Emotions seem to be running high over whether trump will stay or exit the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015. Earlier, we reported President Trump will pull the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement, according to several sources on Wednesday.
Since WUWT is read by both sides of the issue, I thought I’d run a poll to ask, so here goes.
I got first vote – It’s a 100% consensus!
Here is how to vote for this pole
There’s another such poll active over at the warmist site accuweather.com:
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/trump-reportedly-decides-to-pull-us-out-of-historic-paris-climate-agreement/70001809
That has a different readership; your vote may be ‘important’ [is any internet poll ‘important’?] there.
Auto
Here 93.35% ‘No’. Might that reflect readers’ opinions more generally?
There – about 52% ‘No’.
It is now 52 to 42 to pull out.
Oh My.
Exit is winning 53% : 42%
Another Global Warming poll goes horribly wrong.
Is it possible to vote a second time here – or there?
Auto,
Aware that that – if true – it may tend to bias the outcome.
Let’s be fair – were such a poll on Michael Mann’s personal site, and it allowed multiple voting, would readers here accept its outcome uncritically?
Absolutely uncritically?
Even if the result was – say – 97% ‘Yes’??
I just voted in the Accuweather poll… Currently 55% Leave to 40% Stay.
Now 58% say NO!!
Oh dear, oh dear we’ll all be roooooned!!!
Currently 58% No, 37% yes, 5% Undecided at Accuweather.
Accuweather poll now 60% no, 36% yes, 5% undecided (those are the ones bad at math I guess or maybe Accuweather is bad at math!
On this site the majority, at this time, want the Paris Stupidity.
http://kfyo.com/should-trump-withdraw-from-the-paris-climate-agreement-poll/
Auto, if Mann had voting at his site, he’d wouldn’t need to allow multiple voting. He’d just ban and erase basically anyone who voted for us to dump Paris.
Graham,
It doesn’t say how many have voted.
From a moment ago:
Do you believe the U.S. should remain in the Paris Climate Agreement?
Yes
34%
No
62%
Undecided
4%
Total votes: 1065
Accuweather is now 65-31 against Paris.
I believe heavy WUWT turnout over there at accuweather has skewed their poll a bit. After all, this is the #1 climate site, and accuweather has stiffer competition in their niche. But they’re also warmists, and you’d think the Paris huggers would be doing better.
Its 66% to leave there as well.
And 67% say No to remain.
67% v 29% now. Hehe
Can’t find the poll at AccuWeather anymore. I guess the results did not please them. Also, the AccuWeather disclaimer on climate change favors data from tree rings etc without even a mention of ARGO or satellites. That’s pathetic.
They replaced the article with the poll with an article about the withdrawal. ALL of the comments have gone away.
I tried to vote twice (Chicago Style but not dead yet) and it would not let me. So the accuracy of this poll is not going to be influenced by “packing” but if you ask the fans on the steps of Dodger Stadium about “should baseball be banned?”, you might get a similar response. Not sure of the value of this poll except to gauge opinion of the readers which will certainly favor a “pull-out”.
Still 100% after 15 votes
Voted NO!
Not going to support a Trillion $$$ throw away over a piffling change in the wildly guessed temperature change, in the far future.
Hopefully that is the message we can keep hammering away at.
Never mind the complex scientific arguments that 97% of real people don’t understand: just stick with the KISS principle:- trillions of dollars to have an almost non-existent effect on an unmeasurably small change in some wildly guessed temperature. Why would any sane person do that?
Exit in the most expedient way possible.
The most expedient way is to give 12mo notice to pull out of UNFCCCP.
There three legs which matter on this stool : US China and India. Kick one of the legs out and the rest of those sitting on it will find their collective arse on the floor.
Come on Donald J.T. , it’s about time you managed to carry out at least one of your policies. You need a win and this one is down to you. You don’t need congress , dems or reps, SCOTUS or anyone else, so if you flunk out “the buck stops here”.
If you don’t follow through on this one you’re going to be looking like a lame Donald duck.
Yes. UNFCCC exit is 12 months. By article 25, all subsidiary agreements (Paris) automatically also exited. And by US law passed in 1994 (PL103-236), as of April 2016 US cannot offer any support anyway to UNFCCC or its subsidiary orgnizations (Green Climate Fund, IPCC) because it explicitly recognized Palestine as a member state.
Can’t be an accident that the abbreviation reads UNF CCCP.
Rud, how do we get back the money Obama wasted on the Green Climate Fund after April 2016? Attach his pension?
ristvan, I understand that in the past US Presidents have opted out of treaties (such as UNFCC) that had been in force with Senate consent, and that the Supreme Court did not intervene. Is that a sure thing?
Ron Clutz, some US legal facts. A treaty for US constitutional purposes (Article 2, section 2.2) was definitively defined by Thomas Jefferson as Sec. state before he became president. About 1800: a treaty is eternally binding save by mutual consent. UNFCCC is not therefore a treaty, as it has an opt out so is NOT etwrnally binding sve by mutual consent. It is legally under long prevailing US constitutional law a Congressional Pact, same as NAFTA. Requires only majority passage in both houses of Congress. And under US law, the President can opt out of this Pact on 12 months notice. And that has multiple legal consequences explained in a previous comment.
Cool it, Greg. Trump is not one to take insults lightly. He’s just as likely to defy your demand!
Dave Fair May 31, 2017 at 3:25 pm
That’s peanuts. Clawback his speaking fees.
Or the $65 million from the book advance.
Or sell his Peace Prize for the metal content.
“12mo notice to pull out”
And a 0 month notice to cut funding.
President Trump has promised to “exit” or pull out of the Paris climate deal, which he should do, …and then he should immediately issue a POTUS directive to all Department heads and Agencies Directors that no more Credit Card “charges” and/or Expense/Travel Vouchers associated with Global Warming and/or Climate Change will be reimbursable from or paid for via taxpayer funds.
91.43% ‘no’ as I type this.
Let’s try to make the final tally 97%.
http://cosy.com/y17/97pctCoryGartner.jpg
Oh No, it must be real, he is using the double finger point
Umm, that’s Cory Gardner, Republican Senator from Colorado. I’m pretty sure he’s not buying in to the “97% consensus”. I’ll have to find the video to get proper context.
Yes, how come the vote isn’t 97% NO? That would be more “equal justice”…
Look at the top of the frame . It has nothing to do with the weather .
Just the mystical 97% injecting itself into all human deliberations .
To be more specific , Gardner was making some point about Gorsuch voting with the majority in 97% of his decisions .
53/57=92.98% “no” now. Not quite 97%.
But it MUST be 97%! Hurry up, call John Cook!
Yes. 97% is much more believable. We’ll just make “adjustments” after the poll closes to make it so.
1 vote to staying…must be Nicky ! LOL
I’ll bet it’s Griff.
Sorry, Griff is obviously too young to vote !! LOL
I am!
At least you would think that from my youthful good looks and full head of hair…
I take it the other side is A) off spewing carbon on leisure time, B) working hard for a carbon-spewing organization, or C) seeking company with carbon-spewing activists claiming to be something else.
Crap. I misread the question and voted yes when I meant to vote no…. :S
Claim it was a hanging chad.
Nice try, Mike Mann.
MikeM – To correct your wrong, clear your browser history/clear ‘cookies’ then log in once again and vote no to even it out, log out and clear your browser history/clear ‘cookies’ another time, log back in and vote no again – to reflect your true vote!!!!!!!
(Anthony and/or mods – Will this be an acceptable course of action??)
No: 93.95% (202 votes)
Going towards 97% 🙂
“Bennett: Right decision is to pull out of Paris climate deal”
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5454637287001/?#sp=show-clips
He makes a very valid point in that video. We have reduced our carbon emissions a substantial amount just letting the free market forces do their thing. Governments should stay out of the way, they only ever make problems worse in unexpected ways. It is a clear message that the American public can be proud of without kowtowing to some unelected bureaucracy of elitists too busy virtue signalling to care about the reality of the situation.
My vote is for the solution Ristvan has recommended these past months, pull out of the UNFCCC by enforcing a law that is already on the books. No need to involve congress or the SCOTUS. The president just needs to do his job and enforce the law.
This may be our only chance ever to vote on CAGW 🙂
I think climate bureaucrats should vote “NO” too. If Paris climate deal is void, then there would be something to discuss/propose on the next lavish conference!
As if they need an excuse.
94.62% consensus… to leave the Paris Accord #CLEXIT
The only problem I have is that he seems to think he’s still on a TV show and is stringing people out with a variant of “Who shot J.R.”. We do not want to have to wait till next season. Do it already.
94.44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444.
It is important that we convey to others the reality that there is no measured data (that I have seen) that demonstrates that CO2 drives the change in temperature. Kuo, showed a slight phase lag in short times data correlating temperature and CO2 showing the probability of temperature changing before CO2, and the Vostok data as first presented shows a notable delay with again CO2 changing after temperature. So the simplest of minds should understand the simple law of cause and effect. We do not have to even address that the models are not validated, under constant adjustment, and with too many empirical coefficients to gamble. By the way, am I not correct that the models are steady state? Adjusted with transient data? (If so not even a MS thesis would have gotten away with that)
Victor G;
Pedant Watch notes your:
“…..there is no measured data….”
Data is PLURAL and — to be grammatically correct — it shd. read “…. there ARE no measured data …..”
A common grammatical error, it must be said.
Which way will Trump vote with his pen on this issue?
Bailing out of the UNFCCC is the best path and a two birds with one stone solution.
OUT !!!
Solar stocks drop on report of abandonment of Paris agreement.
If you’re in solar stocks, that drop is far from your biggest problem.
Poll now 94.6%. Needs to be 97%. 🙂
Nuke it from orbit, it is the only way to be sure.
Stay in and ignore it. That is what the rest of the world will do.
Cannot stay in. Greens will use lawsuits to ‘force’ the nonbinding Obama commitment to be binding in the US.
If Trump decides to exit, no doubt Greens will sue in the Hawaii federal court to declare the action unconstitutional.
Ristvan- the greens will use lawsuits whatever the outcome. That is a given. They are unlikely to win there. The only agreement is between Former President Obama and the other dignitaries at the meeting. There is no agreement from the current administration, and as another pointed out, the US has already gotten 1/3-1/2 the way to Obama’s promises. Far better than any other country. This administration can either back Obama, rescind the agreement immediately because it is non binding. They should not go through the withdrawal procedure because that validates that it IS binding in some fashion. As you’ve said, the best option woud be to either stop all climate funding to the UN, or pull out of the UNFCCC.
This appeared on the accuweather replies. Couldn’t post their(I don’t do Facebook, period.) But some might think this is more appropriate:
“God, grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change; the courage to change the things we can; and the wisdom to know the difference.”
I prefer this for the so-called agreement:
God, grant me the serentiy to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can change, and the wisdom to hide the graves of all those who pis*sed me off over climate politics.
We want this thing out in the open. We want the “97%” to present their extensive evidence for exactly why the West must suicide over this crackpot hypothesis.
Cephus0:
11/10!!!!! Beautifully & succinctly put!
Let’s see if we get a flood of poll spotting from the likes of Real Science, Skeptical Science, Huff Po, and others.
Lets keep a running tally of Pro/Con and time stamps.
94% with 440 votes at the 32 minute mark.
Hopefully folks will avoid the temptation to vote more than once.
Simple double vote doesn’t work. If you know how (or care) to hide your identity, you vote weights more for sure!
R.S.Brown:
Nota bene that the fallacious “97% Argument# effectively ‘gave’ Scientists on the Alarmist AGW side (a tautology????) several ‘double/triple’ votes by means of the scurrilous & tendentious accounting & appalling disregard for sound statistical methodology.