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 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.
Wrong, M?
This is just a fun little thing with no pretense to scientific accuracy.
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.
It is also not government funded.
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.
At 7:25 PM, the Accuweather poll is now at 59% get out, 36% stay in with 886 voters.
Our host’s poll has almost three times as many respondents at this moment.
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.
David, I don’t remember any vote; this was Obama’s from the git-go.
As of whatever time it is when I posted this, it’s 60% to exit, 36% to stay, and 5% undecided.
Toss!
A questionably worded poll found support for Paris in November 2016:
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/paris_agreement_by_state/
The fact that there is a Program in Climate Communication at Yale just shows how far the rot has extended, thanks to funds extorted from taxpayers and borrowed from China to keep the sc@m going.
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!!!
The “agreement” intentionally bypassed the treaty process because President Obama knew it would never pass.
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!
“Trump expected to pull out of Paris Climate Agreement, decision to be announced Thursday”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/31/trump-expected-to-pull-out-paris-climate-agreement.html
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/trump-expected-to-pull-us-out-of-paris-climate-deal-announce-decision-thursday/article35160411/
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
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 .
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?
+1!!
94% – not the largest “consensus” by any means.
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.
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.
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. 🙁
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?
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.