Poll – Trump and the Paris Climate Agreement #ParisAgreement

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.

Advertisements

224 thoughts on “Poll – Trump and the Paris Climate Agreement #ParisAgreement

  1. 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?

    • 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.

      • 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!

      • Or the $65 million from the book advance.

        Or sell his Peace Prize for the metal content.

    • 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.

  2. 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.

    • 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??)

    • 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.

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. 94.44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444.

  6. 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.

      • 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.

  7. 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.

    • 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.

  8. I voted for real science process, fact checking with taxpayer funded measurement systems, model error evaluation, and more observation of message manager gone wild advocacy groups than I ever wanted to. That’s a NO vote and I don’t understand the thinking process for getting any other result.

  9. The following is probably history for many here, but just to review:

    Bjorn Lomborg analyzed the impact of the Paris Climate Accord –
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full

    Robert E. T. Ward criticized Lomborg’s analysis –
    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/65572/1/Ward_Commnet%20on%20impact_2016.pdf

    Lomborg answered Ward’s criticism –
    http://www.lomborg.com/response-to-bob-ward

    Going with Lomborg’s analysis, which he convincingly defended, the following picture seems to show the reality of the Paris Climate Accord:

    (RED line is if everybody does NOTHING)
    (BLUE line is if everybody fulfills Paris promises)
    (GREEN line is if everybody continues Paris promises for seventy more years)

    Not much impact is there ?

    Yet, if we accept this seemingly well reasoned analysis, the Paris Accord would piss away a HUGE amount of money and effort.

    Down with Paris !

    • No way is AD 2100 going to be 4.7 degrees C warmer than AD 1850. It’s ludicrous to imagine such a thing. Preposterous on its face.

      How can such an insane prediction possibly be taken seriously?

      • Average global temperature toward the end of the Pliocene (3.3–3 Ma) was 2–3 °C higher than now, with similar carbon dioxide levels and mean sea level ~25 m higher.

      • No way is AD 2100 going to be 4.7 degrees C warmer than AD 1850. It’s ludicrous to imagine such a thing. Preposterous on its face.

        Who needs imagination, when you have computer models?

      • Of Course it depends on who controls (manipulates) the data. The actual data set is garbage so if you use it for future predictions it’s easy to get those 4.7 ºC warmer than AD 1850. Garbage In garbage out.

      • Yes. You’re right. On Planet GIGO, it will be just as hot as “climate scientists” need it to be to keep gaining Greenbacks.

    • Important to archive this idiot graph. We can use it to educate our youth in the future as to the foolishness of eco-Socialist conniving politicians and their fraudulent ilk when reality diverges further and further from what our “educated betters” told us was incontrovertible fact. Keep their names as well. We can send them Christmas cards every year with this scientific atrocity on the front and a beautiful snowy background shot taken shortly before!

      • John Harmsworth:
        Well said!
        We need an updated version of: “Extraordinary popular Delusiuons & the Madness of Crowds” which — inter alia — recorded the Dutch Tulip Mania & the S.Sea Bubble racket. AGW belongs right up there in the pantheon of Manias.

  10. Lots of exits these days, Brexit, maybe Grexit, and now let it be time for Parexit.

  11. Abolishing the (not)Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard would also do the trick. A cancer can’t exist without a blood supply.

  12. Just voted – 94.22% No at this point 😍! Hope it doesn’t go beyond 97% as no one would believe that…

  13. Musk said he will withdraw from a White House counsel post if the US pulls out of Paris. I hope the door does not hit him on the way out. All funding for his green projects should also be stopped.

    • Breaking News – Government Subsidy Recipient Likes Government Subsidies, Will Punish Leaders Who End Government Subsidies

    • No doubt like all those celebrities in the UK who promised to leave if Brexit was successful.

      So far, we haven’t got rid of one of the Fu*kers.

  14. Elon Musk is now saying he will withdraw from advisory councils is Trump withdraws from Paris. Win win.

  15. Um,

    Most folks that look at such things on this webpage have jobs. A few of us retired folks, but most are working stiffs. Wait until they get home.
    Anthony do you have a bot filter on ths???

  16. At 1 hour, still 93%.
    Must be Russian Hackers. How else could the Warmers lose an election?

  17. Cook and Lewandowski just published their most recent results, obtained by using the most advanced copy and paste technology, that 97% of the scientists disagree with DJT.

  18. DJT is about to offer the world a new Paris Climate Accord. This time it’s Paris, TX and it’s his rules now.

  19. Next poll: Do you think climate science has suffered from aggressive advocacy and political pressure, yes or no.

  20. 9 out of 10 doctors said that in my mental state I am a Scientist. So i voted no. Now I am off to boil some water to make a cup of tea. I really like how all those molecules move around real fast and make steam.

    • Scott,

      I don’t “boil” water for tea any more. Our 300 watt microwave at 99
      seconds gets the water (and tea bag) warm. A few dips of the bag
      and back in for 31 to 35 seconds gets it to almost boiling and we don’t
      have to wait around while it steeps.

      Rather than heat a pot on an electric or gas stove, this seems much
      more efficient. As long as the ceramic mug is well made, we get good
      tea with little waste.

      I go through 10 -12 cup a day doing it this way.

      • In Europe we invented electric kettles. They don’t seem to have caught on in the US.

      • Heathen – that is not the way to make tea.

        And Jer0me, we have an electric kettle, just like those in England, and made in the PRC.

      • R. S. Brown.

        Tea making instructions.

        1. Buy loose tea, not tea bags full of dust.
        2. Buy a Teapot.
        3. Buy a Tea Cosy.
        4. Boil water, by whatever means you deem fit.
        5. Use a small amount of the boiling water to swill round your new teapot to warm it up. Pour away.
        6. Add 1 teaspoon of loose leaf tea to the pot for each person, and add ‘one for the pot’.
        7. Put the lid on the pot.
        8. Cover the pot with the Tea Cosy and leave to infuse for 5 minutes or so.
        9. If using English breakfast tea, Earl Grey or most commonly available black tea’s, prepare your cup by adding a little milk.
        10. Remove Tea Cosy, (unless you bought one with a hole for the spout and handle).
        11. Pour in the tea afterwards (essential the milk is added first).
        12. Replace Tea Cosy.
        13. If necessary, add sugar (one lump or two vicar).
        14. If you are drinking from a mug, it is perfectly acceptable to dunk a plain ‘T’ biscuit or digestive, no chocolate though.
        15. Do not under any circumstances let the biscuit go soggy and fall into the cup. A disgusting sludge at the bottom of your mug is unpleasant and uncouth.
        16. An extended pinkie is optional, if a bit pretentious, even if drinking from fine bone china. Unacceptable if drinking from a mug as it makes one look like an idiot.
        17. It is considered acceptable to buy a Teapot with a removable filter*** enabling removal of the tea leaves after infusion thereby allowing a second raid on the pot some time later.

        ***Please note, you will be unable to have your future read from the leaves in the cup. A serious downside of the filter. Michael Mann clearly uses a filter (or even tea bags….urg!) as his climate predictions would be more credible if he employed Tasseography
        .

        Enjoy. And a second cup beckons if the pot is kept in the Tea Cosy.

      • @ hotscot

        You are clearly one of our dying breed. Leaf tea is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to brewing a perfect pot of tea. Bone china (including pot if at all possible) is also preferable, yes, but ordinary china can be excused if in a hurry and if it’s very well-warmed. Leaf tea has an entirely different taste from bags. It’s more flavoursome because it has more tannins, hence the richer orange-brown colour. And it has more kick (I presume from a higher caffeine content). My local supermarket stopped supplying leaf tea two months ago because of low demand.

        If you want a traditional cup of tea in England nowadays, it’s either my place or The Ritz

  21. According to Bjorn Lomborg, Trump quitting Paris will be good thing because Kyoto was 15 wasted years and Paris would lead to more wasted years. Instead of all the trillions being wasted on renewable energy crap, he says that money might instead be spent on researching and developing better means of energy generation.

  22. I am of the opinion that the smart thing is to remain and do nothing. That is what most of the world is doing anyway. There is international bad reputation and bad will from exiting.

    • Javier, International bad will is not a bad thing when the action that resulted in international bad will is one that the Citizens of the nation favor, thus it results in good will domestically. The EU can take a flying leap.

      • If the US is seen as an unreliable partner, not only by the EU, but by most countries, the backlash could have negative effects for all, including the US. You might not be able to see it but good relations are fundamental for making international business, and Trump is just continuously stepping on toes.

      • Javier

        The EU claim the US is an unreliable partner to the UK only following Brexit. But the US is reliable enough to occupy military bases across the continent. Just too bad if those ‘unreliable’ Yanks pulled out and left European borders to the will of Mr. Putin and ISIS.

        The EU have proven over generations to be unreliable in terms of both economic competence and waging two World Wars.

        Fu*k em, as a Brit, I’ll take my chances with our US Cousins rather than that mob.

    • I must respectfully disagree.

      When the most scientifically advanced, richest, most powerful and successful country in the history of the planet calls BS on the CACA crock, then it might give other nations’ people reason to pause and consider.

      • Also, what is your measure of “success?”……please tell me that having the highest incarceration rate in the world is not what you are using as a ruler.

      • Many ways. Number of scientific Nobel Prize winners. Number of patents. Number of science PhDs. Number of private and public sector scientists.

        Please suggest another country with more and more significant scientific advancements in the past century or 50 years. Why do you think so many foreigners come here to pursue their scientific careers?

        I’d have thought it obvious.

      • David,

        The US doesn’t have the highest incarceration rate if genuine data are used for a number of states, such as North Korea. In any case, using published data, it’s number two.

        Other countries, like China and North Korea, kill rather than incarcerate “criminals”. The US rate is inflated by drug laws. And we also have country club prisons compared to most of the world, even allowing for super max.

        But what does that have to do with the success of our science programs?

      • No, David, I would not be surprised by per capita data. The US is high even in per capita, but still dominant in total wealth. And in funds devoted to science, which is the relevant issue.

        Why does the truth disturb you so much?

      • Chimp…..”I’d have thought it obvious.”…….yes, it’s obvious that there are many countries that have a higher literacy rate than the USA, so before you start talking about “scientific advancement” you should think about basic reading and writing.

      • Thanks Chimp…..first you said “richest” then you admit: ” The US is high even in per capita” so…make up your mind….it is total or per capita?

      • David,

        The literacy rate in the US is 99%.

        Note total domination of US in scientific Nobels since WWII:

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11926364/Nobel-Prize-winners-Which-country-has-the-most-Nobel-laureates.html

        The US literacy rate is reported accurately, unlike North Korea, which claims 100%. UNESCO doesn’t report a rate for the US, so dunno how you can make a comparison. But we are a diverse, huge country, so in any case comparing us to Andorra is preposterous.

      • David,

        My mind was already made up. When I said “richest”, I meant just that. We have the highest GDP. Adding that it’s also high in per capita in no way obviates that, as should be obvious.

        It’s not either or.

      • LOL at Chimp……when it comes to wealth he wants to use the gross wealth of the entire population and ignore per capita , but when it comes to incarceration, he wants to use per capita and ignore gross numbers so that North Korea is higher. ….
        ..
        .
        Typical cherry picker

      • David,

        I’m happy to go with per capita, but what matters for science is GDP. Oil rich countries have higher per capita, but it’s concentrated in monarchs’ families and not used to increase wealth.

        As for incarceration, I do not ignore gross numbers. China has more people in jail, awaiting execution, than does the US. American figures are inflated by people in jail awaiting trial. In China and North Korea, you’re in jail awaiting execution.

        Why do you just make stuff up?

      • David,

        Why is it hard for you to understand the difference between small, homogeneous countries and the US? It’s funny, since you try to go the per capita route when it suits you.

        To compare Finland with the US, try comparing Finnish Americans with Finns. There are more Scandinavian Americans than there are Scandinavians.

        You’re so funny.

      • Chimp, what is funny is that you pick the “ruler” you use to measure something so that the results fit in meme of “greatness.” Again, you mention “awaiting execution” while you forget that most prisoners in the USA are not awaiting execution. What happens when the cherry you pick isn’t ripe enough?

      • It’s pretty simple Chimp, due to your lack of experience with foreigners you’d never know that Chinese students beat Americans any/every time in STEM.

      • LOL @ CHIMP ==== “There are more Scandinavian Americans than there are Scandinavians.”
        ..
        ..
        That has nothing to do with literacy rates in the USA.
        ..
        Truth is, the Nordic folks do a better job of educating their children than Americans do.

      • David,

        The number of Scandinavians has everything to do with it. Literacy rates in Scandinavian counties in the US are higher than in Scandinavia, because of all the Isl@mic immigrants.

        Compare lutefisk with lutefiisk. If the US is fractionally behind, it’s because of our diversity and enormity.

        As to incarceration, it’s because we are a nation of laws. We put people behind bars for actions which are legal in other countries.

        I happen to know a genuine Vietnam War hero who has languished in prison for a very long time now because as a member of Congress he took bribes which would have been perfectly legal in Germany. American businessmen have gone to jail because they did what they have to do to conduct business in Asia.

        Not that any of this has anything at all to do with the veracity of my truthful statement that the US is the most scientifically advanced, richest, successful and powerful country in the history of the world.

      • Oh, yeah, Chimp, one more thing about your “greatness” meme…..

        Most civilized nations on the planet have done away with capital punishment, so your “awaiting execution” comparison is really sick. You would think that the “richest” most “scientifically advanced” “literate” country in the world would stop the barbaric practice of state sanctioned murder.

      • 2nd LOL at Chimp!!!!
        ..
        ” Literacy rates in Scandinavian counties”

        Nice cherry

        You should investigate the literacy rates for volunteers for the armed services in the USA!!!
        ..
        HA HA HA HA

        You are funny!!!

      • Funny. The “great” liberal city of Baltimore MD, long run by liberal-socialists who reject accountability and self-reliance in favor of government-protection and sponsorship of outright laziness and slovenly behaivor, gave their “high school” graduating class a basic literacy test this month.

        Not ONE high school attendee (you can’t really call them “students” not “graduates”) passed the basic state test. I’d stack any 100 random Baltimore residents against any 100 US military members on that same test. (Heck, I’d even print the test – the Baltimore voters might not be able to read cursive.)

      • Besides which, I’m reminded of years ago when I was dating my South American wife and we watched movies and TV together (still do). She once asked me, “American jails are so comfortable. How do you deter crime? Here nobody goes to jail for stabbing and stealing. On ‘Cops’ I see how your police take people down for minor infractions. I wish it were like that here.”

      • David,

        Since I’ve served in the US armed forces since Vietnam, I’m pretty sure I’m more familiar with literacy in our military than you are.

        Somehow we have managed to become the only military superpower in the 21st century. It’s not because our service members can’t read.

        Do you really not realize what a laughable troll you have the ignominy to be?

      • Another funny “Chimp-ism”

        “powerful country in the history of the world.”

        Nope
        ..
        You are historically challenged

        Rome was historically more “powerful” than the USA in terms of the percentage of the human population that it dominated around 2000 years ago.

        Chimp, your bias is telling.

      • David,

        Your Eurocentric bias is showing.

        Rome wasn’t a pimple on the posterior of Tang China. Or the Mongols.

        No empire in history has come close to the planetary domination of which the US is capable. Not even the second British Empire.

        Please study world history before presuming to comment upon it. That goes double for science, about which you’ve also showed a total lack of understanding.

      • Vietnam?….you mean like 40 years ago?

        LOL again Chimpy boi


        Here is a clue 4 U

        We don’t have a draft today…..the military can reject volunteers that are incapable of doing long division.

        HA HA HA HA
        .
        Oh yeah, bone spurs are no longer a problem.

      • Chimp, ” because of all the Isl@mic immigrants.??????????????????????

        Not to pop the bubble you are living in, but they know how to read and write !!!!

        Are you Islamophobic?

      • Chimp says: “the only military superpower in the 21st century. ”

        Tell me Mister Chimp, why can’t the only military superpower in the 21st century win a war in Afghanistan?

      • David,

        I’ve served since then in the all volunteer military.

        I recently retired, after having served in four wars, three of which were all volunteer.

        Only the Marines felt that requiring a high school diploma reduced combat effectiveness. But they are elite assault infantry, the best in the world and the best that has ever been. The other services have concluded that higher educational standards have been a good thing.

      • Chimp: ” planetary domination ”
        ..
        HA HA HA HA
        ..
        Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Syria……yeah……you crack me up with your “planetary domination”
        ..
        The USA can’t defeat the Taliban…..

      • David Dirkse May 31, 2017 at 7:01 pm

        Because we’re unwilling to kill civilians.

        We’ve already won in that there is an elected government in Kabul, not the Taliban.

        I served in Afghanistan in 2005. We were winning when I left. The people don’t want the Taliban, but the Kabul regime didn’t come through and the Pakistan-backed Taliban came back.

        We weren’t willing to kill the civilians that it would take to defeat them. Villagers, even Pashto, don’t want the Taliban, but government police were hardly better.

        It’s a decentralized state, not even a state but an imperial buffer zone. I opposed the idea of nation building in 2001, but the Bush administration opted for it.

        Had we gone in with the whole army and stayed there, there would be no Taliban now. But Bush chose to liberate Iraq instead.

        If it were up to me, I’d just pay off local warlords. It would cost less and work better.

        But still fighting in Afghanistan hardly obviates the fact that the US armed forces are the most potent ever. Alexander and the USSR did worse there than we have done, despite all our mistakes.

      • Oh, another thing Chimpy……with regards to wealth and superiority, I guess there is one thing you can tout as the greatest…….your country has the greatest debt of any nation in the history of the world.

      • David Dirkse May 31, 2017 at 7:05 pm

        What would you call it when you fight literally half way around the world in a desert and mountainous environment without major surface transport for 16 years with a few percent of your armed forces, without losing?

        Sounds pretty dominant to me. But what would I know? I’ve just been there in the 1970s, ’80s, ’90s, ’00s and ’10s and speak the two main languages.

      • @David Dirske

        Europe would likely be a Fascist state now were it not for the intervention of the US, however reluctantly, in WW2.

        You can hardly condemn a nation who didn’t want to go to war in Europe, before having their hand forced.

        Thank you Chimp, for your commitment in attempting to promote peace by direct intervention. A policy I believe largely supported by most major countries since WW2 as Europe ended up in a conflict thanks to the appeasement of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain, supported by the Leage of Nations which failed disastrously.

        Neither direct intervention or appeasement are ideal solutions, but judging by history, appeasement has been the larger failure of the two, by some margin.

      • David Dirkse May 31, 2017 at 7:12 pm
        Oh, another thing Chimpy……with regards to wealth and superiority, I guess there is one thing you can tout as the greatest…….your country has the greatest debt of any nation in the history of the world

        David, would happen to know under whose watch (Presidential) this debt was added? …
        President Barack Hussein Obama who was also going to strap the nation with further $$Trillons in Klimate Kash Debt
        As to which nation is strongest or whatever the argument is about
        The USA is definitely the most influential in the world. Prior to America the world was awash with Rulers, Emperors, Kings, Dictators, etc… But since America, Slavery has all but been eliminated, Empires are nonexistent, few Kingdoms survived, Dictators have been overthrown, and Democracy has spread like wildfire. The USA isn’t looking to rule the world like the Alexanders or Caesars or Hitlers of the world. If we were, Japan and Germany wouldn’t exist today, we would have taken them over after WWII. Iraq would be another U.S. state as well. Unlike many people, we’ve learned from the mistakes of history. The world will not be dominated by any one country or religion

  23. My dyslexic finger hit ‘yes.’

    Griffy boy, do us a favor and vote ‘no’ so mine cancels out.

    • Griff would rather be dismembered by a rusty corkscrew than see his mouse inexorably drawn to the NO button. :)

  24. My son Scott died this past January of cancer and I’d like to do a proxy vote for him. As one of the smartest people I’ve known Scott would say “why are we even having this vote”. He would would not be polite in his vote, “f…king OUT”.

  25. In Australia, cannot see this poll.

    Accuwether poll is about 60% for leaving Paris.

  26. I would have voted No but I won’t because:

    A) I’m not American and so have no right to tell you how to act.
    B) This is not a random sample. This is the same methodology as Lewandowsky used when he did his survey of sceptics on SkS.

    This is wrong.

      • Isn’t that what Michael Mann said before he found out it was a money-maker?

    • M,

      It’s not going to be presented as a scientific survey. It’s a statistically insignificant opinion survey, limited to those who want to participate.

      In that way, it’s more scientific than the survey of scientists which arrived at the alleged 97% consensus. The “researcher” and his grad student sent out two questions to over 10,000 scientists in fields they deemed relevant to climatology. Some 3000 responded. Of those, they selected the 79 they considered most expert “climate scientists”, based upon their recent publishing histories. Of those, 77 answered “yes” to the first question, ie “has it warmed since c. 1850?”, and 75 of those further said “yes” to the second, ie “have humans contributed significantly to warming?”. There was no obvious third question as to whether warming in particular and more CO2 in general were good or bad things. Thus the poll designed to give alarmists talking points through obscurantism.

      This poll is better than that.

    • Yes. But it makes one feel good to respond to a survey within their interest. Reality has already proven “polls” are as accurate as the pollsters want them to be or the poll offering is unbiased.

    • M Courtney

      In which case, in the interests of fairness, you can go to Accuweather and vote there, a reliable alarmists site currently running around 60% – 70% for NO.

      In other words, yes to getting out of the Paris Accord.

  27. The Paris “agreement” (so named as to dodge the requirement of a 2/3s senate majority) was never constitutionally approved; just jammed through a bogus simple majority process. Therefore, it is null and void, without force or effect. Trump is right to scrap it.

  28. As of whatever time it is when I posted this, it’s 60% to exit, 36% to stay, and 5% undecided.

  29. I just read that the parasite Musk has threatened to pull out of some useless White House advisory panels if DJT dumps the “treaty”! Yet another reason to pull out. Crony socialism is even more repugnant than welfare socialism. His kind should be kept as far away as possible from my wallet. MAGA!!!

  30. The “agreement” intentionally bypassed the treaty process because President Obama knew it would never pass.

  31. POTUS is set for Rose Garden ceremony to anounce his decision on the Paris Hustle at 3pm Thursday.

    The cool thing is that here in Arizona, we’ll hear it at 12 noon. 3 hours before. And in Oz they won’t hear about it until Friday morning.

    :)

    OK, I’ll see myself out now. 😂

    • I feel the same way. Glad I can hear it at noon.

      Free at last, free at last! Thank God almighty, free at last!

    • Please send tomorrow’s lottery numbers – I’ll split the grand prize with you!

  32. Funny… I just voted on the same question on CNN. Their results 93 – 7 the other way. Those libs live in a very myopic world. Lock step with what they are told to believe

  33. Not very scientific so it fits right in with the climate alarmist tools…..
    Anyone who reasonably considers the facts of this issue can teach only the conclusion that we must help kill off the Paris Agreement. It is a giant poison shiv stuck in America by Obama.

    • Like the GOP itself Hunter skeptics are squeeking little gerbils of their former 80’s selves. Haven’t seen one shred of focus on the full UN Framework exit aside from Dr. Lindzen as all the energy goes toward the spawn from hell….Paris. Most lay skeptics are obtuse to the nuances reading many social media boards. PARIS longform exit will be a minor litigious victory that will garner all the hate imaginable, fulfill easy stereotypes for Greenshirt counterattacks (fake big oil and gas meme) and leave the crony academic/media/globalist left machine intact. The point of targeting Pearl Harbor by the Japanese was to destroy the carriers. They missed the moment by 5 days and that combined with not targeting the specialized US submarine synfuel shortened war at least year. The UN Climate Framework is the carrier that the Paris Accord flew off. The skeptical political consensus and in fact the President Trump climate reform attempt remains shallow and limited in design. All the skeptics taking a victory lap on a soft legal exit of Paris tomorrow make as much sense as Japanese claiming a huge win at Pearl Harbor and missing the carriers. The war was likely unwinnable but it was over the day it started tactically.

      Destroying the UN Climate Framework and launching a total war on the underlying forces enabling fraud morality arguments of the climate Greens is the only path to winning. Simply talking about economic gains of deregulation a loser. 80’s Green War history being repeated. It’s the immorality of the Green Eugenic movements, what globalist totalitarianism is safe harbored in “climate change” the decisive argument. The core leadership of the greens aren’t idealistic and wrong that are evil as well.

      Skeptics remain a ship without a rudder in opposition. I think many have the inclination more broadly but internal nucleus of skeptics tend to be no leadership at all. Other then the Lindzen petition heading has a single article here posted the difference on Paris exit methods and what I’m pointing out?

      We needed the full UN Framework elimination and then a massive social deprograming effort from DJT team that’s not in place. The hate backlash is coming and the Greenshirt enclaves are untouched.

      • cwon14

        How to eat an elephant?

        One small bit at a time.

        There being no recognised leadership to the sceptical community is, perhaps, a good thing. We’re not told what to think, we’re all here of our own free will and because we simply asked the question “what if the alarmists are wrong?”.

        Whilst Trump exiting the Paris Accord is more symbolic than practical, it will make more people ask “what if?”

        Whilst there may be more action on the question of climate change over Trumps remaining tenure remains to be seen. Personally, I doubt it as he’s getting all the really unpopular crap out the way early so in the run up to his re election bid, he can be doing all the good, popular stuff.

        However, the fly in the ointment, as far as the greens are concerned, is that at some time in the not too distant future, assuming global temperatures continue to rise below IPCC expectations, pretty soon they will drop below even the lowest of their predictions. At which point, they will have no alternative but to reduce their expected warming predictions yet again.

        Assuming that happens within the next 3 or 4 years, that will coincide nicely with both Trumps election campaign and, a year later, Theresa May’s in the UK. Considering both countries are spending huge amounts on climate change (£14Bn by then for the UK) there will be a rush of politicians eager to make a name for themselves by pointing to the ‘failed’ IPCC as a reason for our respective countries to save Billions of $/£’s.

        Then the general public will be clamouring to have their “what if?” question answered and the green juggernaut won’t have an answer.

        But then I guess this is more dependent on whether one is a glass half full, or half empty kind of person. Personally, I’m a glass half full type .

  34. Shouldn’t there be a poll for a full UN Climate Framework exit as opposed to the limited, potentially deadend of a Paris longform only exit?

  35. China and the EU are boasting that they will keep it together if USA leaves.

    Are the EU really that stupid? Sadly for us. YES

    • China and the EU will keep it together? So? Good luck to them (well, not to the EU and China will lie anyway)

    • “China and the EU are boasting that they will keep it together if USA leaves.”

      Same with California. They will use the media to spread false data that shows growth to keep their economic suicide pact alive until the businesses and people revolt. And they will in California.

  36. Like Obama, Trump only controls executive policy for 4 years at a time. The president and possibly the Supreme Court will decide what happens until Congress expresses its will. Neither president should have made commitments without Congressional authorization (or a decisive Supreme Court ruling). Trump could ask Congress to approve a US INDC. While “waiting” for Congress to act, we could add up the reductions planned by various states (if any) and use that total as the US INDC. This way Trump could claim to be bound by the US law and not offend the rest of the world.

    The fear is that Obama’s INDC will somehow become legally binding upon the US. How can an INTENDED nationally determined contribution ever become legally binding? Nothing has been approved by Congress. And the next Democratic President can rejoin the Paris Agreement and reinstate Obama’s pledge with or without modification. Withdrawing from Paris may not accomplish anything.

    In the long run, Congress needs to set the broad goals for US policy so that we don’t stupidly lurch from one position to another.

  37. If there is one thing I have learned from John Cook, it is how to properly calculate percentages from polls…
    1) Add the For, Against and Undecided.
    2) Discard the undecided.
    3) Calculate the percentage using the For and Against.
    4) Report the number from 3) as the percentage of the Total from 1).

    If only it wasn’t so true. :(

  38. The need to keep the USA is not about Carbon anything, but because their expected to be the ones given out the big pay days to those looking for guilt cash , and China offer no hope on this front as they expect money in not out.
    While a great deal of the ‘warmest industry’ on the academic side is based there. A lot of third rate scientists got ‘lucky ‘ with AGW ,with no real ability and poor evidenced they managed to get often long term and profitable careers, and not a little expenses paid foreign travel to ‘climate events ‘ . None of which they could get otherwise and if Trump pulls out of Paris a lot of ‘research cash ‘ is likely to pull out of ‘the cause ‘
    If not AGW , can you imagine what people like Mann or Cook would be doing given their ‘quality ‘ ?
    China of course will stay is , as all it is required to do is ‘nothing ‘ and then be the people who judge if they done even that.

    • Talk about fake news. Have you seen a single commentary supporting staying in the Paris Accord that mentions how much money the U.S. will have to contribute to the UN Climate Fund? More important, does anyone believe that all the countries that signed up to join Paris stay in the Accord if they don’t receive their handouts from the UN?

  39. Trump should also withdraw from the UNFCCC as well as the Paris Accords.
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up to select from the evidence and from time to time produce reports which would show that CO2 was the main driver of dangerous climate change and then a meeting in Rio in 1992 chaired by Maurice Strong produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , later signed by 196 governments.
    The objective of the convention was to keep greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that they guessed would prevent dangerous man made interference with the climate system.
    This treaty is really a comprehensive, politically driven, political action plan called Agenda 21 designed to produce a centrally managed global society which would control every aspect of the life of every one on earth.
    It says :
    “The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the
    causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or
    irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
    such measures”
    In other words if the useless IPCC models show there is even a small chance of very bad things happening the Governments who signed the treaty should act reduce CO2 emissions. Since 1992 Trillions have been wasted on this dangerous anthropogenic global warming delusion but TRUMP and PRUITT get the SCIENCE RIGHT – NATURAL CYCLES DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.
    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    Here is the abstract for convenience :
    “ABSTRACT
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”

    Undoubtedly climate hysteria will peak in reaction to US a withdrawal but in a few years Nature will show Trump to have been ahead of establishment science in his embrace of natural cycles as the climate driver.

Comments are closed.