Dear Mr. President: @POTUS Please Exit the Paris Climate Agreement

Dear Mr. President:

Are you are still wondering whether to Exit Paris? Overseas and US officials, environmentalists and bureaucrats urge you to Remain. But you promised voters you would Exit. Please keep your promises.

Exit Paris isn’t about the environment. It’s about letting us utilize our fossil fuel energy to create jobs, rebuild our economy, and Make America Great Again. It’s about avoiding immense transfer payments from the USA to foreign governments, bureaucrats and parties unaccountable to Trump-voting taxpayers.

Worse, even if the USA Remains, and the repulsive payments flow, Paris offers no help in removing real air pollutants. Carbon dioxide isn’t one of them, by the way: it’s plant food, not poison.

Exit Paris: Business

Some high profile American companies recently signed a note urging Remain. Follow the money. Many leaders of those companies didn’t support your election and voted Hillary. And they expect to get billions from us taxpayers and consumers, for locking up our fossil fuels and switching to renewable energy.

We who voted Trump, your base, want Exit. Just as you promised.

Remain, so that we maintain markets for American energy technologies? Some companies will make off like bandits. The rest of us will get skewered. Global buyers of energy systems understand the benefits of America’s world-beating fossil technologies. They understand the life-cycle value of after-sales support poorly delivered by our international competitors. Trust Chinese warranties? We don’t either.

Why ask corporations about Remain or Exit Paris? They pass Remain-driven energy costs on to consumers. Instead, ask consumers about ever-increasing energy bills. You’ll get a different answer.

Corporations have shareholders in the USA, of course, and some of them elected you. But corporations also have European shareholders. Corporations there must survive political economies aligned with Paris’s unaccountable bureaucratic control of energy, jobs, economic growth and living standards. You have to choose: shareholders, entrepreneurs, consumers and families – or rent seekers and bureaucrats.

Renewable energy lobbyists, Obama holdovers – and misguided souls in your own administration – say Remain, to keep a seat at the table. That’s nonsense. Businesses were flogged by the past administration and no longer recognize their obligations to shareholders, much less to societies they are supposed to serve with reliable, affordable power that creates and preserves jobs.

Those companies responded to incentives in a massively hostile American political economy. Those hostilities represent decades-long campaigns by anti-energy groups that got rich while claiming to represent shareholders, and by foreign governments seeking transfer payments. You promised change.

Exit Paris: Group of Seven

Mr. President, you’ll be pressured mightily at the G7 to Remain Paris. Hugely-invested and conflicted world leaders will give you no peace. Your delegation will hound you. Keep your Exit staff close. Why?

Because America got snookered into signing the Arctic Council’s May 11, 2017, Fairbanks Declaration. Now the same pro-Remain forces will claim America wants that language. What language?

Start with Perambulatory Paragraphs 8 & 9: “Reaffirming the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the need for their realization by 2030.” And this: “U.N. Sustainable Development Goal 13.a: Implement the commitment undertaken by developed country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible.”

They want to take our money, while they shackle our economy. But there’s more.

Paragraph 31 (p. 6): “…we welcome the updated assessment of Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic, note with concern its findings, and adopt its recommendations.…The Arctic states, permanent participants, and observers to the Arctic Council, should individually and collectively lead global efforts for an early, ambitious, and full implementation of the Paris COP21 Agreement….”

Your State Department Obama-carry-overs slipped this one past their boss, Secretary Tillerson – and you, by extension. This is where the real art of the deal comes in. Take a leadership role and terminate this. Don’t get sandbagged. Don’t sandbag the people who voted for you. Resist the pressures you’ll face in Sicily. Anything but Exit Paris undermines your credibility and betrays voter trust and America’s future.

Exit Paris: Diplomacy

One reason cited to Remain Paris and Remain UNFCCC and their climate treaties is to “avoid diplomatic blowback.” There certainly will be that, but it’s a cost far more easily borne than the sum of what we paid yesterday and will be told we must pay tomorrow in lost energy, jobs and money. Follow the money:

Emerging nations want the USA to Remain because they expect billions in cash from us every year – plus free technology transfers – at US corporate, taxpayer and consumer expense. Advanced countries want us to Remain because we will inadvertently fund and sign onto programs that they use to seize ever-greater bureaucratic control over energy, resources, jobs and living standards, within their own borders and ours.

The Chinese want us to Remain because it protects access to our market for energy technologies. Do you believe Chinese press releases and speeches that claim they are switching massively to renewable energy? Neither do we. But we see them building more coal-fired power plants in China, Africa and elsewhere.

Europeans want us to Remain in Paris to ensure that our fossil fuels, energy prices, economy, jobs, living standards and ability to compete globally are as shackled by climate insanity as theirs already are.

Some say Remain Paris for a seat at the table. Will the planet otherwise forget American leadership? Better that the deal crumbles without us making huge transfer payments and shackling our economy. Even better is that you lead America and the world back from the climate hysteria precipice.

Anti-America, anti-energy forces unite at the UN and its UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its director, Ambassador Espinosa of Mexico, spoke recently at Georgetown University – to advocate greater bureaucratic control over energy, natural resources, jobs, living standards and human lives. The past administration was in lock-step with this. You should absolutely be against every part of it.

Exit Paris: Science

Paris is a horrible idea, since unassailable empirical evidence demonstrates that: Carbon dioxide makes plants grow faster and better. Atmospheric CO2 levels trail rather than lead warming. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas. Thanks to carbon dioxide, agricultural productivity has increased over recent decades by over $3.2 trillion. Scientists project up to $10 trillion more in improved crop yields over the coming decades.

Climate science is absolutely not settled. Smart scientists who support you prove there’s no credible path to climate cataclysm due to fossil fuel use and CO2 increases. Doomsayers have gotten rich by peddling false, alarmist, anti-scientific claims, while the rest of us have suffered. This must not continue.

To support Exit Paris, you should reverse the absurd, scientifically unsupportable claim that carbon dioxide “endangers” our welfare. Doing that will substantially remove the ability of subsequent administrations to restore policies that demonize fossil fuels and CO2. Many of the policies addressed and corrected by your recent environmental Executive Order are vulnerable until the endangerment finding disappears. Much of the mischief and job killing of the last eight years can be laid at that doorstep.

Exit Paris, because even outgoing EPA officials admit it will not noticeably affect Earth’s temperature.

Exit Paris: US Politics

Paris intentionally provides for ever-tightening restrictions on American citizens and businesses – thus far with no vote by us or the Senate. Who rewrote our Constitution to allow a president, in his final days in office, to impose such a far reaching treaty on us without our advice, consent, approval or vote?

If you need Exit support of fellow elected officials or a constitutional avenue, submit Remain Paris to the Senate. The measure will crash on that rocky shore, giving you all the support you need to Exit Paris.

Your voters heard you promise to Exit Paris. The support you still enjoy from your voters is because we see that you are keeping your promises. Keep this one, too, Mr. President.

Please Exit Paris. Those who voted for you will remember and approve. Those who detest and resist you will still detest and resist you if you Remain.

Thank you for considering our heartfelt analysis.


Paul K. Driessen and Mark J. Carr

Driessen is an environmental policy analyst and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. Carr consults on energy, environmental, transportation and agricultural policy. (To contact President Trump about this vitally important Exit Paris issue, go here to sign CFACT’s Say No to Paris petition.)

207 thoughts on “Dear Mr. President: @POTUS Please Exit the Paris Climate Agreement

  1. Just list the taxpayer funded measurement programs from ARGO to satellites that don’t show global warming or sea level rise beyond long term interglacial trend and list of refuted studies that led up to the claim of debate-has-ended policy fraud.

    • Perhaps ‘twould be better to simply submit the “agreement/Treaty” to Congress for ratification (provided they could get the 2/3rds vote necessary. If Congress can’t support it, Trump doesn’t have to be the fall guy. If Congress does support it though, we could be stuck with it. Best thing would be to negate it and renegotiate the entire debacle requiring ALL countries (China and India included) to have to adhere to the same cuts thereby maintaining a level economic playing field

  2. Main reason to exit the Paris Agreement: There is no correct way to participate in something meaningless and destructive.

  3. It is best to leave the table when it becomes clear that the others there consider you the main course.

    • It seems the Obama crew are still at the table and continuing the process:
      US climate negotiators turn on Trump
      29 May 2017
      “Donald Trump isn’t only keeping G7 leaders guessing over whether he will pull the US out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. In the 128 days since he took power, no one from his administration has said a single word to US climate negotiators.
      European diplomats were left stunned at recent climate talks in Bonn after their US counterparts, many of whom helped broker the landmark deal, admitted they had been left in limbo by the White House.
      But, according to our sources, the US team are exploiting the vacuum to press ahead with the agreement, which was signed by Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama.
      They told open-mouthed officials, “We are following the Obama procedure. As long as there are no new instructions, the old ones are still valid.”
      They agreed a limited budget increase to plans in Bonn. Diplomats told their opposite numbers that they should seize the opportunity to get as much agreed before Trump makes up his mind, awestruck sources gossiped.”

      • “They told open-mouthed officials, “We are following the Obama procedure. As long as there are no new instructions, the old ones are still valid.”
        This shouldn’t be a surprise. This is the way bureaucrats work. They carry out the last order they were given.

  4. How would we know if the agreement is dormant or not, other than the halt in shipments of US cash for redistribution of (borrowed) wealth through UN administration?

  5. Anthony, you need a petition for the rest of your readers that don’t reside in America. To register their support urging Trump to kick it to the kerb.
    It’s not just America that’s being robbed by the global warming fraud.

    • I’ll drink to that!
      President Trump is the leader of the free world and the world needs his leadership to rid us of the politically correct syndrome that is slowly strangling us.
      By the way, an excellent letter telling it as it really is. Thanks.

    • It works fine for non-US readers, in the states drop-down simply select non-US.
      I’m a UK reader and I just voted.
      I’ve got my fingers crossed that President Trump will do the right thing!

    • It’s Australia as well. Ripped off by wind farm owners now bringing blackouts to South Australia.

      • from another old ranga in aus;-) yeah and now victorias going down the same path to darkness.
        we are now looking to be the highest power cost nation
        only a slim few ahead of us
        what a claim to INfamy and targets for derision we are becoming;-(

  6. Trump should remember who he ran against–both the Democrats under Hillary Clinton and the RINO establishment that he beat in the primaries. Both support Paris. Dance with who brung ya.

    • I did not think Cruz supported the agreement, who was the last man standing against Trump

      • Cruz was the only other viable alternative to the Democrats and RINO establishment types. Since the election Senator Cruz has been a very effective ally of President Trump on a number of issues.

        • The only other candidate who stayed in as far as the convention was John Kasich, a classical RINO.

      • The voters preferred a RHINO to a RINO.
        (Unfortunately, he’s a thin-skinned RHINO.)

    • Both the Republican establishment and the Democrats have betrayed the majority of the citizens. It’s worse for the Democrats because they pretended to stand up for the little guy.
      President Trump was elected because the deplorables aren’t as stupid as the Democrat elite thinks they are. If he wants to be elected again, he should remember that. The Republican party has an opportunity to learn and benefit. They can bury the Democrats for a long time if they do.

  7. I’m don’t think the President will not read such a ling email. It is great, I read it -, but the Pres won’t..
    Just saying… Regards,… JPP (hope that some of his advisers will) …

  8. Great Article,
    I hope the President follows your advice and we exit quickly.
    I just read that 50,000 to 100,000 people attended in Paris, I remember Kerry had a large entourage , don’t know which number is correct, in any event possibly our exit and ending such events will reduce world Carbon Emissions considering the huge carbon footprint of these events require with all those elites flying great distances to arrive and riding in the fuel guzzling Limousines.
    It is apparent that staying in the agreement is inconsistent with his plan to expand the development and production of oil and gas.

  9. An Australia reporter’s point of view:
    “LET’S hope the reports are true: that President Trump will follow through on his campaign promise to take the US out of the so-called Paris Climate Agreement…
    Ideally, we would follow; but as there’s zero chance of that under the current clueless prime minister, hopefully it would at least force some reality back into the discussion about energy and electricity in particular.”

  10. “If you need Exit support of fellow elected officials or a constitutional avenue, submit Remain Paris to the Senate. The measure will crash on that rocky shore, giving you all the support you need to Exit Paris.”
    Mr. President, this is the only choice you have. It will have the exact same effect. And you will not be blamed for unilaterally terminating this bad agreement. Failure to submit this to the Senate will have this land in some Jr. Court, where it could be upheld and tied up in court for years. Which would make the Paris Accord lawful and in effect until it is struck down, and even then, there is the risk it will be upheld finally someday by SCOTUS making your pronouncement null and void. Which would be a travesty for your legacy, if you do not adhere to due process that is only common sense. Do it the right way Mr. President!

    • ron,
      “Which would be a travesty for your legacy, if you do not adhere to due process that is only common sense.”
      Due process? That option left with Mr. Obama . . There’s nothing in the Constitution about a President having to submit a previous President’s unsubmitted “agreements” to any votes . . You really don’t appear legit to me, sir . .

      • The point is , if the senate denies it a following president can’t make it an executive agreement

    • I’m a bit Leary of the GOP swamp dwellers. Lindsey Graham two days ago stated on CNN he hopes Trump keeps US in it. Whatever for,? These GOP turkeys have the perfect set up with majorities in both houses and they don’t support the president. THIS is the last corral before the abatoir and they are chewing cud.

      • “I’m a bit Leary of the GOP swamp dwellers. Lindsey Graham two days ago stated on CNN he hopes Trump keeps US in it. Whatever for,? These GOP turkeys have the perfect set up with majorities in both houses and they don’t support the president.”
        Republican voters should be carefully watching their respective representatives. As you say, the Republicans now have the numbers to carry out a Republican agenda, which is also Trump’s agenda, but somehow they just can’t quite get it together.
        If they don’t manage to get it together by the end of this year, then it will be time to start thinking about replacing the Republicans who can’t get the job done with some Republicans that can.
        We should be putting pressure on all these Republicans to support Trump, and no doubt Trump is going to be out on the 2018 campaign trail lambasting any Republicans who thwart his agenda, so you have been warned RINO’s.
        If you don’t want Trump and his 62 million supporters breathing down your neck in 2018, stop the obstructionism and stupidity. The Democrats are trying to destroy our society and your obstructionism is helping them do it.

      • I remember Lindsey saying (to paraphrase) that anyone who doubted global warming should watch the CO2 pouring out of a motorcycle’s exhaust in Beijing like he did.
        That’s what we are up against.

    • Now express this as a tweet and Pres Trump may read it. Try “President Trump must submit Obama Paris “Agreement” to the Senate as a binding Treaty. This will surely kill it.”. cheers

    • Ron Williams
      May 29, 2017 at 8:39 pm
      Dear fellow…you have commented in many threads lately on the WUWT posts….theeinterity of your comments lately stands as very contradictory to the point you trying a make or drive through….
      But considering that it may help you and the green blob as far as this comment of yours, that I am commenting at, it concernes…
      Mister D.J.Trump., the actual President of USA, has plainly made it clear that is all about defending the USA constitution and giving power to the people, as actually the constitution demands and directs.
      So from my point of view I can not see how the dear and beautiful Mr. D.J.Trump will ever consider to submit the Paris Accord to Senate for a decision, no matter how much the green blob may want it sow….
      As far as I can tell the President is not going to abandon states like Cal. and USA citizens of such the vamping of the green blob….
      As far as I can tell he is set to protect the USA constitution and give the people what constitution directs to, clearly.
      It will be up to the people to decide how and when and how far the dismantling of the green manure from the USA legislation will happen, the power to the people to do that as they see fit and pleased…that is the promise given, as far as I can tell…And this does not play well if what you say and advice to be considered in this case…..No way that it is compatible with the fate of Paris accord decided and expected to be sorted out by the Senate.
      By in the end of the day we have just to wait and see…..
      Still I will say, stop believing and crossing the fingers in the prospect that the President is just a silly guy….you will find it that he is extraordinarily clever and patient, beyond your believe….
      Enjoy it………

  11. The easy and lawful way to exit this agreement is to simply submit it to the Senate approve as a treaty which it is. In this way the United States including a fair number of Ds would be denying our participation, not just Donald Trump. The hubris of Obama to push this through as an executive agreement is stunning, and that needs to be called out and derided as much as the accord itself. We are not a monarchy and Mr. O far exceeded his authority in this matter.
    One man’s opinion anyway.

    • Mike,
      “The hubris of Obama to push this through as an executive agreement is stunning, and that needs to be called out and derided as much as the accord itself. We are not a monarchy and Mr. O far exceeded his authority in this matter. ”
      Which virtually demands Mr. Trump NOT do as you suggest, it seems obvious to me . . Why in the world would you WANT such behavior to binding on Mr. Trump in any sense?
      “In this way the United States including a fair number of Ds would be denying our participation, not just Donald Trump.”
      Or, it passes, because the Rinos and Never Trumpers combine with the Ds to undermine the Pres, they obviously want undermined . . !!!!!!!

      • Simply admitting it is s treaty and then not even bringing it up for a vote would kill it. No one has to commit and “Paris” dies.

    • Mike Nelson,
      Didn’t the US have a real live Emperor, Norbert the First, in, perhaps 1850s or so [IIRC].
      Self-proclaimed, I agree.
      Not widely recognised as anything other than a fruitcake, admitted.
      But a model for Obarmi the First?

  12. Increased Co2 in the atmosphere increases the amount of LIFE on earth: This is statement one.
    Decreased Co2 in the atmosphere DECREASES the amount of life on earth: This is statement two.
    Please MR. President as the leader of the free world chose LIFE.

    • Trump’s spin doctor quits after 3 months. Hopefully Trump is not far behind him.
      Btw, I think Hilary would have been worse.
      Pair of grotesque hairballs, coughed up by a polity in decay.

  13. Where is that graph on CO2 under this punative agreement?
    That speaks volumes on the bias and ultimate redistribution involved.

  14. The entire UN set up is a Eurocentric, anti-American enterprise for which the United States pays the lion’s share. Read the quotes of the creator of of UNFCCC, Maurice Strong, one of which states:
    “Isn’t it the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    Go to this site and see his other quotes. I like the diabolical one on another of his inventions, “sustainable development”.
    Your letter didn’t say the real underlying purpose of the Parasite Agreement. Merkel and fellow EU travellers have already set the rings in their citizens’ noses. Maurice retired in Beijing in the land he most admired and died a few years ago. China was fond of him and I’m sure he advised on their BS policy.

    • Gary,

      “Isn’t it the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

      I’m glad that phony is dead.
      Strong went to Beijing because his mother was a revered missionary there. He basked in her well-deserved glory. It was the only place he could be and retain his dignity after the disaster of the oil-for-food thing he scammed and after he tried to steal the water rights on the Adnan Khashoggi 50,000 acre ranch he bought in Colorado so he (and his investors) could sell them to Denver for $1.2 billion/year. If that had happened, the organic farmers and ranchers would have had their property turned into dustbowls, like the 1930s (which, btw, was a land-management not a climate-change problem).

      China was fond of him and I’m sure he advised on their BS policy.

      The Chinese are a lot more aware and wiser than you give them credit for here. I would suggest you maintain a neutral and less hyperbolic position.

      • “If that had happened, the organic farmers and ranchers would have had their property turned into dustbowls, like the 1930s (which, btw, was a land-management not a climate-change problem).”
        You mean the high temperatures throughout the 1930’s and the extreme drought had nothing to do with it?

    • I can only say welcome to the asylum. The UNFCCC Paris-ites are one and the same as the unaccountable Brussels bureaucrats​who now dictate my every breath here in Europe. Only they’re more ambitious.
      Mr. President, you will be remembered as the only sane one in the room once you pull the US out of Paris and the UNFCCC. Maybe not today, but within our lifetime, certainly. Reminds me of Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union’s collapse….

      • The UNFCCC are attempting to take advantage–ahead of the right of the US people guaranteed by the US Constitution–of the truth of how the USD works. The majority here on wattsupwiththat refuse to recognize it. They spout gold-standard-level sh$t that has had no basis in fact domestically since 1933 (mainly because they refuse to do their homework at the same level as the Climate Alarmists who refuse to do with respect to CO2 records).
        They waddle in here with 85-year-old theories that have no basis in fact. Pure fantasy. Complete fiction.
        If everyone here understood how they worked, you could descend upon DC and change the world. Because you would have the truth of How Things Work on your side.
        But you can’t. Because the majority here remain inelastic to new or correct ideas.

      • “Mr. President, you will be remembered as the only sane one in the room once you pull the US out of Paris and the UNFCCC.”
        Yes. Someday most people will see the wisdom of this decision. It’s up to leaders to see it first and lead.

    • Might I add “The Evil Canadian Maurice Strong”. I’m sorry for my country.

  15. The Left and all the further Left Econutter Greens already hate Trump. They Always have, and always will no matter what he does on Paris. Merkle and the EU pols who sold their countries out on the Climate Hustle dislike him. Nothing he can do will make them like him or his anti-Muslim immigration policies, while they continue to commit cultural and energy economic suicide.
    So his only rational choice at this juncture is to satisfy the people who voted for him, and thus put economy ahead of all else and Exit Paris.

    • “or his anti-Muslim immigration policies,”
      Well, to be perfectly accurate, Trump has an anti-Islamist terrorist policy.
      Trump went directly to Saudi Arabia and told the Sunni muslims that they had to “drive out” the Islamists from their midst. Trump officially separated Islamist terrorism from Islam in that speech. He is providing a new opportunity for the Muslims to reform their practices and drive out the psychopaths and murderers who are hiding behind the Muslim religion.
      Islamist. This characterization makes Islamist terrorism a part of an evil ideology, not a religion. We should all start using the term. We should give the Muslims an opportunity to separate themselves from the Islamist fanatics who hijack their religion to commit violence against all of humanity including Muslims.

      • TA
        May 30, 2017 at 5:25 am
        “or his anti-Muslim immigration policies,”
        Well, to be perfectly accurate, Trump has an anti-Islamist terrorist policy.
        Trump went directly to Saudi Arabia and told the Sunni muslims that they had to “drive out” the Islamists from their midst. Trump officially separated Islamist terrorism from Islam in that speech. He is providing a new opportunity for the Muslims to reform their practices and drive out the psychopaths and murderers who are hiding behind the Muslim religion.
        Islamist. This characterization makes Islamist terrorism a part of an evil ideology, not a religion. We should all start using the term. We should give the Muslims an opportunity to separate themselves from the Islamist fanatics who hijack their religion to commit violence against all of humanity including Muslims.

        What do you reckon? Another 1300 years?

  16. Call your Congressman and Senator. DO NOT EMAIL, they wont pay attention.
    • Call the local office, not DC.
    • If you really want to make an impression, mail a physical letter to your LOCAL office.
    * A handwritten written letter counts a lot more than typed, where you’re going to be tempted to pontificate.
    • Depending on the state, Congressional offices consider a physically mailed letter to be the equivalent of 5,000-to-10,000 votes/voters because no one writes letters anymore. I wish I could impress upon you how powerful they are from the POV of the congressional and senate offices.
    • Keep it to ONE PAGE.
    • At least with handwritten, you’ll get to the point and someone will read it.
    • No congressional office employee will bother reading Driesen’s well-written post above, neither local nor DC.
    • Get nine of your friends to do the same. (heh, heh)
    Then, call the White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111. Keep it short and sweet. Don’t just complain. Tell the operator the specific action you want the President to take. If you’ve written your Congressman and Senator, then say you’ve done that as well.

    • If the people in a congressman or senator’s district don’t vote for him, all the donor money in the world isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference.

      • Good advice, MRW.
        It wouldn’t hurt to communicate your desires to your representatives, and remind them that you are expecting them to vote the right way and you are keeping an eye on how they vote so you can decide whether to vote for them or not next time they run for office.

      • The problem in American politics today is that name recognition usually trumps (no pun intended) all, especially with incumbents.
        There were several viable GOP candidates when Graham came up for re-election (including the first female graduate of the Citadel) but they were swamped in the primary.
        My only hope is that that the “deplorables” will recognise the damage Graham is doing to their agenda and overpower those who vote for someone because his or her name is familiar.

  17. Exit the agreement but in a way it can’t be brought back in the future. It was pretty easy to initiate the agreement.

  18. Please Mr. President,
    you can make America great again by freeing us all from our green shackles,
    There can be no diplomacy with the Paris prison guards, there can only be liberation.
    As we did a hundred years ago, the old world is looking to the new for its freedom
    Geir Aaslid
    Serial entrepreneur and climate realist

  19. USA did not sign Kyoto and nothing happened. But that was the Clintons. Paris will be the same.

  20. Good article.
    The point that (hopefully) Trump understands that our resident idiot PM does not is that if you surrender to the leftist demands that does not mean that they suddenly like you and will support you. They never will. Even if you cure cancer they will still hate you. I fact they will probably hate you even more.
    Dump Paris and enjoy the lefty heads’a’poppin’.

  21. Trump could simply say the USA is out until the agreement’s utility is proven, name a 7 member presidential commission which has to report back to him in 24 months.

  22. Even if United Nations were right on their wildly exaggerated CO2 “representative concentration pathways” and their exaggerated sensitivity of global temperature to CO2, the Paris agreement will make electricity ratesskyrocketwithout affecting the climate significantly – how silly is that?

  23. The only reason they want the US to remain, is that someone has fill up the feeding trough from time to time.

  24. Anyone who thinks Trump gives a damn about a single promise he ever made is freaking nuts. All of that was purely to get elected. The guy is a narcissistic psychopath out only to enrich himself and his family. He’s going down for corruption and treason. Learn from this.
    [??? .mod]

    • Donald wants a second term and will tell the world that he is pulling out of the climate convention because global cooling has begun.

      • because global cooling has begun

        Wanna bet how that turns out? At very short term, there is variance but I’d bet period 2021-2030 will be mildly warmer than 2011-2020 in both satellite and surface sets.
        In a way I hope I can soon use weather warrants for this.

      • Hugs we are at the mercy of the oscillations, nevertheless I’m going with a cooling similar to the 1950s and 1960s.

    • brokenyogi
      May 29, 2017 at 11:52 pm
      Can you guys please keep the politics out of this…lets just stick to the science. These sorts of comments don’t belong on a great site like WUWT…they just lower the standard to basement levels and will turn people off. We need more engagement, not less.

      • Climate is not about science, is only about politics. From end to end. Nobody would be interested if there weren’t so much loose money around.

      • Hugs is right. This is all about politics, not science. You think Donald gives a crap about the science, much less is capable of understanding it? Unless you can reduce this letter to a tweet, it’ll go right over his head. All he cares about is trying to make lucrative side deals for himself and his family anyway. He’s going down faster than the temps. You’re better off addressing your lobbying efforts to Pence. If he can escape the scandals, that is.

      • And for what it’s worth, the Paris Climate Treaty is irrelevant. It’s totally voluntary, with no penalties if goals are not met, Trump is already ending coal anyway, in complete violation of his campaign promises, and US carbon emissions are going down on their own because of increased fracking and wind. Besides, the treaty will never be ratified by the senate. So what does it even matter, except symbolically. Let it die of its own pointlessness.

      • ‘You think Donald gives a crap about the science, much less is capable of understanding it?’
        Like most people he has a casual interest in the weather, he is also capable of reading a brief on climate change. For example the brilliant article in Townhall by Roy Spencer should be enough to sway this charismatic leader to make the correct choice.

    • Ya….keep your doctor….Iranian deal….Arab spring…..solyandra… uranium to Russia….Obamacare implosion…..Syrian red line….n Korea…..billions in unmarked bills to Iran….catch and release….open borders….

  25. Coal is like vhs tapes. Get it through your head that adopting old technology isn’t going to revitalise the US economy. There is far more economic growth to be made in renewable energy, especially solar energy. There are so many potential jobs to be made through training coal workers for solar and wind energy, much more than through eliminating regulations. The truth is, the primary reason for the loss of manufacturing and mining jobs is due to robots replacing the need for human labor in both of those fields.
    [??? .mod]

    • There is far more economic growth to be made in renewable energy, especially solar energy.

      In order to make real growth (and not just to spend your money), you need technology which is more efficient, less labour intensive, and finally cheaper.
      Solar power is less efficient (watt or joule at demand per dollar invested), requires more work (expected to be done by home solar installers) and not exactly cheap (worthless or even harmful at peak hours, yes).
      Solar is also not very sustainable since the requirement for resources is large, including but not limited to storage capacity requirement which is mind-boggling.
      But all this has been said million times and won’t do any good to say again.

      • Reinforcing Hugs;
        Economic growth is not through jobs but rather through output.
        If each new job created ADDITIONAL output it would be a plus, but if those jobs replace other jobs but 10 fold less efficiently for the same output (energy) then it is a tremendous DRAIN on the economy.
        And there are clear opportunity cost implications; if a homeowner has to pay twice as much for electricity than before, he/she will not be able to purchase other goods. An industry that has to do research and install scrubbers to continue to maintain the same output will not be investing as much in new products or services.
        Don’t forget the corporations who will be forced to outsource to China (or other “developing” countries who are still building coal plants) because renewables require many more workers than would be required with existing fossil fuels for the same output.
        And when was the last time you saw a steel plant run on wind and solar?

    • Math was not your favorite subject in school, obviously ! You did go to a school …somewhere right ?

    • Zin…Are you talking about old technology, 15 century windmills, still intermittent, long before VHS was conceived. If you believe that works live it don’t force it on the others, don’t use any fossil fuel, this is not Soviet Russia, yet.

    • “There are so many potential jobs to be made through training coal workers for solar and wind energy, much more than through eliminating regulations.”
      That’s what Hillary said, too. That’s why she won the election.

  26. Trust Chinese warranties?

    This made me smile, and brought back memories about US guarantees and customer service A short comment on a trip down memory lane.
    I am from the UK, and when I was very young, I bought a pair of Acoustic Research Speakers. These speakers were renowned for the Boston Sound, and were considered to be among the finest home HIFi speakers on the market (in practice, they were really studio monitors more than home HiFi, and cost the price of a small car). They were not that large, but were real heavy weights, weighing about 26kg (about 58lbs). They came with a generous 5 year guarantee (most products sold in the UK have only a 1 year guarantee), on top of their very generous base and sound stage (for which they were rightly reputed).
    After about 20 years, well outside guarantee, I experienced problems with the cross over, which sometimes became unreliable causing intermittent dropping out of one or more of the of the mid range or tweeter elements. There were a number of different cross over settings such that it was not a fatal problem and the speakers could still be used. Nonetheless, I wrote a letter to Acoustic Research praising the sound of their speakers, but expressing my severe disappointment with the problem that I was experiencing which did not become speakers that were marketed as the best home HiFi speakers on the market.
    Much to my surprise, Acoustic Research responded by sending me some heavy duty brown carton packaging, and advising me that they would collect the speakers next week. The following week a courier arrived and collected the speakers, and about a couple of weeks later they were returned fully working, good as new, all at no charge. They carried on service for about another 10 years, before the 12 inch base units required refoaming, which I never got round to doing, and by which time Acoustic Research, in its old form, had unfortunately gone out of business.
    That shows real and proper customer service, support and pride in one’s products and reputation. I have never experienced better back up/customer service. Acoustic Research, thank you.

    • Richard,
      My own memories, WAY off topic.
      My father and his brothers spent countless hours trying to develop a Hi-Fi speaker (before the advent of “stereo”.) They were aware of the discovery by AR that “mass” was the key to realistic bass. (I recall Villchur and Koss started with experiments with the woofer literally in a hole in the ground). My uncles’ speakers were the size of a large appliance; they didn’t stumble on the acoustic suspension that AR developed to reduce the size.
      Don’t fret for my uncles though; they later came up with the means to “coin operate” traditional bar room sports – shuffle board (a smaller table with magnets when your time was up) and pool (“bumper” pool which was a smaller table and collected the balls during play.) One of the 5 brothers stayed with it and founded United Billiards.

  27. If the US exits the Paris Agreement it will leave parts of the the Euro zone with expensive subsidised energy & thus at an International competitive disadvantage. It is little wonder they are getting vocal about it.

    • What will the U.K. do when the U.S. bans shipping wood chips (supplied by chopping down U.S. forests) for Drax Power Plant ?

  28. Hmmm I remember WUWT predicting that the ascendance of Trump would spell the immediate end of the green lunacy. If anything it seems to have done the opposite. The world is more strongly united around green themes than ever before. Most curious!

    • Ha, well, hunter, as an environmental scientist I’m one of those ‘equaling’ [sic] pigs. I assure you that if anything I sense that there is more support for green policies than before. In my country even the governing center-right party that until recently was very skeptical of climate change has turned around and is pretty supportive of renewables.
      However, I find it super instructive to keep up with WUWT and see what ‘the other side’ has to say. Keep up the good work y’all!

      • “The Last Hurrah” ?
        That new green energy will likely go into getting states and cities to commit to using lots of “renewable” energy in the future. It will likely succeed in half the U.S. states.

      • The world is a lot bigger than ‘half the US states’. If you look at the speed with which renewables are deployed in China and India, and even Saudi Arabia (haha, the irony), you’d realize that the US – with Trump going abroad and needlessly offending everyone – is quickly making itself an irrelevant part of the conversation. It’s Global warming after all, not US warming!

      • Yes, you’re a greedy little apparatchik of the parasitic green religion. And prefilled spelling aside you squeal like a pig, trough like a pig and your work is lazy like a pig.

      • Woaah, mods, could you ban the above person? Such language is unbecoming a site that tries to foster serious dialogue.

      • “Woaah, mods, could you ban the above person? Such language is unbecoming a site that tries to foster serious dialogue.”
        So you are saying your dialogue is the serious one? Your dialog sounds like wishful thinking to me. I’m not sure you could support even one of the claims you made. You don’t sound too sure, either, going by your dialog.

      • Although my first impression was that of course it was a typo, and Hunter meant that the pigs were “squealing more loudly,” But then, I also considered that maybe he meant it exactly as spelled, and that the pigs were “equaling’ in the manner of the pigs in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” (one of my very favorite works of literature). Even many people who have never read the book (shame on them) are aware of the famous addendum to the righteous revolutionary slogan written graffiti-style on side of the barn. It originally stated “All animals are equal” but to that was added “but some animals are more equal than others.”
        benben, what kind of environmental science do you do? Are you a regular participant in IPCC or UNFCCC functions like COP meetings; are you an Academic? Please do tell. As you say, it’s always good to hear from the other side, direct from their own mouths, untainted by the sensationalism of reporters and media types.
        Hunter, you were a little hard on benben with your recent reply to him. Let’s be kind, and maybe he’ll actually start telling us WHY he thinks CO2 is driving the climate, rather than just aping the common, brainwashing fodder and alarmist party line of renewables as the only possible solution for humanity’s future energy needs.

      • Ben,
        Apparently you are unaware of how many coal fired plants have been built in China and the fact that they are building them now in 3 rd world countries for those who need electricity. Their CO 2 emissions now exceed those of the US. Their interest in renewables is selling solar panels to those foolish enough to think they can go 80% renewables. Hasn’t anyone learned from the horrible economic experience from
        those countries in Europe that were led to believe that they could thrive on renewables?
        Why is China waiting until 2030 to start going green other than to say they made an agreement with Obama to enable a lie to the Americans by omitting the 15 year lag in their commitment. Some commitment !
        For those who plan to experiment with 80% renewables not knowing the viability in the proposed timeframe, they better pray for better success that we have seen in the past 20+ years where renewable energy is still very expensive and only provide intermittent energy often at the peril of our bird community.
        Working in the energy business for over 50 years I have witnessed a failure of the technology to provide alternative liquid fuels replacing oil as all the enthusiastic private investors disappeared after numerous failures. After consulting on dozens of ventures like range fuels, they all went bankrupt even with massive federal subsidies. Do some homework and note the long list of failed ventures. The DOE has yet to pick a winner.
        The world has spent a fortune on the the elusive viable battery for an electric car without success except for a town car. Private research was going on long before the government subsidies. Is it possible that such a battery is unattainable, given the constraints on chemistry and thermodynamics. Nothing is guaranteed on this front in the near or far future. I think fossil fuels are going to play a big role for many years until a new breakthough occurs and it won’t be wind or solar , technology we never heard of. Picking and subsidizing favorites by authorities will only impede a viable replacement.

      • “Hunter, you were a little hard on benben with your recent reply to him. Let’s be kind,”
        I agree with that.

      • Assistant professor at one of the more well regarded environmental institutes in Europe. I have nothing to do with policy though. Mostly work on supply chain disruption in materials. More material sciences than climate science (have a degree in chemical engineering), but I try to stay up-to-date on the general state of climate science.
        If you’re serious about understanding why the vast majority of scientists have no problem with the science behind the climate change debate, why don’t you try reading the book that ‘our side’ uses? It’ll teach you a lot more than what you read on the internet blogosphere. If only you’ll see what we talk about when we talk about CC.
        Note that it is quite technical with lots of chemistry and physics. Not a shred of policy or social sciences. You should like it.
        Have fun!

      • Ben, if you are a scientist then you know how to do simple research.
        Compare the expansion of coal plants in China to the expansion of wind and solar (take out hydro, that was a one shot deal) in ABSOLUTE energy units.
        (Please don’t try to compare PERCENT increase of a miniscule number to another an order of magnitude greater.)

      • i George. What in the world does that have to do with the physics and chemistry driving our climate? And anyway, I’m European, so lets talk about Europe. What do I know about China, except for some random numbers that pop up in the media here and there?

      • Catcracking; well said.
        But wait; didn’t we hear that two young and very successful inventors (Messers Ford and Edison) just got together to develop and market an electric car which they both feel is far superior to gas engine technology and is the future of automobiles.
        Uh, oh! Latest news is Edison has declared bankruptcy of his Edison Storage Battery Company in West Orange NJ. Thomas indicated the problem was that despite extensive research and development, many of the batteries did not last through the warranty period and he had to provide free replacements. He was never able to reach “breakeven”.
        Both Ford and Edison were confident that the problems with storage batteries would be overcome in the near future.
        (If any of the youngsters out there think this is fiction, look it up. And then look up George Santayana and his view on learning from history.)

      • Benben, I see you’re still promoting “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics”
        The book soils itself in the intro where, due to AGW, the authors suggest we could experience temperatures higher than the previous 6,000 years, perhaps as far back as the dinosaurs. They also suggest an increase in CO2 will bring climatic extremes…more intense, more frequent and longer lasting heat waves, coastal flooding from sea levels higher by as much as 5-6 meters.
        When I choose a science book to read I always peruse the intros…and in this case your book doesn’t pass the smell test.
        Regards, M.W.Plia.

      • BenBen, I was responding to your 3:55 post where you said:
        “If you look at the speed with which renewables are deployed in China and India….” YOU brought up China and India.
        As others have pointed out, in absolute terms, China’s and India’s new coal plants far outpace “renewables” in those counties.
        Then at 9:26:
        “I’m European, so lets talk about Europe. ”
        OK, I can switch topics.
        So after the massive “green” push in Europe the last decade what is the result?
        – in energy bills (are they not now double US prices?)
        – CO2 reduction (NONE).
        – Fleeing of heavy industry (e.g. Steel) to China and India?

      • MW, you’re supposed to finish a book before giving a review, not base it on the first paragraph of the intro. Obviously it lays out the background against which CC is of interest to people. Shees. Can you imagine a student walking into my office and complaining that he/she didn’t like a course without actually taking it? You just disqualify yourself as someone so resistant to other thoughts you won’t even look at the full index. Sad!

      • Not a review Benben, I said “peruse”. And finding that kind of rhetoric on any page in an academic text book is highly questionable.
        To infer large climate change from an unknown effect estimated (not measured) in tenths of a degree is to confuse the imagination with reality.
        Sad?…hardly, my comment stands.
        Regards, MW.

      • I would be super interested to read your opinion on the actual science contained in the meat of the book (e.g. not the introduction). I’m not at all interested in you proclaiming your intellectual fortitute by refusing to read a book. sigh.

    • Hmmm, interesting “memory” you’ve got there. I highly doubt anyone said that, and even if someone did, it would simply have been one person’s opinion. Furthermore, you are truly delusional if you believe “the world is more strongly united around green themes” now. But then, you warminist proponents of all things “green” were never good with reality. Sad!

      • ha, hello my old friend Cobb. The US is divided as ever, but I was clearly referring to the rest of the world. As you can see from the other article on the frontpage of WUWT today, even the gulf states are coming around! That is astonishing considering where they get their money from. Perhaps they acknowledge something that you don’t, Bruce? Either that, or it’s a global conspiracy of course. Haha.

      • Poor ben. Delusional as ever. He’s been telling Greenie myths, fairy tales and outright lies for so long, even he appears to believe them.

      • bruce cobb, I hope you don’t talk like that to people in real life. It’s rather unpleasant.

    • @Benben:
      “…….Hmmm I remember WUWT predicting that the ascendance of Trump would spell the immediate end of the green lunacy. If anything it seems to have done the opposite. The world is more strongly united around green themes than ever before. Most curious!…..”
      “…..Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation …”.
      “……Humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have
      gone so far with the decarbonization project without a
      serious challenge in terms of engineering reality…….”
      – Michael Kelly, Prof. Electrical Engineering, Cambridge
      The problem here is that those who believe in renewables (mainly wind and solar energy) treat them more more less like a religion, much the same as they do climate change alarmism. They simply ignore or reject what physicists and engineers say when they report that wind and solar simply won’t work. Everybody is supposed to hop on the renewables energy train because its supporters think it is such a great idea and there are so many of those supporters. Just ignore the poor density, diffuse nature and unreliability of wind and solar energy…..those are the physics of wind and solar which makes them a bad choice, as the Google and Cambridge engineers referenced above probably know full well.
      There is nothing new here that hasn’t happened before in human history. March proudly down that wrong road in life with full faith in those who are leading us off the edge of a 50-foot cliff without parachutes. Why we humans follow in such blind ignorance is what is REALLY curious, benben.

      • Look, I have a degree in chemical engineering. I’m quite aware of the basics of thermodynamics. All this talk about ‘renewables are a religion’ is just you not paying attention to how fast technology evolves. With respect to google: they recently announced that they’re running close to 100% of their operations on renewables. But yeah sure, cling to a quote you found on the internet if it makes you feel vindicated in your beliefs. Why not.

      • @Benben: Glad to hear you have a degree in chemical engineering (although you said you were an environmental scientist in one of your comments above).
        It is good to have faith in technology and its ability to overcome problems and roadblocks to human advancement. I too am a strong believer in technology and applaud whenever some technological advancement is announced that will hopefully make it into commercial production. The issue here, as I see it, is to what degree technology, science and engineering can overcome those problems and roadblocks. Do we see any proof that a particular problem or roadblock is being overcome? Are they capable of being overcome? What are the limits of technology’s ability to overcome problems and roadblocks?
        The solar panel was invented back in 1954 Benben, so it’s been around for some 64 years now. Yet, here in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world, barely 1% of our electricity was generated by solar last year according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. Coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro still dominate. Wind is at just 5.6%.
        I don’t know about you Benben, but when I see a particular technology (in this case, solar) still struggling to find a meaningful place for itself in our energy mix after 64 years, I have a hard time believing that its technological limits have not been reached….or are being approached. The wind turbine has been around a long time too, and the story is much the same for it as far as I am concerned.
        My suggestion is that you take some time to ask yourself the questions I posed in the second paragraph above. Increasingly, it appears to me that that most wind and solar energy supporters don’t take the time and effort to do that.
        Physics is a stubborn thing Benben. It usually isn’t interested in changing or bending to accommodate us humans as we would like it to. Technology DOES have its limits Benben. To believe it doesn’t is religion.

      • so in your hypothesis the $/w price of solar and wind should have remained relatively stable in the past decade or so. Could you find us nice graph illustrating the actual price paid for, lets say offshore wind, over the past ten years? I know I have looked at those and I see pretty dramatic improvements in the last few years even. But maybe I’m looking in the wrong corner of the internet, so I’d be happy to see what you come up with.

      • benben said: With respect to google: they recently announced that they’re running close to 100% of their operations on renewables.

        What that probably means is that they’re paying above-market rates to their utility (which has maybe 10% of its electricity supplied by renewables) in order to look acceptably green to activists who are nagging it. (Other tech firms are doing this: Microsoft is one.) It is still relying on a non-renewable grid for reliable power. It is not using its own solar and wind generators to power itself.

      • @Benben: I said nothing about price in my comments to you. And can only assume you are talking about energy production prices, not the cost of building the wind and solar farms. At any rate, I would appreciate it if you didn’t change the subject.
        In case you misunderstood me (which you may have done), the argument I have been making is about the cost and amount of resources needed to put solar and wind farms in place as a meaningful replacement for fossil fuel and nuclear power plants.
        And in case you actually did not read either of the links I provided, allow me to quote from one of them for you:
        “……….A 1000-megawatt (MV) wind farm would use up to 360 square miles of land to produce the same
        amount of energy as a 1000-MV nuclear plant.
        To meet 8% of the U.K.’s energy needs, one would have to build 44,000 offshore wind turbines; these
        would have an area of 13,000 square miles, which would fill the entire 3000 km coastline of the U.K.
        with a strip 4 km wide
        To replace the 440 MW of U.S. generation expected to be retired over the next 25 years, it would take
        29.3 billion solar PV panels and 4.4 million battery modules. The area covered by these panels would be
        equal to that of the state of New Jersey. To produce this many panels, it would take 929 years, assuming
        they could be built at the pace of one per second…….”.
        When U.S. and U.K. energy consumers get the bill for these massive farms, the price of electricity coming from them is going to be the last thing on their minds. The cost of Germany’s Energiewende alone, according to a study from the Dusseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE), will be 520 billion euros by 2025. And Germany has the high electricity bills to prove it. Whether Energiewende will continue to have the support of the German people remains to be seen.
        And the shortfalls of wind and solar due to the nature of their physics has already been mentioned. Do those shortfalls make wind and solar worth 520 billion euros? Most of us here at WUWT will probably say no, and I agree.
        I have no problem with individual countries taking steps forward toward a post-fossil fuels era. The issue here is the means to that end, not the end itself. Right now, nuclear is the only technology capable of scaling up with a rational amount of resources expended to replace our fossil fuel plants. Do me a favor Benben and check out fourth generation nuclear power including Bill Gates’ Traveling Wave Reactor and GE-Hitachi’s PRISM reactors, just to name two.

      • CD, a couple of years ago offshore wind turbines were 2.3MW on average with a ~30% capacity factor (which is probably what your numbers are based on). Now they’re installing 8MW wind turbines with upwards of 50% capacity factor. Designs are on the table for up to 15MW turbines in the near future. Those are almost order of magnitude improvements in the span of a decade or two. It’s called progress, and it’s an awesome thing. Really sad that the WUWT crowd doesn’t see the amazing technical achievements and just thinks everything is a massive green conspiracy.

      • @Benben: First of all, the links and quotes I provided are not “my” numbers. They are from an electrical engineer.
        Second, claiming that these new turbines have a 50% capacity factor is easy to do. And yes, I noticed quite a few websites that are claiming that. Whether those claims actually pan out or not remains to be seen. I would like to see real electrical production numbers versus nameplate capacity from one or more actual farms where that capacity factor is said to exist. Do you have those numbers? Please provide links (which you haven’t been doing).
        At any rate Benben, as in Germany for example, that wind and solar energy is still be produced at times (I’ve heard oftentimes) when it is not needed. They export the excess and get complaints about it from neighboring countries (I believe Poland is one of them). Keeping the grid stable when this is happening can still be a challenge, and I am still waiting for that miracle storage solution to solve these issues. Installing wind farms when the storage and grid stability issues are still outstanding is placing the cart before the horse. It’s doing things backwards. And then there is still the issue of the birds they kill as well.
        But you hang in there anyway Benben. Maybe, just maybe, your blind faith will pay off someday.

      • Benben,
        As an engineer, I am quite familiar with scaling up to larger capacity plants, I hardly see it a great breakthrough to make something that doesn’t make economic sense and is intermittent even a larger white Elephant. The cost of wind energy remains to be much more expensive than fossil or Nuclear which we are shutting down with irrational green energy policies. If you don’t believe it note that the cost of electricity in Germany is 3 times that in the US, and fossil Plants don’t kill birds.
        That alone will send manufacturing and other business overseas to China where they have coal fired plants with cheap Energy.

      • ……and one other thing Benben. If wind and solar were the wave of the future, they would not need governments to force them down the throats of the energy industry and their customers as is now happening, especially with the costs involved. The private sector would embrace wind and solar on its own. Germany is the biggest example of this.

      • Benben
        Watch this video as see what a real technological breakthrough looks like, and it’s significant impact over many decades. Also note the successful significant scale-up during commercialization in a few years.

      • Pfff as I say to my students, there are no stupid questions, but there are questions you could have answered yourself with a bit of google-fu. Go find your own performance data of 8MW wind turbines.
        Look, I have an RSS feed of both and and I read them side by side. I suggest you guys do the same. It’s very interesting. You’ll find all the positive renewables news there (they also don’t like trump, just ignore those articles, just like I occasionally ignore the political rants posted on this site).

      • Benben May 31, 2017 at 12:40 am says:
        “….Pfff as I say to my students, there are no stupid questions, but there are questions you could have answered yourself with a bit of google-fu. Go find your own performance data of 8MW wind turbines….”
        YOU are the one who appears to be making claims here about wind’s and solar’s commercial viability, not me. I have repeatedly provided links and quotes in my comments to support my argument; you have not done so for your arguments. YOU appear to support or defend the claim regarding 50% wind turbine capacity factor, not me. YOU need to provide the electricity production data to support that claim, not me. You have not done so.
        Telling me to find the performance data for a claim you are making is a cop-out. As far as I am concerned, this demonstrates that your entire argument still bears the hallmark of religion more than anything else….the same as the climate scare narrative.

      • @Benben: Discussion reopened. Let’s analyze that 19.35% number Benben.
        1) The number for wind energy was as of the end of last year. The EIA just came out with the updated number. The 5.6% number (now 7.10%) for wind was from them, not me. More wind turbines means a death sentence for even more birds.
        2) Solar is still only 1.47%. Still not impressed after 63 years of the solar panel’s existence.
        3) Not everyone likes categorizing hydro (8.67%) as green and renewable because of environmental impact
        ” But it’s not considered renewable by everyone. It comes with some “pretty significant environmental baggage,” says John Seebach, senior director of federal river management with the conservation group American Rivers. “The reluctance to call hydropower a renewable energy is based on the impact of dams on fisheries and water flows.”
        Several large dams block migrating fish from reaching their spawning grounds. Dam reservoirs impact flows, temperatures and silt loads of rivers and streams. Over the years, these factors have drastically reduced fish populations. At one time, the Klamath River in Oregon and California had salmon runs in the millions. The construction of four dams along the river reduced the fish runs to a fraction of that….”.
        Does it sound green to you, Benben?
        4) The EIA’s renewable number includes biomass (1.64%) which I have no problems with. I was not arguing against it.
        Nor do I have a problem with geothermal (0.47%). Total: 19.35%.
        I’ll leave the discussion reopened if you would like to continue Benben. Otherwise, consider it reclosed.

  29. USA Today’s headline this morning:
    Disease collides with changing climates
    In Brazil, an outbreak of yellow fever could be a global danger sign.

    Dear President Trump,
    The BS is not stopping. Please get us out of the Paris deal.

    • or, you know, you might have been wrong all along and climate change is actually a thing. Be skeptical of your own skepticism, Steve 😉

      • Benben, WUWT readers understand a lot more than most people realize. “Climate Change” is not an apt description of what is actually being discussed.
        The man-made climate change concern originates with the atmospheric portion of CO2 increasing from 0.028% (measured in ice cores at 280 parts per million) for pre-industrial times to the current 0.04% (400ppm) and the portion of that increase that is from fossil fuel combustion. The 150 year instrumental record indicates an increase of 0.8 degrees C. to the mean, which coincides with the climate’s recovery from The Little Ice Age (1250-1850AD) that started with the end of the Medieval Warm Period (750-1250AD).
        The actual mechanism (the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect) is not in question. CO2 is a radiatively active molecule, it is largely infrared resonant at an amplitude of 15 microns for which the corresponding temperature is over 50 degrees C. below zero. This is why the AGW play occurs well above the cloud deck (still within the troposphere) where there is no water vapor.
        Adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises the ERL (Effective Radiation Level) to a colder level thus disturbing the equilibrium where outgoing terrestrial longwave IR (infrared radiation) balances incoming solar shortwave IR. The accepted math yields a forcing calculation of 3.7 watts/meter squared per atmospheric doubling of CO2 (560ppm) from pre-industrial ice core calculated levels (280ppm) which translates to roughly an increase of +1 degree C to the surface mean temperature. To the extent this “increase” can change the climate is where the science ends and the supposition begins as 3.7 is less than .003% of incoming solar at 1362 watts/meter squared.
        Where the concern kicks in is the positive water vapour feedback hypothesis. The IPCC endorsed numerically modeled temperature projections to 2100 include an assumed feedback response over and above the “known” effect of CO2 (~+1C per doubling of concentration) due to increased water vapour from the Anthro CO2 warming. Water vapour is the most abundant and forceful ‘greenhouse’ gas in the atmosphere, ergo even more greenhouse warming, supposedly two or three times as much as the original increase in CO2.
        The higher estimates of climate sensitivity, the origin of the catastrophic scenarios thus the need to mitigate, are based on the water vapor feedback/amplification “triggered” by AGW concept. However, there are uncertainties. More water vapor from increased evaporation (itself a profound cooling effect) means more daylight clouds in the lower atmosphere which reflect incoming solar while shading the surface, thus a significant cooling effect to counter the AGW effect along with the nightly warming effect of the low level clouds.
        CO2 has risen monotonically since we began measuring it 60 years ago. During this time there have been decadal periods where the temperature mean has risen, fallen and times when it has gone in neither direction. So the instrumental record either does not support AGW theory, or the effect is statistically negligible. Either way the need to impose taxes, a cap and trade system and other costly methods (think replacing coal with wind/solar) to reduce combustion emissions is not justified.
        Regards, M.W.Plia.

      • Climate change is actually “a thing”, but catastrophic climate change is like Nessie the Loch Ness Monster. Lots of reports that she exists, but never any compelling evidence.

      • M.W.Plia, just a polite question: was that comment really a response to what I said or are you just copy/pasting? Because I don’t remember water feedback etc. being a topic of discussion in this thread.

      • Oops, 3.7 is less than .3 % of 1362 w/m2 (not .003%).
        Benben, yes my comment is an update of what I’ve said to you before, it is my writing. The “positive water vapor feedback” always applies to any discussion involving climate change as a concern. According to the “science” this so called “feedback” is the origin of the concern.

      • Its kind of boring to keep rehashing the same discussion over and over MW. This is about trump pulling the US out of the paris agreement, which is far more interesting.

      • So benben can’t discuss the facts and only wants the politics. Which makes sense for a self declared climate trough feeder.

      • benben
        “Climate change” is a meaningless expression, a redundant tautology.
        Climate by its very nature as a dissipative chaotic system is always changing, it has no more fundamental property than this.
        “Climate” means “climate change” and the “change” is redundant and cacophanous.
        No-one who fails to understand this is a “climate scientist” by any stretch of the imagination.

      • *sigh* being pedantic has never won any argument. We all know what we mean by the term ‘climate change’. But call it antropological component of climate change if you so wish

      • “Climate by its very nature as a dissipative chaotic system…”
        Climate isn’t even a system. It is a statistical average of weather phenomena.

      • I have no idea what your point is. I didn’t provide a link, but there’s enough information for you to read the article.
        The article asks:
        “Is our changing climate contributing to flare-ups of infectious diseases?”
        Irresponsible journalism that I label as BS makes claims and implications that are backed up with absolutely nothing. Global warming/Climate Change is H.L. Mencken style propaganda designed to control the population. The simple message is being repeated over and over again buried in every news item and scholarly publication possible in hopes of finally being perceived as truth when nearly all of it is is BS.

  30. Great letter. The ‘diplomatic blowback” to which it refers is a product of two things. First, while the Paris agreement contains no individual country targets, it contains a commitment to submit emission reduction plans every five years – in perpetuity. Each of those plans offers another opportunity for domestic and foreign lobby groups to wail publicly about the (inevitable) failure to reduce emissions enough to satisfy them. Membership in the Paris agreement sets up a government to being endlessly on the defensive. Second, the core of the international support for the global warming catastrophist theory lies in the Green Parties of Europe that hold inordinate influence there. They seek by whatever means possible to undermine the economies of western countries.

    • Not really true Bob. 1) the aim is 80% reduction is 2050. So as far as countries are not going to commit to that, lobby groups will ‘wail publicly’. As soon as its achieved, all will be happy and well in green land. 2) what really undermines western countries is the massive transfer of money from our economies to dictatorial petro-states. Every dollar EU countries invest in making energy at home rather than buying gas from Russia is a massive win in terms of security. That goes double for throwing money at Saudi Arabia and its other main export: Wahhabism.

      • But the reality is that Europe will never be free of imported energy sources unless she wants to return to the Middle Ages. Until feasible storage capability is invented (notice I said invented, not developed; the technology simply does not exist), 100% renewables (or even 80%) is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy. A modern society requires a stable grid which renewables.without some form of backup/fill-in are not able to provide.

      • who said anything about 100%? Our current target is 30% in 2030. We don’t need to be free of imports, just not be so dependent on them that Russia can charge enough to finance their corrupt regime and a whole bunch of wars, in Europe, with our European money! That is such a reasonable thing to aim for, it boggles the mind WUWT is campaigning against it.

      • But Russia doesn’t wage “a whole bunch of wars”. That’s what the US does…

      • “Every dollar EU countries invest in making energy at home rather than buying gas from Russia is a massive win in terms of security.”
        I’ll agree with that. When will European politicians wake up to this fact?

      • “But Russia doesn’t wage “a whole bunch of wars”. That’s what the US does…”
        Russia wages a whole bunch of “Proxy” wars.
        They’ve been doing this since right after World War II, and the U.S. has to go in and clean up the messes the Russians and Chinese create.
        The Russians and Chinese like to start lots of little fires around the world to keep the U.S. busy and keep the focus off of themselves. In the process, millions of people die.

      • I’m not saying that the US is behaving saintly on the world stage, but from an EU perspective: Ukraine and Georgia.

      • “Russia wages a whole bunch of “Proxy” wars”
        No it doesn’t. You’re stuck back in the 60s – late 80s. Name one war in the last 25 years that Russia has been directly involved with, not in (or next to) their own country (Chechnya is Russia; Donbass is next door; there was no war in Crimea), or proxied, in which they weren’t invited to participate (like Syria).
        The US is king of proxy wars.

      • “I’m not saying that the US is behaving saintly on the world stage, but from an EU perspective: Ukraine and Georgia.”
        Georgia is next door to Russia, and apart from Khrushchev’s administrative decree in the 50’s (I think) Ukraine has always been a part of Russia. The east part (which is mostly populated by Russians) wants to return to Russia; the Nazi (literally) west part doesn’t.

      • oh, you’re a Russian troll. It’s always annoying when you encounter them on the internet. Your English is pretty good though!

      • Oops. good catch. I went too far and said Ukraine, but actually should have said Crimea.
        Right Sector in western Ukraine is definitely Nazi. Literally. Holdovers from WWII. They exert a big influence in Ukraine.

      • “Every dollar EU countries invest in making energy at home rather than buying gas from Russia is a massive win in terms of security. ”

        So why have the EU states mostly tried to ban fracking? It’s even having a hard time in the UK, despite backing by parliament and the cabinet.

      • “Every dollar EU countries invest in making energy at home rather than buying gas from Russia is a massive win in terms of security.”
        So why is France pledging to shut down its nuclear plants?

      • Roger: because they’re old and unsafe. The nuclear powerplant across the border in belgium near to where I live has had to do 15 emergency stops in the past 10 years, including some leading to radiation leaks.
        (can you imagine the backup power needed on standby to deal with that? Everyone here complains about the backup you need for renewables, but everyone conveniently ignores nuclear needs exactly the same amount of backup. You just end up using it less).
        Building new nuclear plants is just very expensive compared to gas and renewables, so nobody will do that expect countries that also want to have nuclear bombs and thus need a nuclear industrial base. Has nothing to do with climate change or renewables. They’re just at the end of their technical lifespan and technology has moved on.

      • “No it doesn’t. You’re stuck back in the 60s – late 80s. Name one war in the last 25 years that Russia has been directly involved with,”
        Ok, how about Syria.
        And include North Korea in that list. I suppose you could include Yemen in the list, since the Iranians are fighting a proxy war there and the Russians are supporting the Iranians.
        I’ll agree that there are less fires today than from the 1960’s to 1980’s, but there are still fires ongoing and they are very dangerous fires these Russians have started.
        The Russian’s efforts are about to destabilize the whole of Europe, by forcing refugees out of the Middle East, with the assistance of a lackadaisical EU leadership, and have a very good chance of culminating in a nuclear war in North Korea and environs in the not-too-distant future. Russia built North Korea its first nuclear reactor.

      • “TA, it seems we together slayed the russian Troll! Congrats!”
        I read a report about Russian trolls a few months ago in regard to the Russians trying to subvert the U.S. elections, and as part of that effort Russia employs large numbers of people, puts them in a cubicle in a building and their job is to troll the internet writing posts promoting and defending Putin and Russia and tearing down the opposition.
        The troll that was interviewed for the report didn’t have his heart in the job. He said they did a lot of trolling but that noone paid them any attention! So I guess when they realize they are not making an impact, they lose heart. Maybe that’s the case here.

  31. Dear Mr. President,
    Remember your core principles of “America First” and “Make America Great Again”. Then, don’t simply say we’re going exit the Paris “agreement”, which the American people never agreed to, but physically tear it up, on camera. Send a message. It was never about the environment, or “saving the planet” (whatever that means). We are counting on you to do the right thing.
    All those who love our country.

  32. Could not have said it better. I strongly suggest you post this article on your Facebook page, send it to the White house, do anything you can to make it reach the President, in the end his decision.
    I say this, if he does not exit the Paris Agreement he will never get my vote again, never ever, no siree.
    By the way, is there anywhere where we can sign a petition to the President?

  33. It’s a fine summary article, in line with bi-partisan economic Trump message. A tactic I have some doubts about.
    The debate has swelled as there is an immediate decision in the broader forum “stay or leave” Paris to be considered. Cwon’s First Law of climate politics again is observed. All the old smaller techno driven illusions about the merits of the AGW “science” flounder about appropriately given the weak empirical supports. Not just for climate hard line advocates but a substantial core of the skeptic regulars with the delusion the debate could be won accepting the science twisting torture that alarmists demand in the public forum through a coordinated and contrived culture of largely like minded political group think that shout “science” to drown out opposition. Only possible with uniparty academia and media collusion. This is the essential fraud attempt in narrow “expert” rooms to dictate “we know best and will decide for you” forms of fascism that seems to be growing leaps and bounds in recent decades and notably on the climate theme “consensus” with UN authority and agenda supports. Climate is PC culture and Americans in large numbers despise it.
    Fortunately, the first law kicks in as the forum increases in size and more common sense is added to the debate. The illusion of a valid or fair science debate, laughable as this claim may be, falls away. The broader forum quickly sees and is again reminded of the climate agenda for the money grubbing, leftist central planning gruel that it always was and can’t escape. No amount of central planning support can over come the core lack of classic science (empirical evidence, actual proof) or hide the crass political culture driving blood lust climate ambition dressed as science. For example;
    While the climate agenda can fire up many a left wing enclave the general population has basically figured it out. That’s what these surveys, no matter how biased they try, like the mendacious Yale report linked in the article are telling you. The entire Papal authority hardly moved the dial on climate advocacy inside a closed group with some anti-market/industry Utopian Predispositions.
    I focus on the obtuse skeptic and the losing tactics they so often choose. Fortunately the obtuse alarmist is again bailing out society by making fools of themselves. The bitter clinging to small room authority appeals to the larger forum look even more pathetic with each redundant attempt. The public has turned as the very Trump existence indicates. The narrow minded pinhead leftist climate commissar more identified by the crowd then ever before. If only the pinhead technical skeptics would accept what the actual reality of the Green movement and climate agenda always was a complete victory would be achieved.
    I expect the Paris exit but I also expect limiting kiss-in-the-ring to the green blob this week as well. The President is showing finesse to the block that hates him for some deeper political consideration I consider a huge mistake. This week will be a good indicator. I give credit to the President for realizing core skepticism helped his ticket and pushed the RINO laden GOP somewhat back in the smaller state direction. They call it pragmatism while I think of it as giving safe harbor to people who always will hate you and America.

  34. A simple conjugation of exiting Paris:
    Paris Sortie
    Paris Sorti
    Paris – Sorted!

  35. As a uk citizen, may I say Amen to this post. Be true, Trump , to those who voted for you, as would I if I was a us citizen.
    You need strength of purpose to wrest the monumental corruption that is destroying your Country.
    May I on your behalf, urge all readers to read Martin Armstrong economics. His grasp on all your behalfs is critical.
    Thank you

  36. I agree, get the heck out of this leftwing socialist trojan horse whose goals are to change the global economy away from capitalism, redistribute wealth to developing nations so they can build economic infrastructure where multinational companies can then move factories to in order to profit from cheap labor, to control the earth’s resources and hence global economy, and to control virtually every aspect of the lives of all humans on earth (since virtually everything we do has a carbon footprint)…

    • The three year exit or the whole protocol method?
      The whole UN cabal must be left. The President deserves credit but I don’t see the team in place to deal with the social adjustment required. The backlash will be huge and directed at his elimination and paid AGW supporters know it’s existential.
      Discrediting the underlying junk science premise should have been on the list. The entire consensus will be staging riots as early as Friday. The reaction will be as intense as his election win with all the usual suspects and more.
      Questioning the NWO directly can trigger a financial crisis or worse will be their claim. Restoring reason is a radical act.
      I’m grateful despite the delay and the limited tactics to this point. It’s a win as long as all kinds of backdoors aren’t left open on purpose. Targeting the Greenshirts in 2020 is a political imperative.
      Off the scale hate about to be unleashed.

    • The MSM have used up all their strongest invective for trivia such as “they talked to Russians! Umm – Err!”
      They’ve nothing in reserve for this except the usual c!rap.
      Of course rent-a mob will be out.
      If it gets any worse Trump will simply need to declare a state of emergency and martial law.

      • Only disappointment, it may be fake news, was AP (right, a pathetic news source to begin with) claiming “caveats” that the decision isn’t final.
        The whole UN Climate exit is what is required.
        Dr. Lindzen next to the President would be the best optics.

  37. Hi Mum, why should I wash my fingers? Because of bacteria? Bullshit, I cannot see any. It’s all fake.

Comments are closed.