failure to follow up on the climate cabal and completely discredit it would be of a similar failure. The UN climate authority must be destroyed completely or this sad post Soviet failure will only be repeated or worse. How Reagan and Thatcher permitted the monster to form was one of their greatest failures but in part driven by naivety that simply can’t exist today. All of Marxist/Green appeasement of the Bush terms couldn’t be estimated as well.

      Enjoy the Paris win, potentially huge if the backlash is properly crushed as well. DJT has no specific Greenshirt political annihilation policy and pursued the overly benevolent economics only talking point that can still land future generations in leftist academic hellhole reeducation camps called public schools and university life worse then today’s. The demise of climate fraud should be central to overthrowing the entire PC culture that dragged science through the gutter the past 50+ years. Paris is a step along the road either way. The President deserves credit even if I regret the implied moderation he has shown and believe he will rue the day as Hannibal must have as well. Expect a media onslaught that will dwarf the post election usurping and Russian blather combined.

  64. Many commenters like the idea of passing the exit from the Parasite Accord onto the Senate to be quashed by vote. We all know this is a dangerous idea. A large number of GOP senators are swamp creatures and are not to be trusted. They have shown this in their uselessness in the Obamacare affair. Lindsey Graham has recently advised he would stay in the agreement and he’s not alone. There’s about 20 drones that are not really Republican at all. They are dinosaurs from an earlier century.

    • 1+

      The Senate circus would have worked both ways which is why Obama avoided it as well. The Republic was usurped but that’s the standard they choose to live by.

      The Senate is dysfunctional as you say. Unwinding the entire UN Climate authority will require them. I’m not sure at all they are up to the task and Paris backlash will be huge.

      Plenty more climate war in front of us.

  65. “Shapes the globalization”. Even if CO2 were the evil pollutant it is claimed to be, the phrase “shapes the globalization” would be enough to disassociate from the Paris “Agreement”.

  66. No more windturbines on land.
    They make noise. Noise damage health.
    There are no guarante that noise from windturbines dont damage health.
    They also spoil nature.
    Let people live. Kill windturbines.
    Please Mr. Præsident.

  67. It is a tricky subject. The US is asked to sign up to wealth distribution, as it puts itself at a competitive disadvantage, in the hopes that those developing companies will then honour a non legally binding agreement to follow through in the 2030s. The US should just carry on as it was (reducing its CO2, while other countries were increasing) and not doing more than that until other countries are ready to sign something binding that takes place immediately.

    • That page says in part:

      Quitting a unanimous agreement by 190+ nations after a two-decade negotiating process would make us a rogue nation, a global pariah, like Vladimir Putin’s Russia. And, it could make Putin happy, as we’ll see.

      Odd, a UN page, updated fairly recently, says “147 Parties have ratified of 197 Parties to the Convention.

      The US “accepted” the agreement on “3 Sep 2016 (A)” (“A” for “acceptance,” “AA” for “approval,” no embellishment for “ratification.”)

  68. Suggestion: Let’s change the name of the Green Climate Fund to the Green Slime Fund.

    Really, it makes little sense. What’s wrong with people?! How can the State Department just give away U.S. money to such a venture that is a calculated failure? It’s robbery, I say.

    Do the math!

    Pull the plug!

    The Paris Accord is trash. Talk about pollution!

  69. It would be nice if we could get back the two $500 million payments Obama made to the commitments in that non-treaty.

    E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/18/barack-obama-transfers-500m-to-green-climate-fund-in-attempt-to-protect-paris-deal says in part:

    Barack Obama has heeded calls to help secure the future of the historic Paris agreement by transferring a second $500m instalment to the Green Climate Fund, just three days before he leaves office.

    The fund was a key aspect of the Paris agreement signed in 2015, which aims to keep global warming “well below” 2C and aspires to keep warming to 1.5C.

    The US committed to transferring $3bn to the fund. The new instalment leaves $2bn owing, with the incoming president, Donald Trump, expected to cease any further payments.

    More about treaty or not is at http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/26/04/2016/paris-agreement-when-treaty-not-treaty

  70. One concern is that Trump says that climate change is a Chinese plot. This is nonsense. What else does he get wrong? I get worried when people do the right thing for the wrong reason.

Comments are closed.