President Trump just announced that the U.S. will “withdraw” out of the Paris Climate Accord. But “begin negotiations to re-enter”.
Trump said:
“We will cease honoring all non-binding agreements”, and “will stop contributing to the green climate fund”.
“I can not in good conscience support a deal that harms the United States”.
“The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair to the United States”.
“This agreement is less about climate and more about other countries getting a financial advantage over the United States”.
“The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.”
“Fourteen days of carbon emissions alone would totally wipe out the U.S. contribution to reduction by 2030”
“Compliance with the terms of the Paris accord… could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025.”
“India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid.”
“We need all forms of available American energy or our country will be at grave risk of brown-outs and black-outs.”
“Withdrawing is in economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.”
“We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work… We’re going to grow rapidly.”
“No responsible leader can put the workers and the people of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage.”
“The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions.”
“My job as President is to do everything within my power to give America a level playing field.”
“The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions.”
“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”
“Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, & across the world should not have more to say w/ respect to the US economy than our own citizens.”
“Our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.”
“It is time to exit the Paris Accord and time to pursue a new deal which protects the environment, our companies, our citizens.”
Scott Pruitt: “America finally has a leader who answers only to the people.” “This is an historic restoration of American economic independence.”
The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President’s action today is keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first. The Accord was negotiated poorly by the Obama Administration and signed out of desperation. It frontloads costs on the American people to the detriment of our economy and job growth while extracting meaningless commitments from the world’s top global emitters, like China. The U.S. is already leading the world in energy production and doesn’t need a bad deal that will harm American workers.
UNDERMINES U.S. Competitiveness and Jobs
- According to a study by NERA Consulting, meeting the Obama Administration’s requirements in the Paris Accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion over the next several
- By 2040, our economy would lose 6.5 million industrial sector jobs – including 3.1 million manufacturing sector jobs
- It would effectively decapitate our coal industry, which now supplies about one-third of our electric power
The deal was negotiated BADLY, and extracts meaningless commitments from the world’s top polluters
- The Obama-negotiated Accord imposes unrealistic targets on the U.S. for reducing our carbon emissions, while giving countries like China a free pass for years to
- Under the Accord, China will actually increase emissions until 2030
The U.S. is ALREADY a Clean Energy and Oil & Gas Energy Leader; we can reduce our emissions and continue to produce American energy without the Paris Accord
- America has already reduced its carbon-dioxide emissions
- Since 2006, CO2 emissions have declined by 12 percent, and are expected to continue to
- According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. is the leader in oil & gas
The agreement funds a UN Climate Slush Fund underwritten by American taxpayers
- President Obama committed $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund – which is about 30 percent of the initial funding – without authorization from Congress
- With $20 trillion in debt, the U.S. taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize other countries’ energy
The deal also accomplishes LITTLE for the climate
- According to researchers at MIT, if all member nations met their obligations, the impact on the climate would be The impacts have been estimated to be likely to reduce global temperature rise by less than .2 degrees Celsius in 2100.
Congratulations on stalwart organizing. I hate the result, and I fear history will as well, but I admire the persistence
Generous of you in defeat.
Organizing? Poor misguided Bill. It is the truth that is beating you. Sad that you do not yet see that. Maybe someday you will.
You have it right, Bruce, it is the truth that is winning the day.
Nobody is less organized than the skeptic community. It was all Trump, with a few inputs from skeptics.
Bruce, the Fortune 1000, most of the world’s countries, the world’s scientific bodies, all say Trump is wrong. Sad that you don’t see that. History will prove you wrong – of course, you’ll still say it’s natural variation. How depressing to go through life with no true intellectual curiosity.
Links? I am sure you can post multiple posts to include each of the 1000 CEOs saying just that.
Here is a partial list: https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/05/31/Here-are-the-oil-and-coal-companies-Fortune-500-corporations-and-Republicans-who-want-to-s/216719
I’m sure you can provide me with a list showing all the Fortune 500/1000 companies that have said that AGW is not a major concern.
Chris
And, under Obama’s regime of corruption and his legislation-by-decree, control-by-anonymous-bueauracrats, NO company can say in public ANYTHING contrary to his dictatorship. He did, after all, put out of business a single bakery who opposed his homosexual agenda, declared climate change the priority for his Defense Dept in a time when his soldiers were being killed in the countries he sent to fight, and set his Sec of State fighting climate change. In 2009, he killed auto companies who did not support his government. To repeat, NO company who wished to survive his dictatorship could say “No.” And many, like my own, used his subsidies to scheme billions from his government in windmills, solar events, and endless “summits” and propaganda sessions.
Sorry, that does not qualify for many reasons, not the least of which is that the link does not contain quotes from even “most” (as is purported) supporting Paris. Nor are the quotes in the article sourced, and the link is to a decidedly proven fake news source (proven so).
So once again, link to the quotes of all 1000 CEOs showing support for the Paris Accord. Put up or shut up.
And, and just for the record, I have made no claims, so have nothing to prove. You should learn to read before making impotent boasts.
RA Cook, your assertion is that Obama intimidate companies into compliance. So now, with Trump in office, they should not feel shackled. Please provide links proving that many of those companies are now saying different things about climate change.
Maybe you should look in a mirror and question your idea of reality ? Just a thought……
A “problem” which is NO problem is NO PROBLEM. Time to worry about something that’s real, and in need of solving; like Ebola, cancer, autism, and traffic jams. This has restored my faith in common sense over popular delusions and the madness of crowds–and big, BIG lies.
It may or may not be a problem. However, even by its own admission, the Paris Accord does NOTHING to address the problem/no problem.
Towards 700ppm. CO2 🙂
Better yet, 1050 ppm, closer to where plants like it best; 1400 might be too much of a good thing.
Unfortunately, we probably won’t even make it to 600 ppm.
Good to see you kept the multiples of 350. 🙂
Just for Bill. 🙂
Following your lead.
But so do multiples of 400. The ideal level is around 1200 ppm, but 800 is way better than 400 ppm.
Aw, c’mon, that’s too much time jiggling on the damn mowing machine . . .
+701
Not to diminish Anthony’s role in providing a forum for dissident voices to be heard, but to chalk this up to “organizing” is either naive or damning with faint praise. “Organizing” is what you do to shape an outcome that isn’t likely to stand on the merits. This site, and the voices that it empowers, isn’t “organizing” anything. To borrow an oft mis-used phrase, we’re just “speaking truth to power.” As one who came of age in the 1960’s, and lived through the Greening of America, in those days it seemed that it was the left “speaking truth” to the power of the right. My, how times have changed!
Anth@ny’s blog brought together people to improve their understanding of CACA. IMO, that could be considered a form of organizing, even though the people “organized” came here of their own accord.
Chimp,
I think my view of “organizing” has been influenced by the association with “community organizer,” “trade union organizer,” etc. I see your point, but still think that the term has a taint to it.
I’ll bet that in the future people will look back and think”What the hell were our ancestors smoking?CO2 caused global warming?Ridiculous!”
Bill.
This is more about truth than organizing. Global warming is not a real issue and psueadoscients and their useful idiots are the only ones who claim it is.
“Global warming is not a real issue and psueadoscients and their useful idiots are the only ones who claim it is.”
So I guess you are calling the Fortune 1000 useful idiots.
There is nothing to fear, Trump’s decision will not have a significant impact on global temperature even if all the exaggerations by United Nations were right.
BM, if you had studied the actual science, you would not fear this result. Observational ECS is half of CMIP5 models. And those models are disproven by other means like the lak of a modeled Tropical Troposphere Hot Spot. Despite all your shenanigans, you lost to truth speaking skeptics.
Truth will out.
” I hate the result, and I fear history will as well, ”
Don’t fear, Bill. You alarmists are always wrong in predictions.
@Frederic – That deserves an upvote!
I’m having this conversation on the Guardian report. Copying it here as I suspect that it will disappear soon.
Just for the record, you understand. It’s long so feel free to skip.
___
BigL64 1h ago
I don’t think there is any intelligent argument for doing this, unless you are on the take from oil companies.
Pathetic.
MCourtney BigL64 41m ago
Read the article:
So mainstream science makes it clear – this isn’t about climate.
It’s the economy, stupid (to quote Clinton).
Also note why China welcomes this plan.
Which is a relative advantage for China compared to the US (and EU) jobs. Because cheap energy is good for the economy.
There is clearly an intelligent argument to be made.
1) The Paris Accords make no measurable impact on the climate (0.2°C is within the measurement error let alone the model error).
2) The Paris Accords weaken the US economy relative to China.
3) The US president may be owned by Russia but he isn’t owned by China.
BigL64 MCourtney 29m ago
Your entire argument relies on the assumption that the US is pulling out to pursue a better, more impactful climate change initiative.
They aren’t.
This administration is pulling out because, like the EPA, climate change regulations represent a danger to short term business growth opportunities.
Who gives a fuck about the economy if we don’t have a planet to spend descretionary income on? Our children’s children will be living on a desert waste land, fighting over water and cock roaches, but hey, at least those fuckin coal miners kept their jobs for a few more years and we stuck two fingers to china.
Also, China is likely welcoming the US withdrawl. It gives them the power seat and, as they grow in influence, the us will continue to struggle.
ID2872597 MCourtney 16m ago
Well said McCourtney! Now if only some one actually read your post rather than screeching.
OurPlanet ID2872597 9m ago
I have read his post one and twice, meanwhile you may need to take off your filtered
short termist specs and open your eyes to the big picture and the future of our children and their children. Not unless you are a climate change deniar though , then my argument will fall on deaf ears.
ID2872597 OurPlanet
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
MCourtney BigL64 7m ago
No. My argument is that the US is pulling out to benefit their economy.
And that that is a sensible thing to do as Paris will harm their economy while doing nothing for the climate.
You may be right about China. But I suspect that their influence will be proportional to their economic strength.
After all, China has no moral authority on the Climate. They have no responsibilities until 2030. That’s far beyond any meaningful political timeframe.
MCourtney 5m ago
0.2°C is not a threat to the planet. It is not measurable as it’s too small. And it’s well within the error boundaries of the models.
The only person denying the science in this conversation is you.
___
Hopefully this will not be deleted by the Guardian but my experience is not positive.
For completeness. Again, please ignore my use of this website as a Cloud resource.
___
BigL64 ID2872597 1h ago
Troll identified. Ignore.
MCourtney BigL64 1h ago
I did read your post. The key mistake it made was to equate 0.2°C with “living on a desert waste land, fighting over water and cock roaches”.
The poverty you are campaigning for is real. Those miners have families they need to provide for. Your lack of compassion is cruel.
The disaster you fantasise is not real. It is not the effect of 0.2°C. It is the effect of playing Fallout 4 on LSD.
BigL64 MCourtney 53m ago
You’re flailing. You’re also misrepresenting my point. I didn’t say a .2 degree C increase leads to an apocalypse.
I was obviously implying that the current administration is disengenuous in their justification for pulling out of the deal. You’ve eloquently repeated ever single republican talking point on the subject. The reality remains the same: well what the fuck else do you purpose?
Republicans have this amazing ability to burn down the house, forgetting they need somewhere to live.
I also don’t give a shit about coal miners because they represent a statistically insignificant amount of the population (globally). I don’t care if their grand daddy pulled fossilised dead animals out of a fucking mountain. My great grand kids don’t need to die from climate change to preserve that useless tradition among many others. That’s of course saying nothing of the fact that, under the right political structure, those miners could be paid to get re-trained in clean energy jobs.
You’re part of the problem.
Vikash B MCourtney 51m ago
A point which you are not considering that, there is almost nothing we can do, that will suddenly reverse this terrible damage we have been doing the past few centuries.
No single convention like this can guarantee a significant reduction in temperatures, within a century.
But, we have to start somewhere, we can’t keep waiting around for some magical solution that may never arrive.
MCourtney BigL64 40m ago
Read the article. The reason that the Paris Accords were rejected was economic. And the Trump administration is in line with mainstream science when it claims that they have virtually no impact on the climate.
You don’t care about the poor. I do. We will disagree.
I see you as part of the problem. Bourgeois, callous elitists who think “that minority is irrelevant. Me and my progeny are all that matters”.
You are wrong.
After all, if clean energy was cheaper than coal there would be the money and the will to retrain those miners. It would happen if that was where the wealth comes from. But you and China know it isn’t. That money isn’t there.
MCourtney Vikash B 33m ago
That defeatist argument has two obvious responses:
1) Do something that would work. Something big. Don’t waste everyone’s time (and jobs) on this policy. If you care about the climate you should want something that would work.
Or my preferred policy:
2) Just adapt. It’s cheaper. It’s future-proof. It naturally leads to the richer, technologically advanced countries doing the work and the poorer ones getting the benefits. It prevents over-spend if the climate sensitivity estimates keep falling. It releases resources today for today’s problems.
Why should the third world have their development delayed for more expensive energy? Dead children don’t have grandkids anyway.
Keep fighting the good fight. Bravo. Of course Guardian will eventually delete. But the archive is already here to prove their dishonest bias. Skeptics are winning, and every skirmish counts.
The Guardian has but one use; as a wrapper for fish.
True dat, Goldrider. “Studies have shown” [wink, wink] that canaries and budgies don’t want it for cage liner. Dead fish can’t object to the treatment.
From Holland: thank you very much, President Trump!!!
North or South Holland
From the same country me too.
From Amsterdam, let me second that!
Wow. This is a sort of “split the baby” move. Suggesting renegotiating probably mollifies Ivanka, and some critics. But I would say this treaty is as good as most sincerely dead. By the way Musk has threatened a resignation of all his advisory posts in government. Trump simultaneously ended the Paris fraud, and improved these advisory groups!
The agreement is totally dead until India and China agree to cuts, stop all new coal plants, and pay others in the third world to assist them in the agreement. Since this is never going to happen, the agreement is permanently dead, while putting the blame on them, where it belongs. Being in an agreement while doing nothing is an agreement of fools.
I really had my doubts this past week that he would stick to his promise. I, like most everybody else who has posted before me, could not be happier! Finally some sanity! Can’t wait to see the spin from the MSM this evening and tomorrow. They will all be predicting that we will soon be dying in rising boiling oceans.
Trump for President!!! oh, wait, he already is President.
No – you were right – Trump, 2020!
Trump for 2020!
Yes, absolutely, let’s use a little foresight and not regret in hindsight!!
Now is the time for UK decision makers to sit up and pay attention to GWPF.
Liberal socialists heads are now exploding world wide !!
Congratulations to Anthony and to all those who have put so many years the truth about climate on the first place! Thank you all!
Climatus interruptus.
The Chinese at a meeting in EU says that they will tick to their commitments. Is that a joke? What commitments? Werent they allowed to just continue increaring CO2 emissions?? Until 2030? Oh, but China will stay on their commitments. Good for you China.
I will gladly pay you in 30 years for a hamburger today.
Scott
As a developing nation, one of their commitments is to receive billiions of dollars.
China is going to stick to their agreement, despite the stress, to infinitely increase CO2 until all current EU administrations are not in power, and the next ones forget the agreement. China is in fact religious. You can hear the “amen.”
The lunatics are no longer in charge of the asylum!
Unfortunately, they remain lunatics.
Maybe we can drop a house on them, and watch their feet curl up. Actually, that sounds like the cover of tomorrow morning’s New York Post . . . 😉
“Following President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, the Dow, S&P and Nasdaq closed at record highs. ” ..
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/06/01/wall-street-hits-record-highs-as-economy-seen-accelerating.html
I’m concerned that Trudeau will double our commitment now that you guys officially left…
That will ruin his economy twice as fast as now and put an end to his regime as Beau of Ottawa faster.
Trudeau is a follower, not a leader. So, who does he follow? Seems to me, he has to follow Trump given that our economies are completely intertwined. But maybe he can hold out for three years … but if he does, he’ll just be a paragraph in the history books.
Wayne, unfortunately Justin responds to public opinion when it agrees with his life-guide, Gerald Butthurts. Triple whammy Carbon tax, and in BC, the giggling coalition mumble about a 4 cent/km driving tax to replace bridge tolls. That’s 40c/l in my car, 80 for a more economical chariot. Weaver may tip the scales if they
bring in proportional rep – the prospect of 15 or 20 seats after a snap election looms large.
A colorful version of heads exploding courtesy of the Kingsman movie. Cheers –
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNJzrvtnoQE&w=854&h=480%5D
Antiglobalism with a vengeance.
I am deeply disturbed that Trump and Pruitt are both giving lip service to the carbon footprint. Trump boasted about how much America had reduced its CO2 emissions.
They aren’t calling CAGW a hoax.
Well, okay, but it has become axiomatic with scientists who are in the habit of telling the truth – how odd! – the good guys, that they/we/none of us simply do not know how much our carbon dioxide impacts weathery stuff. And that is often combined, in the same pronouncement, with their certainty that industrial and agricultural emissions have *some* effect. So let’s cut the president and his people some slack. This is some very heavy lifting they are doing, and doing it well.
Worry knot. It doesn’t matter. The Paris Accord only pretended to be about science, and about “climate change”. Trump saw through that, and struck at its heart. It was about bringing the Western economies down, and most especially, the American economy. Part and parcel of the climate hoax is that it is based on science. Ignoring the pseudoscience in a way just makes it irrelevant, which it is.
Or, one could say that they are using the CAGW’s concepts to show that the US is already doing better than other countries at the CAGW “game”.
IMHO, no one needs to call CAGW a “hoax”. In my view, this particular label may have contributed more to the arsenal of those who conduct the recruitment of the non-informed – by appealing to green-tainted idealism or taking advantage of simple, lazy follow-the-green-brick-road ignorance.
That being said – and speaking of those whose pronouncements are of the idealistic and/or ignorant kind – I very much regret that we in Canada may have to wait a few years before we have leadership that is not totally tainted by GreenDreams of the utterly useless and very expensive kind.
Particularly here in beautiful BC, where we are about to be subjected to the oh-so-dedicated dictatorial whims of former IPCC-nik Andrew <climate change is a barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles> Weaver, as he wields his new-found power (of 3 green bodies) in the provincial legislature 🙁
I would give even odds that Trudeau will be able to protect the pipeline in spite of everything the NDP and Greens can do.
After 2008, the oil sands and Fort McMoney are the only thing that kept the Canadian economy from tanking along with the rest of the world.
Condolences from a fellow suffering Canadian!
I have read your posts and love them. The only way to win or get points politically is to speak to the entire country. Politics should only be partisan when needed. In this case, I get queezy too. Consider that what he said was (in the context of what people think a carbon footprint is) 100% accurate. In that sense, the so called footprint was reduced.
If he’d started saying that the whole meme of “climate change” is disingenuous and dangerous based on the remedy and the mis-belief of consequences attached to it, he would have lost half of America. So this very significant baby step, of doing the right thing, and attaching many good reasons to leave the Paris Accord, takes us in a wonderful direction.
In any case, I do hope he will eventually move closer to saying that it is certain, that “the meme of climate change” is a hoax. To believe that so called “climate change”, means increased CO2 caused the climate to get more extreme, is patently false and has and can be illustrated by facts, not news headlines.
Mario,
As someone who has been writing today along the same lines as cBob, I wanted to tell you that you (and others with similar takes on this) have helped me be a bit less upset about the “begin negotiations to re-enter” (MAJOR bummer for me). Boy, that really upset me!!!
Thank you for your comment…
Grateful for another wonderful WUWT encourager,
Janice
It’s the 4d chess Trump game. What is there to negotiate if the basic premise of CO2 warming is fraud? It is in fact.
Longer term we’ll all regret not laying out the skeptic science case at this key moment. How can you go after the green subsidies if you buy into the fake virtue of CO2 reduction?
I’ve popped a favorite brew and I am currently fixated on the carbon dioxide – all those bubbles!! – escaping into the atmosphere, free as birds, without penalty or guilt. What a blessed day.
Today, we celebrate. Tomorrow we gloat.
… and suddenly the sky darkened, the tides surged, a fire cloud spewed forth, and, in the blink of an eye, the world was wiped out by an asteroid. … 06-01-2017
Crap! … just when something good happened. Well, I guess we should have placed our attention, efforts and money on something else. Oh well, better luck next time, … in another five billion years or so, when it all starts over again.
OR
Hell just froze over.
What else is there to say:
Elon Musk @elonmusk
“Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.”
I’m sure you will not be missed.
Maybe he should stop taking the government’s (peoples’) money to keep his crappy business afloat.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, subsidy farmer.
Ahhhh…. the squeals of another departing hog, as his grubbing snout confirms there is no more taxpayer slop in his trough.
Music to my ears!!!
Elon, showing his true colors. And they are not red, white, or blue.
“Elon, showing his true colors. And they are not red, white, or blue.”
Elon Musk has created 35,000 good paying jobs in the US, plus even more indirect jobs. How many jobs have you created, Bruce?
How much Tax payer money went to create those jobs? With $9 billion (or even $5billion), I am sure anyone can create a slew of jobs.
So how much profit did he make over the past 5 years?
Phljourndan, Amazon hasn’t made a profit of sorts in 20 years, their market cap is 350B. Try to keep up.
“of sorts” – You have no clue about business do you? Let me give you the short version.
no profits = no taxes.
But Bezos is one of the richest men on the world. And guess what? No government loans OR subsidies.
Try to keep up.
Philjourdan – I worked for Fortune 100 companies for 20 years, then raised millions in venture capital for startups, and helped start two companies. What have you done, besides posting on WUWT dozens of times per day?
As far as your Amazon versus Elon Musk point, you said: “of sorts” – You have no clue about business do you? Let me give you the short version.”
I said “of sorts” meaning that Amazon generally eked out a very small profit – numbers like $500M in profit on $30B in sales for a quarter, or 1.6% of sales. I thought you would understand that, but I clearly overestimated your abilities. My bad.
You then said:”But Bezos is one of the richest men on the world. And guess what? No government loans OR subsidies.”
Wrong, subsidies alone total $1.2B and counting.https://www.bna.com/amazon-close-breaking-n57982085432/ And of course that doesn’t include the billions in sales tax that Amazon refused to pay states for years, and fought in the courts.http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/amazons-big-assist-government Not paying the taxes they owed is to a large degree the reason Amazon has been able to take market share and grow rapidly.
So you failed math as well. NOt surprising. Did I ask you what you did?
No. I do not care. But I do know one thing for sure. You did not do what you claim you did. Since you boasted about accomplishments not asked for nor wanted, they are typically false. Even if true, they mean nothing.
And you can keep your “of sorts” since you still have no clue what you are talking about. Just answer the simple question: How much in government loans did Amazon get?
And you are lying. Show me any company (not 1000, not even 10, ONE) that pays more in taxes than it is legally required to do so. Just one. Anyone.
You cannot, because A) you have no clue what you are talking about, and B) there are none. Amazon did not pay taxes it was not required to pay. And guess what else? Sales taxes are paid by the CUSTOMERS. The companies merely collect it for the government (usually getting a 3/4 of a cent fee for doing so). Since Amazon was not legally required to collect the taxes, and since Amazon is not liable for ANY sales taxes (the consumer is), you are lying and have no clue what you are talking about,.
Your ignorance and arrogance is your down fall. Had you actually done what you claimed, you would know these things. As you do not, you are a very bad liar, with delusions of Walter Mitty.
Stop lying and making impotent boasts.
Now he can get on with colonizing Mars. There are a lot of people whot could be sent to help.
I’d be dumpin’ his stock real fast right about now . . .
+1000
TSLA closed down today, while the indeces were making record highs. But not by as much as it was down earlier. Volume however was higher than average.
““No responsible leader can put the workers and the people of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage.”
I wonder when the ‘politicians’ in Sweden will realize this …? In the end, they are very expensive well fare absorbers, not realizing they are not just ‘cutting the branch they sit on’, but the complete tree …
Anthony, this is your day too! You and Jo Nova are the last ones standing, following the great work of Climate Audit and Bishop Hill. Oh and of course Climate Etc.
We need to look ahead. Next is the UNFCCC. Can get out of that easier and quicker than Paris.
And then a biggie, the Endangerment Finding. For some reason, Scottt Pruitt has not felt comfortable taking that on, but maybe this will give him some heart. It should be EASY to blow it out of the water, just count in the greening of the world, the increase in food production, the failure of the models, and the previous pillars of the EPA argument are swept away.
Pierre Gosselin, Paul Homewood, and particularly Tony Heller.
All deserve a thumbs up.
I’m sure there are others out there fighting the good fight.
I agree, too.
Agree! High praise and kudos to all!
A decision Obama never should have made has been revoked. I hope there is more of this sort in the pipe.
Not a bad idea to propose re-negotiations: don’t slam the door, close it gently and reopen it when terms and conditions are favorable. That gives other nations the time to learn that CAGW and its connection to CO2 is frivolous.
Trump needs to demand that $1 billion back, else deduct it from UN payments.
I wonder what Obama is thinking right now.
U R assuming Obama can think.
That sound you heard was Barry’s legacy popping!
Wow! Watched this moment live in Johannesburg, South Africa. Well done Sir! This will shake up things in this country – a pathetic tail-wagging sycophant of the IPCC and the Paris non-agreement.