Uh, oh. Science Journal Nature editorial on #ParisAgreement: “Better out than in”

Now that President trump has announced the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris Climate accord, this comes from nature.com and the “that’s going to leave a mark” department:

By Luke Kemp

Continued US membership in the Paris Agreement on climate would be symbolic and have no effect onUS emissions. Instead, it would reveal the weaknesses of the agreement, prevent new opportunities from emerging, and gift greater leverage to a recalcitrant administration.

After the election of President Trump and a two-house Republican majority, many fear for the future of US climate policy. The new administration has indicated that they will abolish Obama’s climate legacy through executive orders.

The repeal of domestic measures will likely result in the US missing its first nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement, which is an inadequate target of reducing emissions by 26–28% compared to 2005 levels by 2025. If other countries adopted comparable targets, global warming would likely exceed 2°C (ref. 2). The US would need to implement the Clean Power Plan and additional measures to reach its NDC.

Preliminary research suggests that the policies of the Trump administration would instead lead to emissions increasing through to 2025.

Now the predominant concern for much of the international community is that the US will withdraw either from the Paris Agreement, or the overarching United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The former would take four years and the latter only one. Both are legally possible and within the presidential mandate.

The conventional wisdom is that a US withdrawal would be a worst-case scenario for international climate policy.

However, a sober analysis of the political, legal, and financial impacts suggests otherwise. The modified matrix of risks posed by a recalcitrant US administration summarized in Table1, and explored in detail below, highlights the paradox of US participation: a rogue US can cause more damage inside rather than outside of the agreement.

Full essay here

Advertisements

178 thoughts on “Uh, oh. Science Journal Nature editorial on #ParisAgreement: “Better out than in”

    • “Sweet Lemons”, the obverse of “Sour Grapes”. Or, “If [being pruned] is inevitable, you might as well relax and enjoy it.”

      [Cut. .mod]

      • I object to any implication that rape can ever be an enjoyable experience, even as an attempt at humor.

      • But wasn’t that the whole point of the IPCC, and the Paris Climate Accordists Bill? Like the US we were all supposed to lie back and enjoy being raped but we do get your objection to their warped sense of humour.

      • @brian356 What a disgusting thing to say. I don’t care who you are quoting, keep that sh1t to yourself.

    • It’s too Kemp has drink the Kool Aid and has no idea how the real world works anymore. Completely clueless, not a good way to be.

      Anything that weakens the resolve of the EU and the other signing parties to the Paris Climate Treaty is a great thing. The entire scam needs to go down in flames, sort of like the way wind turbines immolate themselves.

      [“It’s true Kemp …” ?? .mod]

    • It’s sad, but it’s also kind of irrelevant. The main effect if this is making Amerika less and less a country the rest of the world looks up to.

      Look at this quote from bloomberg (front-page as of this moment):

      “In theory, that bodes well for miners, oil drillers and gas companies. Yet coal stocks slipped Wednesday after news first leaked out of Trump’s decision. And two of the biggest oil producers, Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips, reiterated support for the accord.”

      • Exxon Mobil and Conoco Phillips support the accord? That’s like a pimp supporting the abolition of prostitution.

      • “like a pimp supporting the abolition of prostitution.”

        it’s in their interests to punish coal for being their competition. More money goes their way when it’s banned.

      • of course coal stock will slip a bit once it’s legal to mine again. Like wise big oil is in favor of government barriers to competition entering the market. Always have been.

      • benben,
        International relationships are not a popularity contest. It is trivial to buy popularity. Earning respect is more difficult, but the better way to go in the long run. Letting others take advantage of you will make you popular, but not earn you any respect. President Trump understands this; maybe some day you will too.

      • Ha, Paul, give me a break. Respect is the last thing the US is gaining with Trump. I think you’re a bit out of touch with the reviews he’s been getting outside the US. The shameful way he pandered to the Saudi’s, the very country that exports most of the islamic extremism. All because they gave him a good show and a gold medal. Pathetic.

      • Benben

        At least he knows he is the president of the USA and not the president of the entire world like the last bum we had as president who thought he was elected as one king to rule them all, who’s job it was to take my hard earned money and send it to every petty dictator in the world and every socialist group that kissed his butt and told him how great he is. Ones like Elon Musk the creep who is going to cry his way out of the president’s advisory board becuase he may not be able to get nearly as much cash from subsidies now that the US woke the frick up and he might have to live off of the Billions he already stole from everyone and not the untold more he might be able to steal in the future.
        Notice how all the so called evil oil companies are lining up against Trump, because like subsidising the greenies it’s in there interest to have agreements like this it cuts out all their competition and artificially drives up prices so they can make even more money, demonstrates what a shame it is when the greenies say that the “deniers” are all financed by the BIG oil companies when in fact it’s the greenies that are taking their money.
        Typical of the socialist mobs out there bought and paid for by the very people they blame for everything, dopes, every action they take just cements the globalist money whores in their ivory towers and screws the rest of us.

      • Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips are international companies. Saying they agree with withdrawal would cause them no end of problems dealing with governments other than the US. While publically saying the support the accords has little downside.

      • ddpalmer

        Do you “deny” the oil companies are financially supporting environmental groups? Do you deny that the best way for large multinational companies to maintain their status is through government regulation? Do you deny that most of the large corporation political contribution go to people who from a conventional view are opposed to their existence?
        The biggest threat to multinationals is small business and innovation, the two cheapest ways to deal with this are to 1) buy politicians and regulate everything to keep small businesses down. 2) to socially attack your competition and then buy them out when it becomes too difficult to over come the bad press.

        I don’t typically buy into conspiracies but it is beyond obvious that the globalist movement is about elitists trying to maintain their position through increasing government control of everything. follow the money it is obvious.

      • Like most warmunists, the troll benben actually believes that his far left wing friends are the world.

      • haha MarkW, you are aware that even the the US democrats would be considered to the right of all but the most extremist fringe parties in europe? So since basically everyone in europe is way more left wing than the left wing of the US, and since europe is larger – both population wise and economically – we can objectively state that you are wrong. And that is not even considering the vast populations of india and china, both pretty far to the left. QED. Falsified. Goodbye MarW!

      • Benben

        Right you are and that’s why the world is so screwed up and getting worse not better by the left’s own admission. More socialism = more inequality, More socialism = more starvation, More socialism = more intolerance, more socialism = less resources, more socialism = more fear, more socialism = less prosperity, more socialism = more war, more socialism = less freedom, less freedom = worse world.

        Isn’t it funny that every time we move further to the left to solve the worlds evils its never enough and things only get worse and then of course the solution is to move even more to the left, but again things get worse and then of course the solution is to move even more to the left.

        Europe is a cesspool, it needed the people of USA to bail it out of its catastrophic wars and it needed the US to rebuild it and it need the US to protect and then it needed the US to buy its goods to allow it to have economic growth and now all of the sudden Europe is the model of what the US should be. Ridiculous Europe is a joke that can’t even take care of its self.

        China you want to be china have fun brother

        India, I don’t think you know india very well not nearly as left as you think and it is the now left part that is building india and pulling its people slowly out of poverty.

        Individual freedom and free markets build wealth, Socialism destroys it and tares the freedom away with it.

      • it is not the left part of india that is building india and slowly moving its people out of poverty

        Sorry

      • haha man oh man I always have to laugh when americans call europe a cesspit, without having lived there. I just spent a year in the US, and I promise you, my country is just fine in comparison. But sure, why don’t you go find me a statistic on which my country (the netherlands, which is what we call a ‘social democracy’, aka european style socialism), and show me that we are doing worse than the US. Pointer: the netherlands and denmark are always changing places for country with the most happy children and teenagers in the world.

      • Benben: I hope you are very young not to understand the politics of the Arab world. A critical number of them do not want democracy or a republic. They want a theocracy. You have to chose between a dictator, sometimes brutal, whom you can somewhat work with, or an even more brutal regime that hates the western world. There is no other choice. To condemn how an administration treats a government in that area of the world, without considering what the probable alternative to that government would be, is short-sighted at best.

      • Benben

        You have a country because of the US and its sacrifice of free individuals blood against the National socialist in germany , your defense from the communist socialist in russia was paid for by the free market might of the US, your country was rebuilt by the tax payers of the capitalist USA and your economy was built on exports to the USA and its wild individualist free market crazies. Not to take anything away from the Netherlands its a beautiful country and great people who have upheld the ideals of democracy and liberty long before it ever heard of socialism which will go by the wayside and hopefully not take the ideals of liberty with it.
        Contrary to popular liberal belief everything that is great about the west was born out of individual liberty and the pursuit of enterprise in a free market, i.e. wealth created by individuals trying to better themselves that translated into opportunity for all, now being squandered by Globalist/Socialist along with all the ideals of personal responsibility, civil society and individual liberty.
        Enjoy your beautiful country and disparage this one all you want, but remember that the horrible capitalist in the USA were one of only two countries (great britain) to ever march an army through your beautiful country without any thought of conquest or subjugation and no other people ever spent more in money or blood or did more for the Netherlands and asked for nothing in return then the USA the country that you spent a year in and found some how not to your liking.

      • Find it, dig it up, process it, burn it, scrub it clean from particulate, properly restore the land where it came from and CHARGE the right price for doing all this (don’t nickle and dime the labourers and environmental costs)…coal wins every time, affordable energy benefits all – why is Africa still completely dark when viewed from satellites – the poorest population most in need of affordable energy

      • Jtom, Sure maybe if Trump was visiting Jordan. But your argument doesn’t change the fact that selling the most extremist country out there (don’t forget 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi) $100bn of your most advanced weapons is just incredibly dumb. Especially if your platform is against extremism.

        Bob, we just had our annual WW2 commemoration. Nobody is forgetting that. It’s also irrelevant to this discussion.* We are running our country in a socialist way and it works beautifully, as opposed to your statement that my country is a cesspit (!). That was the point of contention here. You calling socialist Europe a cesspit. Me calling you out on it. So am I wrong or are you admitting you were wrong? To quote highlander: there can be only one!

        * Maybe if you guys didn’t waste a couple of trillion $$$ and god knows how many lives on losing a war in Afghanistan you could have nice healthcare as well. Just a thought ;)

      • Benben

        So your country was built on socialism? if you know anything about your own country you know thats BS. Your economic system is socialist? more BS. Does your country not profit from being a net exporter? yep.

        How great will your country be when it becomes just a state in the globalist movement? You think when you give up the identity of being Dutch and are now responsible for footing the bill for all the other nations of the world that your quality of life will improve? The US is footing the bill for almost every major international endeavor including the green movement, what happens when you finally have to pay for your beliefs and you don’t have the US footing the bill for you?

        I don’t give a damn about socialism I have always said you want to be a socialist find like minded people and live as a socialist who am i to stop you. You can do that in a free market.

        The Globalist/Socialist movement has nothing to do with living as a socialist it the same movement that the NAZI’s were, the same movement that the Communist were, the same movement that the Maoist were. Its a group of elites trying to cement their place in the world by controlling everyone else, except this time they want control everywhere so there is no one to stand up to them and say NO.

        Europe is a cesspool, Spain a disaster, Italy a disaster, Greece a disaster, Sweden a mess. Germany delusional and self destructive, France a fractured mess. Tell me that its getting better in europe, that economically its improving, that socially its getting better. Its not and you know it and of course your answer is that you need more socialism well brother europe was able to rise from the catastrophe of WWII with the help of the US by embracing individual liberty and free markets and opposing communism and rejecting its self important tendencies that lead to 2 world wars, but its arrogance has returned and so has the chaos that once plagued it, hope it doesn’t find its way to your door.

        As for health care, I can go to my doctor any time I want and get any procedure I want done at any time I want, no approvals from anyone, no government involvement. Can you say the same. The only thing wrong with our system is the ridiculous attempts a socialising it which have driven cost through the roof.

        Canadians cross the board all the time to get procedures done here that they can’t get in Canada even though by all socialist BS standards they have as good a socialized system as any country in Europe (financed by a $50 billion dollar a year trade surplus to the US). .

        90% of the innovation in medicine happen in the US.

        If our system is so bad here why do doctors from all over the world emigrate here?

      • Big oil supposedly almost single-handedly kept the US “skeptical”…but now can’t keep us in Paris?

      • Benben

        * Maybe if you guys didn’t waste a couple of trillion $$$ and god knows how many lives on losing a war in Afghanistan you could have nice healthcare as well. Just a thought ;)

        Maybe you have nice health care (not as good as mine by the way) because the US was willing to fight a war that frankly had nothing to do with the US, why because we couldn’t sit on our hands and watch good people be conquered and subjected by evil people, even though it wasn’t the popular thing to do. Just like now when the popular thing to do is bow to the elitists and their attempts to control everyone because if we don’t the boogieman is coming to get us. There is no C in AGW there is no crisis and there never has been, there is not one person that can be identified as a victim of global warming but there are 7,000,000,000 + people in the world that are benefiting from increased CO2 fertilisation in the atmosphere and cheaper and more accessible food that is a direct result of it. Of those 7 Billion there are also many billions that benefit from the cheap energy that comes with the emissions and there are Billions more who could if we would just stop believing the scare tactics of the Globalist movement.

        Germany and France say they won’t re-negotiate with the US, good let them pay the bill themselves, ha like that will ever happen.

      • bob, don’t you think it’s pretty sad that you need to go back to my grandparents generation to find something that’ll give you the moral high ground? And don’t you see the stunning hypocrisy of claiming that moral high ground with the marshal plan, which is the exact opposite of everything Trump & ‘america first’ stands for?

        As to the rest of your rant. It’s pretty far divorced from reality. You want free markets, but you don’t like it when european countries out-compete america and thus are net exporters. Suuuuure. I was talking to my friends about whether it was worth organizing a boycott of american products. Turns out we don’t buy anything from the states, because it hardly make anything worth buying. Except Hollywood and silicon valley of course. But they’re super liberal. Doesn’t that make you think? Probably not! That is why you are on WUWT after all. Not to think, but to feel good. So enjoy your paris agreement victory!

        Cheers,
        ben

      • Ben, you must be very young. It is troubling that you spent an entire year in the US and came away with nothing positive to say about the country. Where were you and what kind of people were you hanging out with to develop this extremely negative attitude?

        I have visited many countries around the world and always find wonderful things about each one. I have also visited all of the lower 48 states, some are more interesting than others, especially to a geologist, but there is always something worth seeing.

        Perhaps some age and maturity will give you a better perspective of other countries.

        PMK

      • Pamela, did I say anything negative about my experience in the states? I had a great time. It’s the characterisation of my own country as a cesspit that offends me, and is also wildly inaccurate.

      • I got the distinct impression from your post that you disliked you experience in the US. If that is not the case, of course I apologize for scolding you. I am delighted that you had a good time and have happy memories from the USA.

        PMK

      • Benben

        Who said I have problem with European countries out competing the US? Not that I can remember buying anything Dutch except maybe a mediocre beer. I am fine with your country selling things to the US that’s capatalism bring it on straight and fair Americans are always up for good honest competition. Win or lose we can take it can you?

        As to the Marshall plan it was a helping hand in a time of need, that’s what Americans do and have always done much more so then any of the great socialist European countries who are always preaching how much they care about everyone else. You want to compare the 600 plus million Europeans charitable giving to the 300 million Americans private and public? Step up on the world stage stooge and take the lead and put your money where your mouth is and stop whining about The US.

        What Trump is doing is saying that you have all grown up it’s time for you to take care of your selves and stop expecting the hand outs from the US any more.

        And it’s not your grandfathers generation it’s your grandfather all the way to you, when the Russian were threatening to cut of gas supplies to Europe who did the Europeans go crying to? When the Crimea was invade by the Russians who did Europe come crying to? Who still has to leave troops in Europe to help 600 plus million know it all’s to protect them selves from who?
        Why do you care so much what Trump does? I’ll tell you, because you know who’s footing the bill for your big green fraud machine and your scared to death that the money train is leaving the station brother. Well here’s hoping it is.

        As for being on WUWT the only your here is to be a troll and try to annoy as many people as you can with your mindless ever shifting drivel.

        You are clueless.

      • Poland saving Christendom, hence Western Civilization, at Vienna, 11 September 1683:

        They actually attacked on the 12th, but arrived just in time on the 11th. Coincidence? I think not?

      • Benben

        If you need help with your boycot idea, try boycotting the internet, it’s American. So is WUWT and Google and Windows.

      • Bob boder June 2, 2017 at 5:55 pm

        Not to mention general purpose, programmable, digital electronic computers.

        And the nuclear power upon which so much of Europe still relies.

        And the airplane.

        And stereophonic sound.

        For starters.

      • Why does exxon support the accord? They are fans of greenwashing and as a BigBiz can ‘buy in’ to the New World Order better than the little guys. Big business doesnt like free markets as much as they like losing competition.

      • Yeah Bob you’re losing the plot a bit here. Gabro is a Troll. I’m just having a frank exchange of views. Not something you are used to seeing from the ever more angry tone of your posts. So of course we like the internet. The internet is predominantly run by super liberal californian companies. No problem there!

        You keep claiming that somehow we want to have your money. That is patently false. In fact, countries like India and China are investing vast sums of their own money, let alone that somehow my country would want your money. That’s a super bizar claim to make.

        The environmental impact of the average American is 4x that of the average Dutch or German. All anyone wants is for you to do your fair share and behave like a responsible citizen, and not burden the rest of the world with that. How you want to do that is not up to us. More wind turbines? Sure. Or just insulate your houses a bit better if you don’t like renewables. Whatever you guys prefer. This whole obsession with wealth transfer is just a right wing illusion so you can somehow keep going with your cognitive dissonance. (by pulling out Trump saved $2bn that America was supposed to give to third world countries in need, which is pocket money on the scale that the Federal government works, and also goes against your idea that somehow America is nice to third world countries).

        Cheers bob!

        PS at last we have some common ground: I don’t like Heineken either!

      • Benben

        India and China invest large sums of money in what? Every form of energy production they can, what does that have to do with international organizations like IPCC, the UN, the world bank and endless green organization all of which get there their primary fund either directly or indirectly from the US.

        No country has lowered there CO2 emmision more then the US, not that that means a damn, because from an environmental stand point CO2 is a great plus to the environment. As for fighting real polutents the US has been in the lead there for well over a hundred years here and in every other place in the world including Europe and more importantly the third world. Like almost every other international endever the US is the primary financer and mover.

        When I said you like spending our money I meant BS globalist/solialist like you benben another I know how to save the world with everyone else’s money BS’er.

        As for going if the plot I haven’t strayed an inch the article is about TRump pulling out of the fraud US money grubbing Paris agreement. You one the other hand have adressed one of the dozens of points I have made you just blather like you always, spewing total BS with no actual knowledge of any or historical perspective on anything. You are 100% full of crap and anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of any subject knows it right away.

        As for the Netherlands you may live there but I suspect you don’t have the slightest clue of the history of your own country, it’s very existence was forged by people who would consider your views as ridiculous. Spend some time and learn some history.

      • Haha, Bob, all this complaining about how the US is paying for everything and how Europeans are freeloaders. Shall we check that?

        Bob says: “the UN, the world bank and endless green organization all of which get there their primary fund either directly or indirectly from the US.”

        Wikipedia says: “The sum of the contributions of EU member states provided 38.9% of the UN budget in 2007 (this is compared with the US at 22% and Japan at 16.6%). EU member states also collectively provide 55.6% of global development aid (followed by the US at 23.4% and Japan at 11.1%), 40.6% of the funding for UN peacekeeping missions and around half of the budgets for UN funds and programmes.”

        So basically Bob, you either don’t know what you’re talking about, or you’re lying out of your teeth. Either way, you’re making a fool of yourself Bob! Too bad you’ll never get to the point where you scratch your head and think ‘hmmmm, maybe I was wrong’.

        Oh well! Cheers Bob.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_and_the_United_Nations#Contribution

      • Benben

        You mean of the 4.9 billion in budget?
        The US is the single biggest contributor, also single biggest contributor to the imf, world bank, NATO and every other international organization but of course all of this dwarfed by the $45 billion of direct aid to foreign nations out side of The UN and the 20 to 40 billion in private donation to the world made by US citizens. You play games and find what ever BS you want it doesn’t change the fact that 4.5% of the worlds population have happily foot the bill in aid, defense, education and every other form of aid to more of the world then anyone else ever in the history of the world. The US does this and will continue to do so and has since long before WWII. The fact that people like you are bemoaning the US right to stand up for its rights in the face of a ridiculous agreement designed to drive industry and jobs from the US to other countries in the world is the height of hypocrisy. The US has and will do more for the needy in this World than anyone else but we are not going to destroy ourselves to empower a bunch globalist/solcialist to enrich themselves at ours expense and the expense of the third world nation who will pay the biggest price of all in the end.

        Your still a fraud, cheers skippy

      • Doesn’t it bother you that the things you say are just not true? The USA is actually underpaying for the UN on a per capita basis, and definitely not pulling its weight when it comes to other programmes. Look at these nice numbers and quotes, with references! And I managed to do that without me using nasty language! Learn Bob!

        “Rates for all Un member states are primarily determined by gross national income (gni) and gni per capita. Since the U.S. has some of the highest of both wealth measures, its rate is larger than those of other member states. (…) in 2000, the United States was able to secure an agreement that capped contributions at 22%. The United States is the only country with a capped rate, all other countries are subject to the assessment rate formula. if no ceiling existed for the United States and regular Budget contributions were solely determined by gross national income, the U.S. would pay a significantly larger portion of the regular Budget.” [1]

        And when we look at other things than the general budget:

        “the United States is not the top donor of voluntary contributions to many U.N. institutions. In 2015, Japan was the largest donor to the UNDP, contributing $355 million compared with $266 million from the United States. Western European states have long exceeded U.S. contributions in per capita terms, but increasingly they contribute more in absolute terms as well.” [2]

        [1] https://betterworldcampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/U.S.-Dues-Contributions-to-the-UN-2016-Congressional-Briefing-Book.pdf
        [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/31/u-s-funding-for-the-united-nations-may-not-be-as-costly-as-you-think/

      • Benben again just more BS from you all of the UN contributions from all the countries to the UN don’t even add up to private international chratitable give never mind foreign add the US gives to countries. This doesn’t include hundreds of billions of dollars spent protecting foreign countries or patrolling the high seas for the rest of the world. As you said yourself the EU has a much bigger population than the US and a bigger economy too so why do you need the US? What does it matter to you? 4.5% of the world population and you can’t get along with out trying to shame us into feeling guilty because we don’t solve all the worlds problems the way your arrogant Europe elites think we should, how about you start with the failing states in your own EU like Italy, Greece and Spain? Oh that’s right you need them to be failing states to keep the value of the euro down so Germany, France and the Neitherlands can remain exporter nations and “out compete” other powers. Globalist/socialist policies at their best.

        Again what does any of your BS have to do with the US backing out of the Paris agreement? The way you feel about the US and the crap you believe you would think you would be happy the US is out.

      • well, Bob, the interesting thing here is that you made a couple of verifiable claims (“the UN, the world bank and endless green organization all of which get there their primary fund either directly or indirectly from the US.” and “The US is the single biggest contributor”). I then showed conclusively that both in absolute and per capita terms, and both looking at just the general UN budget and the ‘endless green organizations’, the EU is a far bigger contributor than the US.

        You just don’t understand that when you’re factually wrong, you’re factually wrong.

        So basically, you’re just not very good at constructing an argument. And on top of that you have anger issues and seem to be generally an unpleasant person. Have a nice life Bob!

      • Benben,

        The EU doesn’t contribute a dime to the UN. Its member states do. Take out Britain and the other non-Eurozone nations and the US still outcontributes the EU Euro states.

        The UK is leaving anyway, which alone will drop the EU to behind the US.

        The sooner the US leaves the UN and kicks its a$$ out of the country, the better.

      • benben June 3, 2017 at 2:16 am

        How exactly does pointing out how ludicrous you are make me a troll, troll?

      • Benben

        And I have shown you that the US alone contributes more to the world then any other nation. Plus the congressional budget office shows that US actually contributes much more then the UN mandatory contribution. In the order of 6.5 billion last year but again this is trival when compared to other spend the US does outside of the UN. The US is the biggest single contributer no matter how you spin it and has been since the begin of the UN. But again none of this has anything to do with Trump pulling out of the Paris agreement it’s just you trying to spin a single point endlessly to confuse the issue but even touching one point to spin you fail.

        Get back to the 7 billion deminstratable people being helped by the extra CO2 in the atmosphere vs the ZERO deminstratable victims.

        Spin your life away on cherry picked BS you still are a fraud.

        Cheers flapjack

      • Benben

        As to me having anger issues? I have never in my life acted out of anger, nor have I ever laid my hands on anyone, nor have I ever in my life done something to hurt anyone in anyway. I take great pride in helping as many people as can and sharing what ever love is in me to whom ever needs me.

        The reason I have no time for people like you is because you are the type who just likes to irritate as many people as he can. You don’t actual care about anyone or anything it’s all just a game to you.

    • The people who have signed on to this accord know that without US participation nothing is going to happen and that the whole charade will begin to dissolve within months. If the pledging of money is any indication of actual commitment, then there has been no real commitment in this supposed “accord,” except, perhaps from the US who apparently has already voluntarily given $1 billion.

      Since all is voluntary and not binding on any of the signatories under the accord, then one has to ask what all the hue and cry has been about. Plainly and simply, it is all about the fact that the US has picked up its marbles and gone home. The American taxpayer is done with wasting money. The cash spigot is turned off. By going it’s own way the US signals, especially to Europe, that national sovereignty still reigns in some places.

    • Absolutely.
      I understand those exact words have been enunciated in the current ‘Pin a Tail on Corbyn the aboriculturalist (I plant Money Trees)’ so-called General Election, here in the UK.

      Auto, not a believer in Jeremy (From the Manor House) Corbyn’s forests of money trees.
      Did you guess???

      • I think that is the point. There can be no deal because any version of Paris will be bad. His offer of renegotiation is simply a political courtesy to soften the blow to the alarmists.

      • The leaders of France and Germany have already declared that there will be no renegotiation. I’m pretty sure that they would have told that to Trump previously. I agree that the offer to renegotiate was just a verbal flourish to soften the blow for those on the fence.

      • Well, the offer to renegotiate also puts the ball in the alarmist’s court. The implication is, we are not opposed to a deal if everyone is on a level playing field. Everyone agrees to cut emissions by essentially the same amount. No special exemptions for China, et al.

        Of course, the warmists know that those countries would only agree to a deal that gave them an economic advantage. Such a renegotiation would result in China walking out, and Trump being both vindicated and appearing to be a willing player in reducing CO2 emissions. Either way, the accord fails, and they would rather blame Trump, so no renegotiation.

    • Trump states –
      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-paris-climate-agreement-withdrawal-announcement-full-transcript/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17&yptr=yahoo

      “the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate accord. (Applause) Thank you.

      But begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the U.S., its business, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.”

      So again it’s not about the science it’s all about…. the money.

      “Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. ”

      ” a two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100″
      yet he still wants to re-enter the Paris accord

      That’s not about the science it’s all about…. the votes.

      To sum up it’s not about the science, it’s all about…. the votes & the money.

      I suspect we’ll still be here in the next 10 yrs, because ‘Climate Change’ is such a wonderful cash cow.

      • Of course the President spoke to what he knows best: the economics. He also knew this would resonate the most with the average person on the street. There are many good reasons to exit the Paris agreement, but he picked the one that he thought more people would understand. For a leader, that’s smart. No matter how you slice it, this is still good for the US. But you can’t expect the President to counter all the bad climate science being practiced out there. This mess was created by the scientific community and must be corrected there as well.

      • Trump isn’t interested in renegotiating the Paris deal, or any evolution of it, otherwise he wouldn’t have taken America out.

        And where did he say it wasn’t about the money? That was his whole point, he’s not prepared to shovel money into the pockets of countries in direct competition with his own.

        He would be as criminally irresponsible, and reckless, with American taxpayers money as Obama was had he not made the points he did about the money.

        We may indeed be here in 10 years time, but America will be a far more prosperous place. However, if observed global temperatures continue the way they are, they will soon drop below even the lowest of the IPCC’s wild computer predictions, whilst CO2 continues to rise and the earth gets greener still.

        The IPCC will be forced, yet again, to lower their warming expectations at which point they will lose all credibility and the whole scam will be dead in the water.

        For what it’s worth, my opinion is that will happen well within the next 5 years.

      • The stock market started rising yesterday, right about the time this announcement was being made.

      • It was about the money and not the science because the accord was about the money and not the science. Any agreement that redistributes trillons of dollars of wealth to achieve an optimistic 0.2 degree reduction in global average temperature is not a deal about saving the climate; it is a deal to redistribute wealth.

    • They are telling the readers to keep up the fight domestically and cut CO2 anyway without the accords.
      When Australia was a non signatory or the Kyoto agreement, Australia still beat the targets, unlike many signatories.
      Trump points out that the US is the only one paying the price in treasure, jobs and eventually one assumes military security,’war on terror’,and economic growth.
      Of course he is right.
      Were a cheaper fuel be found then the US would adopt this.
      In the meanwhile it will develop its own gas fields, refuse to pay others that burn heaps of coal and gas, like India and China, while looking after its poor and needy by giving them the dignity of work.
      The ‘new’ paradigm is a framework that changes the world debate.
      The scientific debate may be enhanced by studying the natural drivers of climate.
      Hopefully that will be also funded.

      • Real funding for natural drivers of climate is a must…especially at the expense of the endlessly tedious drivel of the CO2 nonsense. The papers coming out of the current climate studies are terribly boring and repetitive – they have been beating a dead horse and wasting money for many years.

      • Yes, let the people starve (they apparently haven’t got the CO2-foodstuff connection yet).

      • studying the natural drivers of climate. << yes. Who was it who said that challengers to climate should ALSO be funded for studies…not just one way.

    • Tom,
      its just damage control, spin, PR etc etc. Propaganda. Standard Green Blob practice but once in a blue moon we hear it as a defensive strategy rather than in the usual offensive, aggressive, abusive form.

      • What that Nature piece is conveniently ignoring is that the only thing that made the entire deal work was Uncle Sugar promising to pay for it all, and to suck up all the job losses, too.

        Pull that jenga-layer out and the entire tower comes crashing down – nobody else gonna pay for this nonsense!

  1. How / Why should it take 4 years to withdraw from an unconstitutional agreement?
    Obama wasn’t King of the USA and had no constitutional authority to commit US to anything without 2/3 of the Senate’s consent. Goes for Iran “deal” as well.

      • Since it is wholly unenforceable, then 4 years of ignoring it whilst Paris Accord dies on the vine will be amusing to watch at the very least. Highly unlikely there’s gonna be any cranking it up.

      • If they want to waste time and money making this a campaign issue, more power to them.
        In the US, “global warming” has always been dead last in issues that people cared about.

    • Well, ya’ know, Europe is the birthplace of Mother Goose Rhymes, Grimms Fairy Tales and more recently the Harry Potter books along with various other other flights of fantasy. The Paris agreement is a derivative of the Humpty Dumpty tragedy. Watch the pieces scatter now that Trump has finally decided to keep a promise.

    • Some one may correct me here. My understanding was, it was an executive order signed by Obama to skirt your Congress. All the while knowing he’d never get it through the Congress.
      Talk of one or four years to extradite America from the UN run fraud seems a little far fetched. When it was Obama who made the commitment with no congressional approval.
      No money from Trump no deal with the UN.

      • Obama should pay, he made the deal without authority. He misled the Europeans into thinking it was valid and could not be revoked or did they experience irrational exuberance and lost their senses.
        I listened to the entire speech and did not hear anything about 4 years. what am I missing?

    • Apparently it takes only one year to get out of the UN Framework thing. It’s illegal for us to be in it, because they took Palestine in as a member.

      • Yes! So exit FCCC NOW! The more the US disengages from this Climate Fascist crap, the better!

  2. “While Paris (Climate Accord) is fragile, international climate action can be antifragile…”

    It’s Dead, Jim!
    :

  3. Nature sees the money drying up, and wants to get off the climate bus before the fares are due. They know the Kyoto deal was never met by most participants, and that this was really a money grab for everybody but the US, and now know the US isn’t interested in buying. Now, they can all miss their commitments again, but have the cover to blame the US, at least until the rest realize there isn’t any measurable warming.

  4. Now is the only possible window where skeptics may find a way to be fairly heard. We must create the space to do so effectively and we need to do it NOW.

    • That’s why the Trump Administration has to organize a series of public debates between the best on the warmist side and the best on the skeptical side. Get all points of view out there and let us come to our own conclusions as to whether it’s worth doing anything about CO2 at all.
      Have the debate that we were told was over but never really occurred at all.

      • Yes I’ve always puzzled about how a “debate” that never occurred is somehow “over.”

  5. Continued US membership in the Paris Agreement on climate would … gift greater leverage to a recalcitrant administration.

    That’s just saying America won’t have a say if she isn’t at the table.

    President Trump has magnanimously offered to renegotiate the Paris agreement on terms that provide a level playing field. He’s willing to work with the Democrats. It doesn’t take a genius to know that he would demand that India, China, Russia, and everyone would cut their emissions just as much as America.

    It ain’t going to happen.

  6. My hope is he got out of it far enough that some “judge” will not be able to force us back in under some fabricated rationalization.

    • hunter
      June 1, 2017 at 2:24 pm

      My hope is he got out of it far enough that some “judge” will not be able to force us back in under some fabricated rationalization.
      —————-

      hunter, stop worrying,, there is no court in USA that will ever be subject it to it….:)

      I think soon many of the courts and judges will be loaded with cases of people versus the state govts…… in actual cases against the “green legislation”………..

      cheers

      • If the court can rule that raising corn to feed to your own cattle counts as interstate commerce, then never underestimate the ability of the courts to support whatever the current government wants to do.

  7. Trump just denied trillions of $ to the liberal/leftist/enviro cabal which was going to be used for political ends. He saved our country…

  8. It is so sad to see a formerly highly-respected journal like Nature persist in going down this path to ruin. Now would be a chance to reverse course and disavow CAGW and all those who insist it is happening.

    PMK

    • Nature lost the plot long ago. They published OLeary’s provable scientific misconduct on abrupt,Eemian sea level rise. Essay By Land or by Sea.

    • Has anyone verified who paid Obama for the Italy speech? The million may already be back in America – just not in the public purse.

  9. Yeah,

    The US is already meeting the PA emissions targets, and likely to continue to do so:

    And given global demographics, global emissions are likely to continue to decline:

    Even if increased CO2 emissions ( compared to say 2010 ) were to be net negative, this scenario is unlikely to occur.

  10. I wish Australia would follow suit. But the Minister for Energy and the Environment says we are well on the way to complying with our 2020 promise so there is no reason to get out of a promise we have made. We will stick to our promise!

    Thank the Lord President Trump has also stuck to his promise.

    • we are well on the way to complying with our 2020 promise so there is no reason to get out of a promise we have made.

      That’s just it – the world is already with decreasing emissions because of demographics. Paris signatories aren’t dummies – they set up these cherry pick targets because they knew they’d meet them without draconian measures.

      But that raises the question – where’s the crisis?

      If demographics mean falling emissions, forcing rates and warming rates are guaranteed to follow. No need for global governance or green police, which is why the more nefarious power seekers of the movement are upset.

      • “Lord President Trump

        Sounds a bit over the top to me.”

        dudley left out the comma: “Thank the Lord, President Trump has also stuck to his promise.’

      • A funny book title on the importance of punctuation:

        “Panda eats, shoots and leaves” vs. “Panda eats shoots and leaves”.

      • You only come up with “Lord President Trump” if you ignore the context in the sentence. Doesn’t even need a comma. The “Lord” is who he is thanking for the fact that “President Trump” kept his promise. Doesn’t make sense any other way. A comma (as suggested) adds a pause, but in this case adds no change in the meaning.

  11. As a scientist, outside USA, and by no means a Trump supporter, I think that Trump did it right concerning Paris Agreement. There are tangible problems that can be easily supported by science like pollution. Climate change is not yet understood to a level that can support these kind of megalomaniac commitments. All that money can be better used in “real” problems supported by good science. At least science that fully uses the scientific method an that anyone can replicate with the same results.
    Every time that I ear that we must limit our emissions to avoid an increase of X (I’ve heard many numbers) degrees relative to the beginning of the industrial revolution until 2100 my eyes roll. What scientist, in his perfect faculties, can support such a claim??? Go figure…

    • ..and there’s the odd conundrum.
      When CO2 levels were in the 1000’s…was the planet grossly polluted?…naturally?

    • JN
      one minor quibble.
      “megalomaniac commitments”
      Try ‘Kleptocrat wish lists’

      Auto

      • “Kleptocrat wish lists” – I hesitated between both hehehehehehehehe
        I really felt that some countries really tried Kleptocracy for uncommitted purposes. No one really knows how some money “receptors” will use the money. Without clear objectives, probably will fulfill the pockets of corrupt leaders.

    • Not only that, but think of the inference – that the “pre-industrial” (read: Little Ice Age) climate was some kind of “ideal.” Anyone who suggests such a thing needs a history lesson.

    • As much as I enjoy your optimism (and essays) Pointman, I think the green cabal will fight to the death on this one. The saving grace should be the economy picking up even more and fuel prices remaining low which will take the wind out of the Democrats sails come the next election.
      Once you’ve experienced improvement in your fiscal life from reduced regulations and getting out of Paris, why would you vote to voluntarily put the green shackles back on?

      • They will fight to the death, because the alternative for them is to surrender all of the ground they have spent the past 200 something years gaining.

        It the same communists we’ve been fighting this whole time.

  12. Just heard the CEO of Mars on PBS claim his company will continue down the low carbon road to support the Paris agreement. I know for sure that strategy will only live until profit & market share begin to decline due to competitors who are not so self-righteous. Large companies love regulations because they destroy competitiveness of smaller companies. The Paris agreement is dead.

  13. One wonders what “natural” products these folks have been consuming. Certainly not familiar with “STEM”

    Today is a good day

    Wayne Delbeke

  14. The claim that Trump’s policies will “increase carbon emissions until 2025 (a magic number?) ”
    is apparently based on nothing. I know of nothing Trump has promised that would increase those emissions. And he has mentioned support for nuclear power and fracking, and those two things
    can significantly reduce carbon emissions, as they have done in the past. And failure to recognize the imminent arrival of practical electric cars and molten salt reactors, capable of producing the cheapest power of any technology, is ignoring the future, not envisioning it.These people are pretty ignorant folk. Note that warming alarmists ALWAYS assume that their will be no energy technological advances for the next 100 years. Are they insane? Seems as though it comes down to that versus energy ignorance.

    • Trump’s policies will only increase carbon emissions until 2025? China’s policies will increase carbon emissions until 2030. Maybe the U.S. needs to try harder.

    • … the imminent arrival of . . . molten salt reactors …

      Define imminent.
      When will MSRs begin to supply 1% of US energy needs? 5% ?

    • Arthur 4563, you are absolutely right! This point is never mentioned. I’m in my 80s and when I was a kid, I could not possibly have imagined what the world would be like 70 years ahead. There was no TV, we did our math with log tables and slide rules, owning a car was a rare luxury, etc. No allowance is made for man’s ingenuity. We are an adaptive species. We inhabit places with climates as harsh as the hottest desert to the coldest arctic. We are not fruit flies limited to one set of responses. If the planet warms by 2 degrees, we’ll adapt. If the oceans rise, we’ll pick up and move further inland. All this fuss is much ado about nothing.

      • Indeed! The one, and the only, thing human beings can do about “climate change” is called “adapt.” The alternative being “death.” However, I’m not talking about “caused by humans” when I say “climate change.” I’m talking about the real world, not the fantasy world reflected in computer climate models that predict “catastrophe” based on minuscule increases in CO2 levels – which catastrophe NEVER OCCURRED IN THE PAST, despite MUCH higher CO2 levels.

        I’ll repeat the phrase I coined – “Observation TRUMPS theory.” ;-D

  15. “a rogue US can cause more damage inside rather than outside of the agreement.”

    Yep. Better for them to go it alone. Now who is going to step up and make up for lost U.S. funding? How about you Merkel? Germany can fund the EU, save Greece, keep the Green Climate Fund afloat, take in the majority of ISIS, I mean, Syrian refugees, and transition from nuclear and coal to green energy all at the same time, can’t they? This will be interesting to watch. Not that I think Europe will keep their Paris commitments any better than they did their Kyoto commitments. But now they don’t have U.S. money to redistribute and to use to fund their overhead and propaganda machine, the Paris agreement is likely to fade even quicker from the public’s consciousness. Politicians that waste money on it may find their careers shortened. I just wish we could get back the billion dollars Obama already gave them. That would make a decent down payment on the wall. We just can’t have outside elements coming in to influence our elections. Wouldn’t you agree Democrats?

  16. The grapes are always greener or more sour. Seriously though, they have to say that. Better morale for the remaining troops. So they too don’t get ideas about deserting the Climate Cause.

  17. Why I voted for him. Everything else secondary, except for the fact that HRC makes me sick to my stomach.

    • I’m with you! In the same exact camp. We must end Eco-Fascism even at the cost of having a POTUS who thinks he should keep “tweeting.”

  18. Let me recap the horrors according to Nature:

    1. US misses its domestic targets (targets for poverty)
    2. US withdrawal encourages others to withdraw
    3. US obstructs the Paris rulebook (from the outside?)
    4. The cancellation of climate financing

    What a horror! Que miseria! 1 and 2 are definitely positive, 3 is a pure speculation, 4 is the main point: US will no longer finance its own destruction.

  19. This is a nice start, but now for the real political hardball – UNFCCC recognized “Palestine” as a member “state”, thus triggering a US law that states the US will withdraw support from any organization that does so before the Israelis and Palestinians have concluded negotiations. Thus BY US LAW, Trump should withdraw the US and all US support (ie money) from the UNFCCC and all subordinate agreements! That would really cause heads to explode in the climate industrial complex (ie trough feeders).

    • EPA Administrator Scott Ptuitt said today that the U.S. seat at the UNFCCC was “secure”

      It doesn’t sound like Scott is thinking about withdrawing from the UNFCCC, going by that remark.

  20. But the reality is that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero.. Hence the Paris Climate Agreement will have no effect on climate whether we abide by it or not. What is most important now is our nation’s economic well being. Our federal government needs to pay off its huge debts and other debts that have been caused by our huge annual trade deficits. We need to start developing trade surpluses and we cannot do that wasting money on climate change. Let tne newley rich countries like China, waste money on it. We have not been able to change one weather event let alone change global climate. Even if we could stop our climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise are part of the current climate so they would continue ao there is no real benefit in trying to change climate.

    • Agreed 100%. “Climate Science” has for the most part stooped to “hypothetical BS.” All the squandering of our precious resources isn’t going to do a thing to the climate, because CO2 isn’t driving it.

  21. The author says US emissions would increase through 2025 implying they are increasing today. They are not. US emissions have generally been in decline since 2007. Economic growth might result in some increase but emissions per dollar of GDP are still likely to continue falling.

  22. re·cal·ci·trant
    [rəˈkalsətrənt]
    ADJECTIVE

    having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority or discipline:
    “a class of recalcitrant fifteen-year-olds”
    synonyms: uncooperative · intractable · obstreperous · truculent · [more]

    NOUN

    a person with an obstinately uncooperative attitude.

    ———————————-

    That describes the past of Obama to a tee. Children were running the country.

    America Will Be Great Again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  23. This Nature article is just one big dud — lots of name calling aimed at a country that never officially entered the damn agreement to begin with.

    … dream talk about a dream commitment that never really was from the get go

    How can anybody, therefore, take an editorial about a non-existent membership seriously?

    It’s a delusional, pedantic rant.

  24. Trump is well aware that the trillion dollar ‘green revolution’, stuck of the back of the false CAGW conjecture, is simply a huge international Ponzi scheme and he is bailing the USA out before the inevitable crash. The failure of the Paris Climate Accord to have any sanctions if targets were missed was the trigger for many countries to recognise it was time to jump ship.

    This is evidenced by only 147 countries out of the 195 present having ratified the Accord as at today. Watch other developed countries follow the USA lead over the coming months, including the UK, which has discovered a huge coal deposit off the coast of NE England. Japan and China are also likely to bail out early as they have both successfully tested pilot production systems for the extraction of the vast deposits of methane clathrate from the sea bed. The next few years are going to be very turbulent as the countries left in the scheme become bankrupt and start looking for redress,

    • The basic climate green cronyism scheme was untouched by the DJT approach. It might be the start of a corrective road but the equity market is clearly betting against no serious impact on the subside players. Go look at today’s stock charts.

      The junk science authority system untouched and the long-term climate narrative will remain largely government funded. Not what should have happened in my view but perhaps it’s the DJT 4-d chess thing again, he has a knack for making apparent classic blunders (sparing enemies who hate you in this case) turned into great victories largely due to the absurdity of his opponents. Maybe it’s more helpful the Greenshirt fringe is around and funded for a time longer. I, like many Americans despise these people. If he crushed the fraud consensus, cut off funding to the leftist operative centers commonly call “universities” and “science” labels, cut down the IPCC and UN Climate Framework in a single stroke for their partisan sins maybe that backlash would be worse could be argued. They’re going to play the wounded victim card for the “cause” in any case but under the DJT plan they keep their paychecks and rent seeking profits. I don’t get it but perhaps slow marginalization is the best political approach for 2020 for example.

  25. “The Paris agreement is a derivative of the Humpty Dumpty tragedy”. – Classic, I’m going to quote that.!!

  26. This reminds me strongly of the oft-repeated declaration that a run of cold winters is evidence of global warming…

    • I thought that “the children weren’t going to know what snow was” (THAT was when we were having winters with relatively little snowfall)…oh wait – then we heard that “winters with more snow are “consistent with” global warming (THAT was when, following the previous violins about what the “children” wouldn’t experience, we started to get winters that were BURYING us in snow). So the narrative simply adapts to the current weather headlines. When EVERYTHING including, in particular, things DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to one another, is said to be “evidence of” supposed human-caused “climate change,” you know that it’s all BS.

  27. A win is a win is the argument but the cancer of junk science and all the peddlers, IPCC/UN/EU/Academia/climate “science” consensus/Public Education/MSM remain untouched and to a degree enabled by the discussion of the Presidents “renegotiation” offer. If it is fraud and it is, how do you offer a forward deal opportunity to the perps?

    The leftist, globalist, central planning NWO hobby horse is still in the corner of the play room. Massive partisan government funding tools for decades more. Worse 10x then public radio in impacts.

    After the euphoria winds down the mistake of not launching an all out reform to include purging the junk science supports of climate fraud will be clear. Regardless of economic gains and results the Greenshirts essentially won the long game of the 1980’s in the very same way. Reagan was twice the President any recent office holder could hope to be but he allowed the academic activists to incubate the global warming agenda and permitted the UN hatchet science a safe place.

    So the carrier called “Paris” is sunk but the manufacturing plant remains to create the next statist invention and it will be even worse then before. The gun left loaded on the table. DJT just isn’t that interested in anything other then the headline economic argument. I’m doubtful NASA/NOAA will be fully cleansed or many of the idiot subsidies impacted. Tesla up near the record high again today, nothing changed for the individual scammers by this approach. Climate fraud will only shape-shift under DJT as they plan the next wave to put them in power and they never make these types of mistakes. They’ll be working on enemy lists, re-education camps (beyond the current academic establishment), nationalizing key industry and making climate skepticism a formal thought crime.

    The stupid Party and the stupid skeptic base has done it again. Give the leftists credit they play the long game better then the aging dissent. They always understood the need to capture youth, brainwash them and wait for the results.

  28. It would be a great day indeed if Trump would remove all tax credits from intermittent “renewable” grid energy and EV’s and hybrids and …

  29. “recalcitrant”??? what authority and control exists to which the administration ought to submit? This was an Obama thing not a U.S. thing. The U.S. never committed to that agreement, just that twit occupying the White House in 2016. We are “withdrawing” from a non-commitment.

Comments are closed.