Exiting the Mad Hatter's climate tea party

Trump was 100% right (not just 97%) to show real leadership and walk away from Paris

President Trump has rejected and exited the Paris climate treaty – walked America away from the Mad Hatter tea party that was the entire multi-decade, often hysterical and always computer model-driven UN climate process. My article this week explains why this bold move was the 100% right, ethical, moral and scientific thing to do: for the economic security of American workers and families … and the betterment of all mankind.

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

I can guess why a raven is like a writing-desk, Alice said. “Do you mean you think you can find out the answer?” said the March Hare. “Exactly so,” said Alice. “Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on. “I do,” Alice replied. “At least I mean what I say. That’s the same thing, you know.”

“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “You might just as well say, ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!” “You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!” “It IS the same thing with you,” said the Hatter.

Can you imagine stumbling upon the Mad Hatter’s tea party, watching as the discussions become increasingly absurd – and yet wanting a permanent seat at the table? Could Lewis Carroll have been having nightmares about the Paris climate treaty when he wrote Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland?

President Trump was 100% correct (not just 97%) when he showed true leadership this week – and walked America away from the madness laid out before him and us on the Paris climate table.

From suggestions that Earth’s climate was balmy and stable until the modern industrial era, to assertions that humans can prevent climate change and extreme weather events by controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – to claims that withdrawing from Paris would “imperil our planet’s very survival” – the entire process has been driven by computer models and hysteria that have no basis in empirical science.

There is no convincing real-world evidence that plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide has replaced the powerful natural forces that have driven Earth’s climate from time immemorial. Moreover, even if the United States totally eliminated its fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 levels would continue to climb. China and India are building new coal-fired power plants at a feverish clip. So is Germany. And China is financing or building dozens of additional coal-burning electricity generators in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.

Plus, even if alarmists are right about CO2, and every nation met its commitments under Paris, average planetary temperatures in 2100 would be just 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.3 F) lower than if we did nothing.

But “our closest allies” wanted Trump to abide by Obama’s commitment. Some did, because they want America to shackle its economy and drive energy prices into the stratosphere the same way they have. Others dearly want to follow a real leader, and walk away from the mad Paris tea party themselves.

But even poor countries signed the Paris treaty. Yes, they did – because they are under no obligation to reduce their coal, oil or natural gas use or their CO2 emissions. And because they were promised $100 billion a year in cash, plus free state-of-the-art energy technologies, from developed nations that would have become FMCs (formerly rich countries) as they slashed their energy use and de-industrialized.

But the Paris climate treaty was voluntary; the United States wouldn’t have to do all this. Right. Just like it’s voluntary for you to pay your taxes. China, India and poor developing countries don’t have to do anything. But the USA would have been obligated to slash its oil, gas and coal use and carbon dioxide emissions. It could impose tougher restrictions, but it could not weaken them. And make no mistake: our laws, Constitution, legal system, the Treaty on Treaties and endless lawsuits by environmentalist pressure groups before friendly judges would have ensured compliance and ever more punishing restrictions.

But hundreds of companies say we should have remained in Paris. Of course they do. Follow the money.

If we are to avoid a climate cataclysm, “leading experts” say, the world must impose a $4-trillion-per-year global carbon tax, and spend $6.5 trillion a year until 2030 to switch every nation on Earth from fossil fuels to renewable energy. That’s a lot of loot for bankers, bureaucrats and crony corporatists.

But, they assure us, this transition and spending would bring unimaginable job creation and prosperity. If you believe that, you’d feel right at home in Alice’s Wonderland and Looking Glass world.

Who do you suppose would pay those princely sums? Whose jobs would be secure, and whose would be expendable: sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism? Here’s the Planet Earth reality.

Right now, fossil fuels provide 80% of all the energy consumed in the USA – reliably and affordably, from relatively small land areas. Wind and solar account for 2% of overall energy needs, expensively and intermittently, from facilities across millions of acres. Biofuels provide 3% – mostly from corn grown on nearly 40 million acres. About 3% comes from hydroelectric, 3% from wood and trash, 9% from nuclear.

Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia and other states that generate electricity with our abundant coal and natural gas pay 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. California, Connecticut, New York and other states that impose wind, solar and anti-fossil fuel mandates pay 15 to 18 cents. Families in closely allied ultra-green Euro countries pay an average of 26 US cents per kWh, but 36 cents in Germany, 37 cents in Denmark.

EU manufacturers are already warning that these prices could send companies, factories, jobs and CO2 emissions to China and other non-Euro countries. EU electricity prices have skyrocketed 55% since 2005; 40% of UK households are cutting back on food and other essentials, to pay for electricity; a tenth of all EU families now live in green energy poverty. Elderly people are dying because they can’t afford heat!

The Paris treaty would have done the same to the United States, and worse.

The Heritage Foundation says Paris restrictions would cost average US families $30,000 in cumulative higher electricity prices over the next decade. How much of their rent, mortgage, medical, food, clothing, college and retirement budgets would they cut? Paris would eliminate 400,000 high-pay manufacturing, construction and other jobs – and shrink the US economy by $2.5 trillion by 2027. Other analysts put the costs of remaining in Paris much higher than this – again for no climate or environmental benefits.

Big hospitals like Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center’s Comprehensive Cancer Center in Winston-Salem, NC and Inova Fairfax Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Northern Virginia pay about $1.5 million per year at 9 cents/kWh – but $3 million annually at 18 cents … $5 million at 30 cents … and nearly $7 million at 40 cents. How many jobs and medical services would those rate hikes wipe out?

Malls, factories and entire energy-intensive industries would be eliminated. Like families and small businesses, they would also face the new reality of having pricey electricity when it happens to be available, off and on all day, all week, when the wind blows or sun shines, instead of when it’s needed. Drilling and fracking, gasoline and diesel prices, trucking and travel, would also have been hard hit.

Americans are largely prohibited from mining iron, gold, copper, rare earth and other metals in the USA. Paris treaty energy prices and disruptions would have ensured that American workers could not turn metals from anywhere into anything – not even wind turbines, solar panels or ethanol distillation plants.

Most of the “bountiful” renewable energy utopia jobs would have been transporting, installing and maintaining wind turbines and solar panels made in China. Even growing corn and converting it to ethanol would have been made cost-prohibitive. But there would have been jobs for bureaucrats who write and enforce the anti-energy rules – and process millions of new unemployment and welfare checks.

Simply put, the Paris climate treaty was a terrible deal for the United States: all pain, no gain, no jobs, no future for the vast majority of Americans – with benefits flowing only to politicians, bureaucrats and crony capitalists. President Trump refused to ignore the realities of this economic suicide pact, this attempted global government control of American lives, livelihoods and living standards.

That is why he formally declared that the United States is withdrawing from the treaty. He could now submit it for advice, consent – and rejection – by the Senate. He could also withdraw the United States from the underlying UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or negotiate that reflects empirical science and is fair to America and its families and workers. But what is really important now is this:

We are out of Paris! President Trump is leading the world back from the climate insanity precipice.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 2, 2017 3:41 pm

Very good summary. Maybe we just need to concentrate more on the German energy situation and cost, effects on its business sector, hypocracy of Merkel, etc to drive the message home.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
June 2, 2017 4:04 pm

Trump believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted. This is the ramblings of a madman. Attention to all science deniers on the site. THIS IS YOUR GUY!!! Good luck with that!!!

Reply to  steve
June 2, 2017 6:39 pm

Steve, instead of a fairly pathetic straw man, do go ahead and show us some science, along with your detailed math.

Reply to  steve
June 2, 2017 6:46 pm

And you believe in unicorns. Good luck with that!!!

Reply to  steve
June 2, 2017 7:49 pm

Steve should have put his second sentence first or perhaps last.

Reply to  steve
June 2, 2017 9:46 pm

Dear Steve. Please look at this graph and tell me what the Paris Accord was supposed to accomplish?
NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING. If you disagree please prove otherwise.

jim heath
Reply to  steve
June 2, 2017 10:09 pm

In Trump we trust!

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  steve
June 2, 2017 10:48 pm

steve June 2, 2017 at 4:04 pm
“Trump believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy,”
steve the analogy is not a bad one for a laymen insofar as how the human body use energy, and how energy is created in the human body. All work requires energy in one form or another.
As for my use of the term “work” it is basic physics.
You will note that marathon runners must be hydrated with energy type drinks to prevent organ and heart failure. So yes energy is used in exercise and each person has a finite amount before the human body react to the depletion.
“This is the ramblings of a madman” Hmm perhaps but the madman is a lot saner than yourself, or at least better educated.

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 12:09 am

Sure. Science is as follows. I will keep it simple. The more co2 we put into our atmosphere the more heat gets trapped therefore the planet warms and its caused by humans. Its been science that has stood for more than 100 years. But of course you all know better.

Reply to  Steve
June 3, 2017 12:17 am

The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more food, fuel, fodder, and feed can grow.
The warmer the atmosphere, the longer the growing season in the greater the areas.
The warmer the atmosphere, the fewer people dying of cold and disease, the greater the good for the greater the number of people.
The higher the energy prices, and the more restrictive the energy policies are, the greater the harm to the ever larger the number of innocents. Because you have chosen death for those innocents.

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 12:28 am

Poor Steve, seems the battery that ran your brain ran out ages ago.
Maybe take it to a recharging station ??

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 12:29 am

“The more co2 we put into our atmosphere the more heat gets trapped therefore the planet warms and its caused by humans.”
You know this because of an experiment in an enclosed glass bottle.. right ?
Do you live in an enclosed glass bottle ?
Do you REALLY think the Earth is an enclosed glass bottle.???.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 1:31 am

“Steve June 3, 2017 at 12:09 am
The more co2 we put into our atmosphere the more heat gets trapped…”
Trapped? Really, how? I am really keen for you to explain that little nugget of scientific misunderstanding.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 1:50 am

Steve June 3, 2017 at 12:09 am
“The more co2 we put into our atmosphere the more heat gets trapped therefore the planet warms and its caused by humans. Its been science that has stood for more than 100 years. But of course you all know better.”
Why did you switch topics?CO2 was not the subject of your conversation at
“steve June 2, 2017 at 4:04 pm” maybe if you focused on just one topic at a time you would not jump to false assertions.
Yes Co2 interaction with out going particles, but it is not enough on it’s own to create the effect you refer to. It needs to cause a runaway increase in water vapor. There are physical limits to how a atmosphere can react due to these effects. Distance from sun, it is why it is called the “Goldilocks zone”. Study the implication before you babble about like a “Climate Scientist”. Next of course is the sun itself, this is rather complex, due to factors like the TSI has changed over Earths existence. Presently TSI is stable and limits atmospheric change. Next is the earth itself, its mass, orbital particularities and diameter. Yes diameter, this in turn governs the gravity that hold the atmosphere. Which helps define the height of the atmosphere and its density. And last is of course geography locations of mountains and oceans. To put it simply you can’t get the run-away water vapor effect to cause the heating, it won’t stay in the atmosphere.
Its just how are planet is built steve , and why it never ever happened in the past with higher levels of CO2.
So relax enjoy the summer a recognize that you are living in a golden age. There is natural climate change it can worse colder much colder.

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 2:15 am

Geronimo, a positive balance of trade does not make you richer. That is pure voodoo economics. The whole point of trade is imports, I.e. the goods and services I consume,not cash from exports – what’s the use of cash, if not to buy things to consume?
If your claim were true, then every country (and every individual) would aim to be a net exporter – see the problem with that?

A C Osborn
Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 3:30 am

I tell you what steve, you keep on exercising and don’t eat any food (recharging your battery) and see how long it is before you are hospitalised or dead.

M E Emberson,,
Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 3:40 am

you said that before with no proof, just repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. That is magical thinking.Please calm down, for your own sake

Craig W
Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 5:01 am

I loved The Matrix!

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 5:05 am

Poor Steve, [June 2, 2017 at 4:04 pm] me thinks his fondest dreams of a lucrative government career as a “do nothing” bureaucrat who supervises the “clueless n’ dueless” who write and enforce the anti-energy rules – and process the millions of new unemployment and welfare checks ……. have just been dashed upon “the rocks of reality” by President Donald Trump.

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 5:08 am

“Steve, instead of a fairly pathetic straw man, do go ahead and show us some science, along with your detailed math.”
Why should we bother, Phil? i’ve never seen that from the skeptic side. Just the usual 1) the data is corrupt 2) the scientists are corrupt 3) the data is biased by UHI so can’t be trusted 4) it’s all natural variation. Rinse and repeat.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 5:32 am

“Steve June 3, 2017 at 12:09 am
Sure. Science is as follows. I will keep it simple. The more co2 we put into our atmosphere the more heat gets trapped therefore the planet warms and its caused by humans. Its been science that has stood for more than 100 years. But of course you all know better”
The series 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +………..1/(2^n)+……. keeps increasing forever, but the series has a limit.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 5:36 am

Chris June 3, 2017 at 5:08 am
“Why should we bother, Phil?”
Because it is your side of the issue that is advocating all of the social and economic changes and sacrifices.
And yet when it is pointed out that large areas of the oceans are not measured and instead furnished with imaginary temperatures to create the argument that globule warming is occurring what is the response?
“i’ve never seen that from the skeptic side” Nor should you. The burden of proof is solely on your side, because you are making the claims. Put up or simply go away and stop trying to deceive the public.

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 7:23 am

Anyone who speaks of heating being trapped in the atmosphere has zero knowledge of physics, let alone the complexities of the atmosphere and the climate systems, and so it is wasted breathe to try to reason with or explain anything to him.
And the thread-bare veil of civility is not concealing the utter contempt he has for people who like to KNOW things, rather than simply and completely BELEIVING things, as he and his like-minded warmista lackwit Chris obviously do.
They give no respect, have earned none, and have forfeited the benefit of a doubt due to all at the get go.
Steve, get over it…there is no global warming disaster to cry about, so quite your crying, whining, and mewling already, huh?
It is unseemly and embarrassing.

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 7:35 am

What a great example — particularly addressing this crowd — of my observation that the hallmark of the “progressive” is the nexus of arrogance and ignorance .

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 7:42 am

“Sure. Science is as follows. I will keep it simple. The more co2 we put into our atmosphere the more heat gets trapped therefore the planet warms and its caused by humans. Its been science that has stood for more than 100 years. But of course you all know better.”
Completely and totally wrong, Steve. And, yes, we know better, a LOT better.
In the 1890s Arrhenius conjectured that CO2 might warm the climate. This hypothesis was never proven and died, as it should, as wrong science. This failed conjecture was revived in the 1960s and 1970s by those trying to link CO2 and climate warming, and then they put forth this failed work as established science, which it clearly is NOT. Of course, if they say it enough, many people, who do not research the topic, begin to believe the propaganda.
No gas at any concentration in the climate can warm the atmosphere in any detectable manner. In fact, CO2 and water vapor are more accurately called, by real scientists, “radiative gases.” They operate in both directions in sunlight, converting a little IR radiation to heat and heat to IR, and have no effect (this alone destroys the whole junk science that CO2 warms the climate). It is at night that these gases operate unopposed, with no IR input, to convert atmospheric heat to IR which is then lost to space. That is why the air chills so quickly right after sunset and why little breezes kick up so quickly around the shadows of scudding clouds on a sunny day—gases are converting heat in the air to IR which chills the air in shadow very rapidly.
Furthermore, CO2 and water vapor cannot “trap” anything. They are gases, not a glass ceiling. The “greenhouse gas” idea was cobbled up out of nothing, and the energy budget used to describe this is metaphysical, actually creating energy out of nothing. They are counting on people not bothering to do the math.
As Earths’ surface (15 deg C) in sunlight is always hotter than the CO2 in the upper tropical troposphere (-17 deg C, which is where the “climate science” says the “trapping” CO2 is supposed to function), any downwelling IR is reflected back upwards. Thermodynamically, a cold object cannot warm a hot object.
“Climate science” also says the upper tropical troposphere has to be warming faster than anywhere else. Not only has this reputed “hot spot” never been detected, NASA has found that this region of the atmosphere has been cooling gently for 40 years. This is another fatal blow to the CO2-warms-the-climate “science.”
Furthermore, the upper tropical troposphere is thin such that there is not enough gas to beam the quantities of IR claimed by the “climate science” downward to the surface. It would have to be at 100s or 1000s of deg C to do what they claim. It’s on average -17 deg C. Just junk science, again.
Also, CO2 has only a couple of frequencies at which it can absorb and emit IR. It is quite selective and the vast majority of IR passes right through and on to space. Water vapor has wider absorption frequencies, but it also misses whole ranges of IR, tends to be at rather low concentration at -17 deg C, and also water vapor overlaps CO2’s absorption frequencies so that these case interfere with each other.
A few years ago, Mizkolski published a paper showing that, as CO2 rises by natural processes, absolute water vapor decreases, so that actually the “radiative gas” effects decrease not increase. The junk “climate science” says that CO2 enslaves water vapor and create a runaway greenhouse effect, another boogey man in the closet that does not exist.
“Climate scientists” like to point to Venus as a runaway greenhouse effect with its 90 atmospheres of air pressure, 95% CO2, and 500 deg C surface temperature. Venus is not even a greenhouse and its surface temperature is completely determined by gravitational compression, just as air on Earth warms as it goes down the side of a mountain, gravitational compression. A greenhouse requires that sunlight react the planet’s surface and it does not on Venus with its permanent cloud deck. Also, the Venusian atmosphere is so thick that heat moves around slowly and the atmosphere is relatively homogeneously warm all around the planet.
Junk science is fun stuff, as it can be shown to be false in multitudinous ways. It’s such fun.
Of course, Steve, you must know all of this science, right? You don’t obviously

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 8:21 am

Yes Steve, keep it simple because, in fact, you are a scientific simpleton. Others have answered you, although I think you will find a supporter in the English teacher on here, another scientific simpleton, who also thinks it is simple physics.
It’s not …. and, if you wanted to actually learn something from this, you might start by asking the right question, and thinking about what happens above 280 ppm, not the failed Arrhenius general conjecture, and throw in a little reading on falsifiable hypotheses.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 8:31 am

“1) the data is corrupt
2) the scientists are corrupt
3) the data is biased by UHI so can’t be trusted
4) it’s all natural variation.”
You left out a couple of things:
5) It is not warming in line with added CO2
6) The negative feedback of tropical clouds is 20 times as powerful as the forcing
7) It is not warmer now than it was 1000 years ago, and 8000 years ago
8) CO2 is, generally speaking, as low as it has been in 2.5 billion years
9) There is zero evidence that the climate has a ‘tipping point’ at any CO2 concentration, even as high as the historical high of 7000 ppm.
10) There is no detectable influence on temperature of human emissions, even though in theory there is one.
11) Having a few developed countries ‘attack this global problem’ while more than half the people in more than half the countries do nothing is iniquitous and manifestly at variance with creating a sustainable society – the thing we are supposed to be working towards.
A portion of the population in every country on Earth is suffering from energy poverty. We need to create far more energy in a sustainable manner. PV and wind turbines are not going to accomplish that. We should put trillions into advanced physics research to create new forms of energy sources because fossil fuels are going to be substantially depleted with a few centuries.

Leo Smith
Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 8:49 am

Sure. Science is as follows. I will keep it simple. The more co2 we put into our atmosphere the more heat gets trapped therefore the planet warms and its caused by humans. Its been science that has stood for more than 100 years. But of course you all know better.

Well we do, because simple science also says that every time you fart from eating bean-sprouts and red cabbage and lentils you add a far more potent greenhouse gas, methane. So to stop global warming perhaps we should stop eating vegan diets…
But of course you know, don’t you, that its not whether or not CO₂ ’causes global warming’, its how much global warming it causes?
I mean will doubling CO₂ add 0.1°C ? 1°C ? 10 °C???
But you are a bright guy really aren’t you? you were just yanking our chains pretending you thought scepticism was about whether or not AGW exists rather than how big an effect it has…
I mean the only person stupider than a person who thinks adding CO₂ has precisely zero effect, would be someone who thinks someone else believes that, right?
No one is that stupid surely?

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 9:44 am

This thread needs a theme song…..

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 10:10 am

Steve said –
Science is as follows. I will keep it simple. The more co2 we put into our atmosphere the more heat gets trapped therefore the planet warms and its caused by humans. Its been science that has stood for more than 100 years.

you mean “simplistic” don’t you – this sort of sloppiness is not going to convert intelligent people

Joe Crawford
Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 12:37 pm

Stevie, you said: “Trump believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted.”
Reminds me of my granddaddy Crawford who lived to be 93 years old. Smoked a pack a-day, drank a quart of sherry a day, and said the only exercise he ever got in his life was being pallbearer at his athletic friend’s funerals.

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 1:30 pm

“Just the usual 1) the data is corrupt 2) the scientists are corrupt 3) the data is biased by UHI so can’t be trusted 4) it’s all natural variation. Rinse and repeat.”
And that’s ALL we need to say. Repeating the truth does not make it less true, just as repeating useful lies, as you are wont to do, doesn’t make them less false. Your side is the one making the extraordinary claims, so your side needs to present the extraordinary evidence. Yet all we seem to get from you and your ilk are flimsy theoretical models built on dodgy methodology, and indignant shrieks to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, whenever we move in to inspect them.
You might as well have posted “Just the usual 1) the sky is blue 2) grass is green 3) bears sh*t in the woods 4) Donald Trump is President. Rinse and repeat.”

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 2:11 pm

The more co2 we put into our atmosphere the more heat gets trapped therefore the planet warms
ok, then why do ice ages always start when CO2 is at its highest levels? it should be impossible. the planet should be too warm.
and also, why do ice ages always end when CO2 is at its lowest? it should be impossible. the planet should be too cold.
look at the well known graph below. do you see the problem? when CO2 is at the lowest point, temperatures shoot up and the ice age ends. then, when CO2 levels are high, the planet starts to cool.
so the only thing that can be said for sure is that co2 causes cooling, and lack of co2 causes warming!!!comment image

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 3:03 pm

When we grow tired of winning, Steve, we’ll let you know. Meanwhile, you’re free to move to Germany, they need bright bulbs like you to help dig themselves a deeper energy hole.

Reply to  steve
June 3, 2017 3:46 pm

I have a PhD in space physics from UCLA. I worked as a meteorologist for the U.S. Air Force for 4 years. I worked for NASA as an atmospheric physicist. I think my credentials as a scientist are quite secure and my experimental and mathematical experience as an atmospheric scientist -unlike journalists,lawyers, and politicians-is real. I don’t think global warming (aka climate change) is the threat it’s made out to be. From the tone of your remarks, I’m sure you must have flunked Calculus, or avoided it altogether.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
June 2, 2017 4:56 pm

I don’t have any hard facts but I work closely with certain German manufactures. I often question, as their prices are so good, they are not receiving subsidies (or tax preference). We often get out bid in Canada against German manufactures, even with our 66% on the Euro.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Duncan
June 2, 2017 5:12 pm

The German price of electric energy per kwh for the private sector is 36 US cents (132 Terawatthours/2015), for the industry it is, all taxes, levys and that stuff included, 18 US cents per kwh (389 Twh/2015). So, a fair and equal price would be 22,6 US cents per kwh for all on average. Fritz and Frollein are paying a high price to keep the German industry and its exports rolling.

Reply to  Duncan
June 2, 2017 6:41 pm

The Euro’s value is brought down by the many economically weak countries that are part of it. This helps German exports. If Germany, a strong economy, was back using the strong Mark, export prices would be much higher.
Reciprocally, the strong German economy pushes the Euro’s value too high for economically weaker member countries (eg : Greece)

richard verney
Reply to  Duncan
June 2, 2017 11:36 pm

Both Non Nomen and Bernard P make good points.
German industry is heavily subsidised by the ordinary German citizen, and it has to be so subsidised so that it can compete on international markets. Notwithstanding that there is strong evidence that German industry which are high energy dependent (such as the petrochemical companies of the like of BASF, Bayer) are relocating to the US, growing their US divisions instead of European divisions, simply because of the lower cost of energy in the US.
If Germany had kept the DM, and not had the Euro its currency would be at least 40% stronger. Germany has enjoyed an economic benefit favouring its exporters by being in a weak Euro. It has employed policies that have deliberately kept the Euro weak. Such policies are essentially anti-competitive.
Germany enjoys a substantial trade surplus with the US of about US$250 billion, and with the UK of about £85 billion, and this is largely due to the currency manipulation by Germany and the weak Euro. There is a strong case for both the US and the UK slapping a currency surcharge on German goods to take account of that currency manipulation, perhaps say a tariff of 25% to 35% on all German goods to level the playing field.
It appears that President Trump is concerned about the trade surplus being run by Germany. Since President is a business man and must fully appreciate the reason behind this surplus, and perhaps President Trump raised this prospect at the recent G7 meeting. It is something that the UK should consider raising in its Brexit negotiations. Perhaps it is something that could be explored jointly by the US and the UK.
Get Germany to properly fund its NATO obligations, and to do something about the anti competitive nature of the currency manipulation.

Reply to  Duncan
June 3, 2017 6:19 am

BernardP nails it. The Euro is at the heart both Germany’s pathologically obese trade surplus and Southern Europe’s continuing lack of competitiveness. Other than clinging to the Euro, this is not a matter of national policy, German or otherwise.
A good part of Germany’s trade surplus accumulates in the form of bad loans in the Bundesbank’s basement. In effect, German workers get paid too little for their work, and ultimately not at all in proportion to those bad loans. At the same time, Southern European would-be workers can’t find work.
Each year the Euro madness continues is a lost one. I find it astonishing that the European leaders continue to whistle past the graveyard instead of addressing this problem. Perversely, one has to hope that a major crisis, such as an Italian default, will bring the whole thing crashing down.

Reply to  Duncan
June 3, 2017 7:19 am

The question you pose has puzzled me for a long time.
Somehow, the German mfr’s must be getting some sort of subsidy or break from their govt.
Not sure, but it’s possible that German mfr’s do not get taxed (either fully or maybe just partially) on stuff they sell outside of Germany. If so, this would be a tremendous savings for them.
Note that before the Euro was initiated, Germany was already an exporting powerhouse.
Making stuff in Germany is very expensive due to their labor laws, wages and more recently, the cost of power (electricity, gas, oil, etc.) Yet, this seems to have no affect on their ability to export.
Something here is just not right; and it is not just currency exchange rates either.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Duncan
June 3, 2017 8:55 am

German industry has subsidised electricity. German domestic consumers do not.comment image
Shows German prices versus other parts of Europe.Domestic consumers pay more, industry pays less.
Full article here>

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
June 2, 2017 7:12 pm

Merkel is destroying her country. She’s making energy prohibitively expensive and importing a ‘multicultural” problem that will eventually bring Germany (and the Euro along with it) to it’s knees.
I suppose from an “America First” position, we should let her continue her suicidal rush to end Germany’s economic prowess. But frankly, I just feel sorry for them and hope not to see either their major economic or cultural ruin. To that end, the good voters of Germany must kick Frau Merkel to the curb come next elections or they’re likely finished.

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  Scott
June 2, 2017 8:24 pm

I suspect that part of Merkel’s outrage at Trumps Paris Climate Accord withdrawal stems from Germany’s (and Europe’s) present and increasing (see link) need to accommodate more and more “non-assimilating” so-called refugees. She (and her Globalist ilk) were counting on the “Uncle Sam Cash Cow” to once again ante up more free money.

Reply to  Scott
June 2, 2017 11:16 pm

If Merkel is destroying her country she is going about it in a surprising way. Unlike
most other countries Germany has a positive balance of trade, i.e. it is getting richer
from its exports all of which are manufacturing based. Her devious policy of clever
innovation driving exports and making Germany rich is clearly design to ruin the country.

Reply to  Scott
June 2, 2017 11:39 pm

Geronimo, you clearlyhave no idea of the workings of the EU and German government. The german taxpayer massively subsidises German industry b y essentially paying for much of the cost of its power. The EU single currency ensures that other countries that once upon a time could compete on price grounds to make up for a slightly inferior product, now cannot do so as they are all locked into the Euro. This has given German exporters a massive advantage and is driving the Southern EU states into poverty. Then the relative weakness of the Euro internationally again is a great boon to otherwise expensive, but I admit excellent german products. If you were a conspiracy nut you would claim that Germany has arranged the EU for its own benefit!

Reply to  David Johnson
June 3, 2017 12:01 am

If you were a conspiracy nut you would claim that Germany has arranged the EU for its own benefit!

If, perhaps you should say “Germany and France have arranged the EU for their own benefit” …

Reply to  Scott
June 3, 2017 2:07 am

Just spent 5 days in Germany.
what a clean, prosperous successful place…

Reply to  Scott
June 3, 2017 3:07 am

they can kick her out
kicking the millions of newchums out after theyve enjoyed the handouts will be a far greater problem
damage is well n truly done

Reply to  Scott
June 3, 2017 5:09 am

Germany is not close to “finished”, they are an economic powerhouse who punch well above their weight globally.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Scott
June 3, 2017 5:42 am

David Johnson June 2, 2017 at 11:39 pm

The german taxpayer massively subsidises German industry by essentially paying for much of the cost of its power.

Now David Johnson, this might come as a surprise to you, ….. but, ….. the taxpayers in all countries that have “electrical dependent industries” …… are the “subsidizers” of the costs of said electrical energy production/generation.
Like President Ronald Regan once said, …… “Corporations [and electrical power companies] don’t pay taxes, …….. [working] people pay taxes.

Reply to  Scott
June 3, 2017 6:30 am

Scott, as a German, I despise Merkel and consider her the worst chancellor since you know who. However, kicking her to the curb will at best make little difference. She is not a “leader” in any proper sense of the word; she mostly just looks which way the wind is blowing and then proceeds to lead from behind. The one significant exception may have been her mishandling of the refugee crisis, but that so far has little bearing on economic competitiveness.
Merkel’s main rival in the upcoming election is former village mayor and Eurocrat Martin Schulz – an ignorant and delusional man. He would be worse.

Reply to  Scott
June 3, 2017 7:43 am

They send us stuff…we send them paper.
Just like with Japan in the 1980s, and China since the 1990s.
We get stuff…they get paper.
The finer details are more complex of course, and wealth is less evenly distributed in the US than in the EU, but the US is still the economy that drives the world forward.
Not to say we have not been eroding our national wealth and competitive advantage in many areas by closing too many manufacturing sectors and rely on too many service jobs.
Our politicians have made terrible deals that enrich the people and companies that lobby them, and politicians have themselves been greatly enriched at public expense.
Drain the swamp.
Most of the ones who are not lying thieves are merely thieving liars.
Vote the lot of them out, elect a House and Senate full of Donald Trumpians, and lets see how things go after that.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Scott
June 3, 2017 9:04 am

Europe has a problem. Its the emperors new green clothes. As long as everyone sings from et same green hymn sheet, or pretends to (china, india) then elcetricity becoms expensive everywhere and no one gains an edge. And the green cash printing machine that steals from the poor to give to the rich rolls on.
Trump has basically said ‘actually the people who voted me in are poor folk, and this is one way I can give them a bit of a break’.
Like Brexit, there is a huge scare that the idea might take hold, the emperor shows up naked, and then the whole multi-trillion dollar green scam is over.

Reply to  Scott
June 4, 2017 6:31 am

It’s fair to say that Merkel’s government, with a strong central state and the needs of Industry given priority over the needs of any individuals, is a cleaned up, happy face, and gentler version of the government that the National Socialists envisioned 75 years ago. In Merkel’s view, there was nothing wrong with their economic views, they just went about it in too militant a fashion.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
June 3, 2017 1:33 am

“Sure. Science is as follows. I will keep it simple. The more co2 we put into our atmosphere the more heat gets trapped therefore the planet warms and its caused by humans. Its been science that has stood for more than 100 years. But of course you all know better.”
On the other hand, science has shown that for billions of years of the planets existence, CO2 has never been responsible for atmospheric heating. So what happened in the last 100 years or so, did CO2 mysteriously, and unnoticed, somehow change it’s physical properties?

Reply to  HotScot
June 3, 2017 7:48 am

Steve and his ilk know nothing of Earth history, nor do they care.
They are not inclined to study issues, but merely to spout off and virtue signal.
Scientific simpletons, they are immune to facts, logic, and detailed explanations or discussion.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
June 3, 2017 2:06 am

But the German economy continues to grow – it was the fastest growing economy in the G7 at the start of the year
German industry continues to thrive… has more of it gone overseas than America, where less effort has been put into renewables? How come the Us exports all those jobs when its not following Germany on renewables?

A C Osborn
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 3:43 am

Griff, you are clueless, Energy Intensive German Industry is moving out of Gemany, in fact quite a bit of it has moved to, you guessed it, the good old US of A.
That is even though their Industry Energy is subsidised by the general public, hence so many Germans stealing wood from forests to burn in their wood burning stoves.
Add to that despite all their “Renewables” they are building and using more Coal (brown lignite, the dirtiest of all) powered stations than ever and much more importantly their CO2 emissions are INCREASING.
So all that money heartache and spoiling of their landscape and they are making it worse, they will never, ever meet their Paris commitments.
Their own Solar Panel Industry is totally bankrupt.

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 6:48 am

Griff: you are right that Germany’s competitiveness is not solely decided by energy prices. Very energy-intensive industries may be driven out, but the two-tier pricing structure – working stiffs pay higher prices than companies – mitigates this.
As to the outsourcing of jobs, this simply is a cultural difference. German CEOs, and those in some other European countries, seem to feel a greater obligation to take care of their compatriots than American and British ones. One also needs to consider the quality of the workforce; German education, particular in the technical sector, is excellent, and the workers tend to work hard and be worth their pay. Finally, as discussed higher up in this thread, the Euro plays a big part in propping up German competitiveness.
The long and the short of this is that Germany is economically successful not because but in spite of its green energy madness. Citing Germany as an example of how green energy breeds success is a red herring.

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 7:56 am

“…fastest growing economy in the G7…”
A low bar that could be stepped over by an economic toddler.
Big deal.
With negative real interest rates, they are actually paying people to borrow money, and charging savers to hold on to their savings for them.
Once the enforced economic austerity of the Obama years is wiped away, the US will once again show the world how to lead and prosper.
Just get the gubnamint out of the dang way.
Hey Griff…you seem to becoming a comment bomber.
It speaks poorly of your ability to defend what you say.

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 7:58 am

“Citing Germany as an example of how green energy breeds success is a red herring.”
It is a marathon, not a sprint.
Let’s see how it works out for them in the long haul.
i suspect it will not end well for them.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 8:18 am

Griff June 3, 2017 at 2:06 am
Yes Griff the German economy is the fastest growing of the G7. at 1.9% The U.S. was a poor 1.6%
But fear not, we’ve ripped a page from the German’s book and are opening new coal mines just like them.
Below is a link to a report on how Germany is opening a new “Brown coal mine”. Just warms ya all over

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 9:11 am

If the USA gamed the market like Germany has…..the screaming now would look like silence

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 10:49 am

“But the German economy continues to grow – it was the fastest growing economy in the G7 at the start of the year”
GDP is what tells you that paying half the people to smash the windows and the other half to fix them will make you rich. It’s a worthless metric, and trivially easy to fudge. Which is why the left love it so much.
It’s the modern ‘tons of tractors produced’, which was easy to improve by adding lead weights to all the tractors that came out of your factory.
You know why US healthcare is so expensive? Because removing the exceptions to numerous laws that would make the market competitive and slash the costs would cause a 10% drop in US GDP. And people like you would claim that was a horrible, horrible thing, even though it would mean that real people in the real world suddenly had to pay far less for their healthcare.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
June 3, 2017 4:06 am

Alastair; very true. Germany presents itself as some kind of global savior of the climate, but if you look at their emission cut promise, it is 40% reduction from the 1990 level by 2020. What they have done to date, is related to a large extent to the shutting down of old and inefficient east German industry around 1990, just after the reunification of Germany. Since 2009, their co2 emissions have been more or less constant, and they are not likely to reach their 40% target by 2020, unless they start up a lot of nuclear power plants again, though that is also anathema to the Germans. I wonder what Merkel is going to say in three years’ time? What excuse will she give for betraying the global climate?

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
June 3, 2017 4:25 am

That’s easy. She’ll find some way to blame the Evil Trump and United States! Leftists NEVER hold themselves accountable unless they are forced to and that goes double for leftist politicians. For example Kathy Griffin’s latest trying to play the victim.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Henning Nielsen
June 3, 2017 9:06 am

Currently Germany is emitting more CO2 than they did in 1990

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
June 3, 2017 11:05 pm

Energy Access & Efficiency
en.lighten Initiative
‘Phasing Out Incandescent Lamps By The End of 2016’
The en.lighten Initiative was organized by UNEP and the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
Partnership Story: UNEP en.lighten Initiative
The en.lighten Initiative was created in 2009 as a partnership between UNEP, OSRAM GmbH and Philips Lighting with the support of the GEF Earth Fund.
More at:
Information about why incandescent light bulbs are no longer available.
GEF provides funding for UN initiatives/programs.
More information on the GEF online and at their website.
The GEF was established on the eve of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and acts as a catalyst for action on the environment and more.

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
June 4, 2017 12:12 am

GEF-CSO Network
“Formerly known as GEF-NGO Network”
Scroll down to: North American Members
IISD, Canada
World Resources Institute
Woods Hole Research Center
Institute For Sustainable Power, Inc.
Atlantic States Legal Foundation,Inc.
And others
Click on the name of the organization for more information and the countries they are active in.

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
June 4, 2017 12:20 am

Correction, should be: GEF-CSO Network

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
June 3, 2017 7:00 am

What really should be pointed out and emphasized is that the Paris Treaty was another version of the Copenhagen Agreement, the first major effort by the UN to create a one-world power structure to control the world’s energy. However, at the time the Agreement was presented in Copenhagen, the UN discovered that they had been written out of the power structure the Agreement described; the UN then very quickly scuttled the effort to get the Agreement adopted. We dodged that bullet, as our Fearful Leader in 2009 probably would have signed us on to it if it was offered.
The Paris Treaty was another backdoor attempt by the UN to take away economic freedom of the world’s countries, thus creating a one-world power. Losing the US form this effort is a huge blow to their global plans. If other countries then examine their economies and future potentials, they will follow suit. This will snowball as soon as the world sees that the US will not fail, while the rest of the world struggles with repressive policies. The only real gripe the other countries can have with the US is that they will grouse about not receiving many billions of undeserved money from the US people for non-existent climate damages.

Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  higley7
June 4, 2017 1:58 am

Hello, Steve
How about you join me in each taking calibrated thermometers to the upper atmosphere, where virtually ALL climate models tell us the heat resides? will you abide by the results?

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
June 3, 2017 7:01 pm

Hi it’s Steve again, I love the comments that point to temperatures in the past and the level of co2 in the past. Who do you think provided that science you all reference and you all use it as fact. Guess who put together the data you rely on …… you got it? Climate scientists. You all like their data when it fits your argument but when it doesn’t they are all liars and are making it all up. This should really be a comedy site, it makes me laugh. Please comment on this as I picture all you heads exploding with rage, gone on it makes me laugh …

Reply to  steve
June 4, 2017 6:39 am

You idi*t steve, people like Anthony have done more actual data gathering than the high priests whose feet you worship at have ever thought of doing. Your so-called “climate scientists do very little data collecting at all, if any. They are the ones who take the data OTHERS have collected and run them through unproven economic models, then massage those outputs to say what they want.
Once again, the actual truth of the matter is the complete opposite of what you oh-so-faithfully believe. But that’s the way it usually is with hard core religious fundy’s like you.

Reply to  steve
June 6, 2017 11:15 am

You’re the comedian here, Stevarino.
You are the climate change parrot of WUWT and we all love to rattle your cage.
Historical climate proxy data have a chance of being useful and somewhat accurate.
The coming climate change catastrophe has no data … it is an imaginary catastrophe that is always coming in the future … but never comes … because it is fiction !
In the 1980’s it was coming.
In the 1990s it was coming
In the 2000’s it was coming
In the 2010’s it was coming
It’s always coming to get us
… in the future.
But the future climate is actually unknown, and unknowable.
So your guess of the future climate is no better than my guess, and our guesses are no better than guesses from PhD scientists or village idiots.
All wild guesses of the future climate are worthless because no one knows what causes climate change, so no one can predict future climate change.
Sure, a scientist wearing an expensive suit can state a serious prediction with great certainty, and parrots like you will repeat it like its the gospel — well it is YOUR gospel — but we already have 30 years of grossly inaccurate confuser model predictions … so more and more people are beginning to see the hoax — politicians and the government bureaucrats they hire deliberately scare people about something that’s allegedly coming in the future … after they are dead and gone … that never comes.
I recommend the New York Times to line the bottom of your parrot cage.
I explain the lack of science behind the imaginary runaway global warming fantasy in my climate blog at:
Please do not read that blog.
If you learned something about climate science, then your posts here might be taken seriously, and would not rile up people with actual science knowledge.
I don’t want you to change — I enjoy reading the posts slappin’ you upside the head, and wouldn’t want that to end !
How many more decades of a wonderful climate do YOU require before you exhibit even the slightest doubt that predictions of runaway global warming may be wrong? … and much more important, when will you stop demonizing harmless CO2 and focus on REAL air, water and soil pollution in China, India and other parts of the world?
Did you know the air in China is so dirty some of the pollution carries over to the three US states on the Left Coast?
I guess that doesn’t matter — leave China alone — demonize harmless CO2 instead — and demonize nuclear power too, even though nuclear power is the only clean replacement for coal in Asia.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 6, 2017 11:50 am

One of the things I did reluctantly in life was administer a state’s mercury pollution program. I will not go into detail about mercury other than to say over 48% is natural, plus or minus a volcano eruption or two. Our state reduce the mercury in our waste stream by over 90%. However that was not enough for our staff, or EPA or the environmentalist that supported both. They refused to declare that we had been successful. They wanted a hundred percent reduction in mercury “pollution.” They HATED that I knew great deal about mercury in the environment. When I asked how we were going to eliminated mercury “pollution” the answer was to eliminate, not control, all coal fired plants in the USA. They tried to assure me that would thereby eliminated the average American’s exposure to mercury, which they claimed with little proof was affecting the health of tens of thousands. So one day in my office where I had a large map of the earth I pointed to the USA, I explained general weather patterns in the northern hemisphere and then I pointed out China. I explained how many coal fired plants they were building per year. Then I asked how are we going to stop that mercury pollution. The room was silent for some time. I then said, Well??? Their answer was the USA had to set the example. I am sorry to say I had to laugh. Of course they couldn’t explain why marine fish stored away for over a hundred years had mercury levels almost identical to the same species swimming around today. At one point they went around “the bosses” and tried to get the fishery managers in our state to put in strict bag and size limits on marine fish based on estimated human consumption. They didn’t like it when I pointed out that the average consumption of seafood had not changed in over fifty years.

john harmsworth
June 2, 2017 3:44 pm

The worldwide war against this crap science must continue. The fallout from poverty and lack of development will otherwise set the world on fire while many of us freeze and starve in the dark!

Reply to  john harmsworth
June 2, 2017 4:46 pm

We are moving to a class society in which the Democrat elite do much better than everyone else and the despicables slide into poverty. link
The thing that accompanies inequality is violence. link If the liberal elites think Brexit, and the election of Trump, and dumping Paris, are horrible, they haven’t seen anything yet.
When my family travelled through Mexico they stayed at a hotel with a machine gun tower. Eventually the elites have to build bigger walls and hire more guards. That’s not the kind of country I want to live in.

Reply to  commieBob
June 2, 2017 5:11 pm

Democrat elites? The big corporations and Repub allies in Congress played a major, if not dominant role in the trade agreements that shipped scores of thousands of jobs overseas.

Reply to  commieBob
June 2, 2017 6:03 pm

sounds like Cuba, Venezuela, etc

Reply to  commieBob
June 3, 2017 5:40 am

Tom June 2, 2017 at 5:11 pm
Democrat elites?

At least you know where the Republicans stand. The trouble is that the Democrats have been very two faced. The party has changed but it pretends that it still supports ordinary Americans, while at the same time doing things that profoundly disadvantage them and send their jobs elsewhere. Listen Liberal!
When President Trump refers to the forgotten Americans, he’s talking about the people the Democrat party pretends to stand up for, but doesn’t.

Reply to  commieBob
June 3, 2017 9:13 am

At least you know where the Republicans stand. ,,,
yep..right beside the democrats
same dog…..different collar

Martin A
Reply to  commieBob
June 3, 2017 11:26 am

Nor me. I visted South Africa a while back. My friends there encouraged me to stay: “For the price of your small house in Bristol, UK, you can buy a fine house here with three car garage, six bedrooms, five bathrooms, and 30,000 volt electric security fence.’

Bryan A
Reply to  john harmsworth
June 2, 2017 4:49 pm

But if it did set the world on fire there would still be heat and light

Reply to  john harmsworth
June 2, 2017 4:51 pm

Lord Monckton really nails the climate fraud, in this 12 minute clip from yesterday’s Alex Jones Show. His new paper about to be published, Blows The Globalist Climate Doom Ship Clean Out of The Water !
I can’t help but wonder if POTUS watched this section of the show, which was transmitted live just a few hours before the Whitehouse Paris Treaty débâcle ? I can’t wait for the publication of this paper.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  The Editor
June 2, 2017 6:09 pm

Sorry….I’ve heard stuff like this before. Somehow it never seems to materialize.

Reply to  The Editor
June 2, 2017 7:00 pm

I suppose there’s some value in Mockton appearing on his show, but Alex Jones is simply NOT credible on science topics. Just listen to him here, ranting about “massive” weather modification, and antennae secretly manipulating the ions in the atmosphere (all “documented!”).
Monckton gently nudges him back to reality, by pointing out that all such attempts are fruitless, that they are puny when compared with the mighty forces of Nature driving our atmosphere and climate.
But guys like Jones are invested in so many conspiracy theories REQUIRING that the conspiracies are effective that it’s a good bet he will not stay nudged.
So tomorrow he’ll back with his wacko theories about chemtrails as being clandestine “government geoengineering”.

Roger Knights
Reply to  The Editor
June 2, 2017 8:31 pm

(Oops–I posted this at the wrong location just above.)
If Monckton’s paper is water-tight, or or vulnerable only to pettifogging quibbles, as I suspect, it could have a tremendous impact. Not all climatologists are 100% unprincipled. They’d be impressed by it, and the center of gravity of warmism would shift dramatically away from cock-sure alarmism.

Reply to  The Editor
June 3, 2017 1:17 am

I see no reason to put it paste some in power to try all manner of weather manipulation, and am quite sure I’ve been observing intermittent spraying going on for over a decade. Be that a it may, I see no reason to speak as though we’re still in Kansas, Toto ; )

Reply to  The Editor
June 3, 2017 5:16 am

Wow, someone who actually admits to watching Alex Jones. What a sad existence to make your living out of trying to rile up people and make them angry. And to out and out lie, as he often does.

Reply to  The Editor
June 3, 2017 7:04 am

I can’t wait for this paper to be published. If the good Lord is correct, can we all please go home then?
I have been waiting for what seems like forever for something of the kind which Lord Monckton promises. I strongly hope that it’s not simply pie-in-the-sky. It wouldn’t be, would it?

John G
Reply to  The Editor
June 3, 2017 10:45 am

I’m hopeful but doubtful that this will have the desired effect however true and irrefutable it might be. I mean there are many bonafide studies that indicate atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric warming are not even correlated let alone catastrophic and that should already have blown the CAGW hypothesis out of the water e.g. the graphic posted by HotScot a few posts back. Such evidence is always dismissed with “CO2 is a greenhouse gas” and with a conjecture: if a little bit will warm up the atmosphere then a lot will cause a catastrophe. The fact is that it hasn’t in the past and that fact ought to stop any scientist (climate or otherwise) in his tracks before lending any credence to the CAGW hypothesis. So far nobody has been stopped in their tracks. In fact the whole world is clamoring for governments of the world to come together and force their peoples to live in a proper manner that won’t endanger the planet.
There’s nothing new in this:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Small wonder there are so many vested interests supporting it but the description ‘Hoax’ remains not far off the mark.

Reply to  The Editor
June 3, 2017 11:36 am

Too bad he had to announce this on Alex Jones, of all people. Rosa Koire makes the same mistake – by posting her excellent videos via Alex Jones…
Alex Jones???

Reply to  The Editor
June 3, 2017 12:41 pm

“Wow, someone who actually admits to watching Alex Jones. What a sad existence to make your living out of trying to rile up people and make them angry. And to out and out lie, as he often does.”
You just did too, since I didn’t “actually admit’ to watching Alex Jones” . . though I have at times, as you apparently have too . . ’cause we ain’t in Kansas anymore ; )

Reply to  The Editor
June 3, 2017 12:51 pm

It’s unsettling, so to speak, that Chris Monckton is relying on math rather than science to “disprove” CACA. He labors under the mistaken notion that science, like math, is about “proof”. But we’ll see.

Reply to  The Editor
June 3, 2017 3:05 pm

If Mr. Monckton can demonstrate that the very “math” the alarmists themselves utilized to come up with their scary “projections” was botched by them (in several ways no less) he effectively destroys what to my mind is the claim they have most religiously relied on all along; great expertise. It’s not a question of him “relying on math rather than science to “disprove” CACA”, I don’t believe, but rather to disprove that claim of superior expertise.
At this moment in history, so to speak, it could be a game changer, I think.

Reply to  The Editor
June 3, 2017 4:07 pm

Chris Monckton is playing the political game.
As much as I like the bloke because of his stance against AGW, he has been spouting this story of a conclusive scientific paper on the matter for years now.
If he has, what he maintains he has, an irrefutable, ground breaking, mathematical study that proves global warming is a farce, he’s waiting for an expedient political moment to release it whilst, meanwhile, garnering as much PR mileage as he can.
I’m sorry Chris, but FFS sake get on with it. We don’t need any more political manipulation than we already have. Indeed, Trump just told the Paris faithful to f*uck off, with no scientific evidence.

Reply to  The Editor
June 3, 2017 4:26 pm

He’s waiting for the paper to be published (apparently soon), HotScot. Once it’s been carefully scrutinized and accepted as technically sound, he can “get on with it”.

Reply to  The Editor
June 4, 2017 6:42 am

I have to disagree with Roger Knights, and I wish I didn’t – but at this point, yes, it is fair to say…
ALL climatologists are now 100% unprincipled. To follow principles would be to admit that Trump might have been right, and any climatologist who did that would be instantly fired and hounded out of the profession. (I wish I was exaggerating, but you know I am not)
It has now become a 100% corrupted field, necessarily run by 100% corrupt people. No one who is even partially honest will be allowed to remain a part of that field anymore.

Mike Ballantine
June 2, 2017 3:46 pm
Reply to  Mike Ballantine
June 2, 2017 4:19 pm

I think The Toronto Sun would take great umbrage (and rightly so) at being described as “Liberal MSM”.

Reply to  clipe
June 2, 2017 4:28 pm
Tom Halla
June 2, 2017 3:51 pm

Good summary of the economics of going for “renewable energy”.

Tom Judd
June 2, 2017 3:54 pm

Dammit. I was hoping to cash in right at the ground floor on some unknown exotic new energy technology with all the research and risk paid for by the taxpayers but the moola raked in by me.
Now I can’t do that. Gonna’ hafta pay more saps to protest out on the streets.

Reply to  Tom Judd
June 2, 2017 4:39 pm

Dilithium crystals are the answer. I saw it on TV, so it must be true.

Bryan A
Reply to  PaulH
June 2, 2017 4:52 pm

Yep. Dilithium Crystals + antimatter = moving at the speed of light cubed

June 2, 2017 3:55 pm

I’m visualizing a cartoon with Gore, Mann, and others at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.
Only hoping they wouldn’t drive the Mad Hatter crazy.

June 2, 2017 4:08 pm

Paris hadn’t kicked in so it was easy to object to its cancellation.

June 2, 2017 4:09 pm

Thanks Paul…and on top of all that
Obama and the democrats added ~$10 trillion to our debt…
…Obama signed this and added another ~$3 trillion after he’s gone
How long has this EU global warming “Paris” thing been going on anyway?
…and they have accomplished nada

Reply to  Latitude
June 2, 2017 4:48 pm

Well, I think they instigated what amounts to a test of the idea that significant Government orchestrated investment in “renewable” energy technologies would lead to major advances . . Which, granted, is a lot like nada, but I’m in a magnanimous mood today ; )

Reply to  JohnKnight
June 2, 2017 5:14 pm

LOL…..you mean like this
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

Reply to  JohnKnight
June 2, 2017 6:43 pm

Yes . . many helped with the test . .

Reply to  JohnKnight
June 2, 2017 10:19 pm

Is your wallet as big as your “magnanimous mood”, JohnKnight…? And if not, why are you supporting massive debt-riddled scams that primarily enriched Obama’s political friends and bundlers?
You can be as graciously generous as you want, but please do it with somebody else’s $Trillions.
(If the West can’t find investment capital because our economic system has been degraded to the point it isn’t profitable, we’re done–put a fork in it and start digging your cave.)

Reply to  JohnKnight
June 3, 2017 1:36 am

Well . . sure, if you insist, Rocky . . I’ll use somebody else’s $Trillions . . ; )

A C Osborn
Reply to  JohnKnight
June 3, 2017 3:51 am

Latitude, you forgot the biggest one of all, Elon Musk’s various companies and we are talking Billions, not millions of dollars.

Reply to  JohnKnight
June 3, 2017 6:18 am

Problem is, JohnKnight, nobody would invest in such scams if they were evaluated on a true cost/benefit basis–the criteria of every sane capital investment.
Like I said, the abject failures listed by Latitude above were without sufficient merit to attract such investment capital from private sources and only got government funding because of underhanded crony relations with top-ranking members of the US government.
An inspection of their board of directors will find many members of Congress and other government officials–(talk about insider trading!).
And to make matters worse, these companies were able to show but minimal results–the money purloined simply disappeared but enriched those making the loans (like Hillary’s infamous dealings that delivered 20% of US uranium reserves (a strategic mineral, no less!) to Russia while those involved “donated” $135 Million to the Clinton Global Initiative).
I hope a Federal investigation is launched to trace where all those $Billions went, and the criminals exposed and brought to justice.
So by all means, use somebody else’s $Trillions–if you can find them. With President Trump at the helm, US tax payers won’t be fleeced as likely as they were under Obama.
Exiting the Paris Climate Accord (perhaps the scam of the century) is an excellent example.

Reply to  JohnKnight
June 3, 2017 1:02 pm

Rocky, I was playing along with the Mad Hatter’s climate tea party theme, with some through the looking glass style logic. But thanks, yours is better ; )

Reply to  JohnKnight
June 3, 2017 4:37 pm

Thanks for that list, Trump should have included the gross failures of renewable green energy to deliver in his speech. In reality, along with cost, success of replacing current fossil fuels is near to zero with the consequences of high risk to jobs and the economy which is enormous, absent reliable and abundant energy. I credit the DOE and the Obama administration for not understanding or having a clue how to pick winners, absent proper vetting, and thinking that dumping $$$ will guarantee success. Research does not work that way.
By the way I consulted with Range fuels, along with about a dozen other new energy ventures, along with some other colleagues, particularly on mechanical hardware for the Range fuels venture. I even viewed their pilot plant in Colorado. Given their hardware demands to process planned feed stock, I never felt that the technology would scale up well from their small demonstration plant to a commercial size unit.
I thought the workers were cooperative and dedicated but overly optimistic that the technology would be successful, but that is the nature of all the dozens I worked consulted with. Problems and challenges seemed to be overlooked thinking they would ultimately be solved, in my opinion.
On top of that it seemed like the DOE and others were desperate and put unrealistic timelines, not allowing for sufficient time to iron out challenging problems. There was risk to loosing if there was not “immediate” success, unfortunately research does not work that way and throwing money at a problem does not work.
Unfortunately they rushed into a commercial plant, and the results speak for themselves.

Bruce Cobb
June 2, 2017 4:34 pm

Just for fun, I decided to pen some of the virtue signalling thoughts of those on the Left in their faux agony and grief about Trump trashing the Paris Accord:
“The streets of humanity will run red with the blood of tomorrow’s children”.
“The Earth died a little after Trump’s horrific decision.”
“In the annals of history, no decision before or after this one of Trump’s will ever equal it in the sheer scope of folly, horror, and death”. Some I may have seen, or something close to it, I don’t know.
Go ahead, try it. It’s fun.

Nigel S
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 2, 2017 11:25 pm

“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”
A mirror image since we’re in wonderland.

richard verney
Reply to  Nigel S
June 2, 2017 11:44 pm

Do you mean

Never in the field of human suffering, have so many suffered so greatly by the action of just one man.

Or perhaps:

Today Trump has proved that the action of the pen is indeed bloodier than the sword.


Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 4, 2017 2:22 am

Typical utterances of the Blitherati Bed-Wetters!

June 2, 2017 4:35 pm

But, they assure us, this transition and spending would bring unimaginable job creation
I am gob smacked every time I see this claim, and it is pervasive in the current cacophony. If renewables create such a massive amount of jobs, why stop there? Why just use windmills and solar panels? Many MORE jobs could be created by having humans produce the same amount of electricity by pedaling bicycles.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 2, 2017 4:48 pm

Well, if they found the job creation “unimaginable”, maybe they actually got that one right.

Paul R. Johnson
Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 2, 2017 5:00 pm

And many of the those unimaginable jobs will be residential solar installers, i.e., glorified roofers. Just the kind of prestige jobs all those deeply-indebted recent college grads will be anxious to do.

Reply to  Paul R. Johnson
June 2, 2017 5:13 pm

Yeah, but residential solar installer is a job we can actually imagine.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Paul R. Johnson
June 3, 2017 6:47 am

Just the kind of prestige jobs all those deeply-indebted recent college grads will be anxious to do.

Anxious or not about acquiring a “prestige job” of residential solar installers, …… those deeply-indebted recent college grads will still be required to attend “a two year Trade School” just to learn how to “climb ladders” …….. and then another two years of Trade School learning how to use a hammer and screwdriver without “falling off the roof”.
Worker’s Compensation Rates and Health Insurance Premium that employers are forced to pay will increase astronomically when those “protesting experts” college grads are employed as “solar panel roofers”.

Curious George
Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 2, 2017 6:57 pm

David, renewable energy is “jobs rich”. It takes 40 renewable energy jobs to create an output of one coal miner. To quote Milton Friedman, “If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

Mike Schlamby
Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 3, 2017 5:40 am

I always wonder why, if there’s so much money to be made, it takes taxpayer subsidies and trillions in destroyed value to get it going. Would it not be viable as a stand-alone investment now if there’s money to be made?
This is like the broken window fallacy — think of all the employment that would result if teams of people drove around every city with air-powered golf ball launchers breaking hundreds of thousands or millions of windows every night. Why, the economy would boom, right?
And why stop there? While the teams are out breaking windows, they should set fire to every parked car they see. Think of the boom in employment in firefighters and tow-truck drivers as well as the billions that would be spent on new cars that could bring about.
But why even stop there? Think of the construction boom if they burned every house!
We’d be a hugely wealthy nation, so rich that NOBODY would have to work.
I think the government should get right on it.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Mike Schlamby
June 3, 2017 7:05 am

Right on, ….. Mike Schlamby, ……. as everyone now knows, …… the Democrat’s “Cash for Clunkers” rebate program was a “job creating” super-successful venture, …… to wit:

The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), colloquially known as “cash for clunkers”, was a $3 billion U.S. federal scrappage program intended to provide economic incentives to U.S. residents to purchase a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle when trading in a less fuel-efficient vehicle. The program was promoted as providing stimulus to the economy by boosting auto sales, while putting safer, cleaner, and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the roadways.
A study published after the program by researchers at the University of Delaware concluded that for each vehicle trade, the program had a net cost of approximately $2,000, with total costs outweighing all benefits by $1.4 billion.

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 3, 2017 10:06 am

Hey – that is a great idea for welfare recipients.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 3, 2017 11:37 am

Agreed. I spent 37 years in corporate America trying to ELIMINATE JOBS.
Jobs are a COST, not a BENEFIT.

Reply to  Gamecock
June 3, 2017 7:40 pm

Oh, so you are the guy?
I am not so sure I would admit to spending my life doing that job.
Were you good at it?

Reply to  Gamecock
June 4, 2017 10:46 am

Yes, very good at it. Efficiency is key to competitiveness.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 4, 2017 5:55 am

The Soviet Union had 0% unemployment. They were sooo superior.

June 2, 2017 4:36 pm

On behalf of my family, I’d like to say a big “thank you” to Anthony Watts and all the contributors at WUWT for all that you’ve done. Perhaps the tide has finally started to turn.

Reply to  AP
June 2, 2017 4:39 pm

AP June 2, 2017 at 4:36 pm
Yes, I also agree on behalf of my granchildren and those of everyone else.
Anthony has done us all a great service at considerable cost to himself. I’m sure he would just like to “get his life back” at some stage.

June 2, 2017 4:43 pm

Come on griffy, tell us again how China is leading the world in solar power, and how solar is now sooooo much cheaper than coal, or even gas.
1 …

A C Osborn
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 3:55 am

The Guardian, Ha Ha ROFL.

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 5:18 am

Where’s your refutation, AC? Or are you all hat and no cattle?

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 5:20 am

If you read down a bit, you come to the crux of the biscuit, from Kanika Chawla, a senior program lead at the Delhi-based Council for Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW):

Prices were likely to drop further if the cost of borrowing money continued to fall – which she said was one of the major drivers in the record low prices this year.
“Any future incremental gains in prices will not come from the decline in technology prices, they will come from declines in the cost of finance,” she said.
Investors were also likely encouraged by a recent move to allow the state-backed Solar Energy Corporation of India to act as a guarantor in agreements between energy developers and India’s debt-ridden power distribution companies.

And then finally, this:

Renewable energy projects also still enjoyed exemptions from some taxes that fossil fuel-generators had to pay, she added. “We need to run the numbers before we can say [unsubsidised solar] is cheaper than coal, but it’s definitely competitive,” she said.

So when you get down to brass tacks (or perhaps brass TAX), the apparent cheapness of solar power is due entirely to the low (current) cost of borrowing money, the government agreeing to guarantee that bad money, and enormous subsidies that the solar got but was denied to the coal/natural gas-generated power generators. 2.62 rupees is about $0.04 US, so they’re paying about one-quarter to one-third the price of solar-generated electricity in the US — where it is also highly subsidized.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 6:58 am

What you and Griff fail to understand is that there is a lot more to the OVERALL cost to electricity than just the cost of the panels, you have the infrastructure, short life replacement costs and then that minor little problem of Intermittency.
So you either add the cost of lots and lots of lovely batteries (which have to be replaced every 10 years or so) and even more infrastructure or you have conventional back up.

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 7:40 am

Either Griff didn’t read the article….or something else
I clearly states that Indian solar is cheaper because it’s subsidized….cheaper financing, no taxes, etc that coal has to pay

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 7:43 pm

What sort of batteries last for ten years of being discharged every night?

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 10:22 pm

Obviously the new STEORN zero point energy batteries…just ask them. /sarc

Tom in Florida
June 2, 2017 4:52 pm

It has been said on earlier threads but it needs to be repeated repeatedly.
This decision in NO WAY prohibits any other country, corporation, company, or citizen from moving forward with their own plans and/or life style that would address their belief in climate change. No one is restricted from doing what they see as appropriate. This decision simply stops the payment of American tax dollars to other countries in the name of climate change. So go ahead everyone, keep living the low CO2 lifestyle you already do. And if it makes you feel better in doing so, then good on you.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 2, 2017 5:19 pm

Thanks Tom…and 100% correctamundo
…and those other countries can figure out how to get the ~$3 trillion without our help
I swear, the EU had figured out some way to use that money to bail them out

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 2, 2017 7:09 pm

Awh Tom you are so wrong. ..” from moving forward with their own plans and/or life style that would address their belief in climate change.”
All those people who expected their share of the $100 billion a year may actually have to do something useful instead of living off the handouts.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 2, 2017 9:05 pm

Amen. Build wind turbines and solar farms. Just do it. But just do it without Federal subsidies.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Ken
June 2, 2017 9:09 pm

What do you have against birds and bats?

Reply to  Ken
June 3, 2017 5:19 am

Coal kills far more birds than solar or wind.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Ken
June 3, 2017 7:43 am

Coal kills far more birds than solar or wind.

Now don’t be talking “trash”.
Solar and wind causes the deaths of ….. billions of young “incubating” and/or “hatchling” birds each and every year. When the winds destroy the bird nests, its contents of live egg embryos and/or hatchlings are also destroyed. And whenever the live egg embryos and/or hatchlings are subjected to extreme periods of intense solar irradiance, tis fatal also.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Ken
June 3, 2017 7:52 am

Ah …yes , Chris …all those poor canaries …….
but we can build solar powered robot canaries and all will be well ….

Reply to  Ken
June 3, 2017 7:58 am

@Sweet Old Bob
” …all those poor canaries …….”
LOL . really .

Reply to  Ken
June 3, 2017 12:10 pm

Samuel, feel free to post links to support your statements. Else you’re another empty suit.

Reply to  Ken
June 3, 2017 12:24 pm

Chris June 3, 2017 at 12:10 pm
The onus is on you to support your baseless assertion that coal kills more birds than do solar and wind power. Not to mention bats.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Ken
June 3, 2017 1:43 pm

Chris June 3, 2017 at 12:10 pm

Samuel, feel free to post links to support your statements. Else you’re another empty suit.

Chris, is Learning Disabled an inherited trait in your family’s history …… or do you really strive hard at being Learning Disabled in order to gain approval and acceptance within your chosen “peer group”?
And ps, Chris, here are three (3) recent “wind caused bird kill” events of the THOUSANDS of such events that occur every day, year after year, at different places on th earth.

21,341 Birds Killed In France By Slew Of Storms – Feb 26, 2014

Oct 12, 2016 — Flooding from Hurricane Matthew has killed up to 5 million poultry birds in North Carolina, most of them chickens,

A tornado and storm on 8 Apr. 1993 at Grand Isle, Louisiana, killed an estimated 40,000 birds of 45 species. The ten species killed in greatest numbers accounted for about half of the birds killed. This kill is the largest one recorded on the Gulf of Mexico coast.

Sure is strange that so many young folks think that touting their stupidity of/on a subject matter is the same as displaying a Badge of Honor for all the world to see.

Reply to  Ken
June 3, 2017 8:21 pm

“Coal kills far more birds than solar or wind.”
Find me one picture of a bird killed by coal.

Reply to  Ken
June 3, 2017 8:30 pm

Chris, no surprise, is conspicuous by his absence.
Samuel’s semantic point about wind and sun, apart from wind and solar power, notwithstanding, Chris just made a baseless assertion and apparently imagined that the scientifically minded here would accept it at face value.
“Renewables” have killed hundreds of millions of birds and bats, if not trillions. Coal power, not even hundreds or thousands in this century.

Bryan A
Reply to  Ken
June 3, 2017 11:05 pm

Also consider that on average, wind turbines kill 1 bird per year each. 40,000 turbines = 40,000 bird kills annually, 300,000 turbines = 300,000 bird kills annually, just imagine how many could be eliminated if wind turbines powered the world

June 2, 2017 4:52 pm

It was never a treaty.

June 2, 2017 4:54 pm

Our NZ government have pledged one billion dollars to pay for this Paris rort. It’s nothing but wealth distribution, to pay for climate scaremongering. How many NZ houses would that build, given that our formerly wealthy country now has families living in cars? It’s insane.
You might like this NZ website: http://www.nzcpr.com/climate-change-data-fabricated/

Reply to  kingdom777
June 2, 2017 5:34 pm

kingdom777 June 2, 2017 at 4:54 pm :
No, it’s worse then we thought. Our NZ govt.is actually going to spend $1.4 billion (NZ) over the first 10 years and it’ll no doubt increase in the next. Just to buy useless fairy dust (AKA carbon credits) from overseas conmen.

Reply to  kingdom777
June 2, 2017 5:47 pm

No…it isn’t about wealth distribution. It is about power consolidation. It is an attempt to put sovereign nations under a global authority, that will tax the strong nations into weakness and use that money to bribe the weak nations into compliance and dependence. Ultimately, it is about a relative small group of self-anointed elites, who have convinced themselves that the rest of humanity is too stupid to be left to their own devices. These elites appear to be a little insane, just plan evil or both, because they continue to blow a path of misery and death while praising each other for imaginary wisdom, nobility and benevolence.
Mad Hatters, indeed!

Mike Schlamby
Reply to  jclarke341
June 3, 2017 6:57 am

Very well said.

Reply to  jclarke341
June 3, 2017 7:49 pm

Indeed…well said.

Reply to  kingdom777
June 2, 2017 11:46 pm

Yes indeed – you are correct.
Part of the ‘user pays’ mentality we have here in NZ, to then be balanced and fair, it must also be that the ‘abuser pays’….BUT as NZ is largely powered already by ‘renewables’ such as hydro, WHY then are we paying anything????

June 2, 2017 4:56 pm


June 2, 2017 5:08 pm

200 nations against Trump? It reminds me of the famous “100 Authors against Einstein. Who won that one?

Jimmy Finley
Reply to  Trebla
June 2, 2017 7:09 pm

That’s an unfair fight. When Trump tromps them, they’ll be back in the capitalist, populist mode – safe and secure from the marxist tyranny they were sleepwalking into.

Reply to  Jimmy Finley
June 2, 2017 10:53 pm

and how many of those 200 ( 193) countries are paying and how many have been promised free money?
It’s easy to get someone to agree to something if you promise them loads of money.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Jimmy Finley
June 3, 2017 7:53 am

Or promise them “free” I-phones and “no-charge” unlimited calling.

June 2, 2017 5:11 pm

Nobody in the far-left MSM seems to have mentioned that Trump was elected President with a promise to withdraw from Paris.
Nobody in the far-left MSM or pseudo-enviro NPO’s has mentioned that Obama railroaded the Paris Agreement through, without the consent of Congress.
Apparently democracy does not count to anyone on the far-left these days.

Reply to  AndyG55
June 2, 2017 5:13 pm

NPO’s …. meant NGO’s

Fernando Sor
Reply to  AndyG55
June 3, 2017 1:49 am

To the left never did and never will

June 2, 2017 5:11 pm

“assertions that humans can prevent climate change and extreme weather events by controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels”
Actually the assertion is more preposterous than that. What the unfccc proposes is to control the rate warming by changing the rate of fossil fuel emissions. The old Lacis control knob. It is based on the Matthews “proportionality between cumulative warming and cumulative emissions”. I have shown that the Lacis and Matthews statistics are flawed. So in essence the unfccc is telling us to cut emissions as a way of attenuating warming without any evidence that these two variables are related. Please see

Reply to  chaamjamal
June 3, 2017 6:04 am

Butbutbut… if millions of climate alarmists agree and have 97 olympic-sized swimming poolsfull-worth of dodgy, dubious research – they must be right! How can anyone doubt them?

June 2, 2017 5:12 pm

“We are out of Paris! President Trump is leading the world back from the climate insanity precipice.”
SANTY and REAL science are starting to prevail. !!

June 2, 2017 5:13 pm

Unfortunately the lame stream media continues to beat the drum that “Trump still thinks Climate Change is a hoax and that we’re all going to die if we don’t do something now!”. There is no actual debate of the specifics of the agreement or arguments to back up their claims. As long as folks just watch the propaganda in the lame stream media nothing is ever going to turn our way. Trump quoted the MIT study showing a 0.2 degree reduction from the Paris Accordion, but now there is a new story claiming that’s not what the MIT folks really meant. And now mayors and governors of liberal cities and states are claiming they are going to move forward on the terms of the Paris Accordion on their own terms. I wish them well and offer my sympathies to the citizens of those communities. We still have a mountain to climb to convince the lame stream media that there is a legitimate alternative point of view on both the merits of AGW and what measures if any could actually accomplish anything.

Reply to  K-Bob
June 3, 2017 6:08 am

now there is a new story claiming that’s not what the MIT folks really meant
Well, of course! You see, the MIT study is sooooo complicated and correct that nobody can ever truly understand it unless they are True Believers in the first place.

Reply to  K-Bob
June 3, 2017 6:12 am

And don’t forget that ‘mayors and governors’ are MUCH closer to their constituencies and accessible to people who are NOT going to accept big tax increases in order to fund dubious, political-posturing, symbolic planet-saving projects.

Reply to  K-Bob
June 3, 2017 8:39 am

“And now mayors and governors of liberal cities and states are claiming they are going to move forward on the terms of the Paris Accordion on their own terms. I wish them well and offer my sympathies to the citizens of those communities.”
The only way these governors and mayors are going to move forward on the Paris Accord is to raise taxes on their constituents. As you say, our sympanthies are with those poor folks who are governed by such idiots.
One good thing: It’s pretty easy to get rid of political kooks on the local level, especially when the kooks want to take money our of your pocket.

June 2, 2017 5:16 pm

My only problem with President Trump’s action is that I’m not sure he’s doing it based on the science. I’d hate to think he’s only doing it because of political reasons. Which is exactly what so many politicians do, Only most of them go along with it.
I know that I should just be happy he’s done this, but if he has no firm belief in the nay side he might just be doing what he always does and is playing hard ball to get a better deal.

Reply to  peter
June 2, 2017 5:21 pm

well he did say it was a s c a m

Reply to  peter
June 3, 2017 6:17 am

He exposed the globalists economic scam and, for those who might listen (not including those of us who have been paying attention), I hope they would be appalled with the revelations. Merkel even confessed that Paris was about supporting globalization for the UN and the EU.
The science is a different matter and not so swiftly sorted out.

Reply to  peter
June 3, 2017 8:49 am

I don’t see that it is any advantage to Trump to get bogged down in the weeds of the particulars of climate science. It’s enough that he says “more study is needed” which is what Scott Pruitt says. There’s no doubt about more study being needed on the subject. Taking this position doesn’t necessarily make one fall on one side or the other of the argument.
Then places like WUWT can do the “more study” part.
I know a lot of people want Trump to state uniquivocally that CO2 is not causing the climate to change but he can’t honestly say such a thing. Can he? Can you? I can’t, although I would love to be able to do so. The jury is still out, although it is not looking good for the alarmist position.
The Left wants Trump to declare CAGW to be a hoax. Then they can try to excoriate him because Trump cannot prove that position, so they catch him in a position he cannot defend. Is that what we want?
Some skeptics want Trump to declare it a hoax. But the evidence is not quite in yet and it would be jumping the gun to do such a thing.
We should all calm down. This is all going to work itself out in the end.

Reply to  peter
June 3, 2017 1:02 pm

I was extremely disappointed that Trump did not dare challenge the lack of science behind CAGW, and the false claim that CO2 is pollution and has no benefits.
If ‘tough’ Trump is afraid to challenge the lack of science, then who will?
If Trump really meant he could rejoin a renegotiated Paris Agreement, then he may not be permanently (four years) out of all global climate change agreements — he just thought the current one was a bad deal.
Trump supporters are proud that he kept his election promise to exit the Paris Agreement … but they should also be worried that he said he might rejoin with better terms.
Trump will be gone in four years and the next President will be back in the Paris Agreement, believing the “science is settled” because no one in power challenges it, even Trump, who had nothing to lose because half the nation already hated him..
In fact, Trump may be gone in less than two years if the Dumbocrats and MSM succeed at their uncivil war against him.
Trump has been so demonized that I would not be surprised if some crazed progressive tried to shoot him.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 4, 2017 5:42 am

“Trump has been so demonized that I would not be surprised if some crazed progressive tried to shoot him.”
Unfortunately, violent psychopaths take such demonizations as giving them permission to fullfill their inner violence urges. The Democrats and the MSM are definitely inciting violence on the Left. They are doing great harm to the United States.

June 2, 2017 5:20 pm

The province of Ontario’s resident Mad Hatter, Premier Kathleen Wynne, was “appalled” by Trump’s decision. Of course she was given what she has done to the people of Ontario (she has a 12% approval rating) with her “green” energy (wind & solar) and her “carbon” tax. Approximately 300,000 manufacturing jobs have fled the province since 2006, for, as it were, less greener pastures. More could follow given Trump’s decision. That’s what happens when you double + the price of electricity. Wynne will be served with an eviction notice after next spring’s election despite all her gyrations to stay in power.
As for that Dorkmouse in Ottawa, PM Justin Trudeau, well, my moniker for him says it all.

Reply to  3¢worth
June 3, 2017 9:02 am

“for, as it were, less greener pastures.”
I got a good laugh out of that one! 🙂

June 2, 2017 5:21 pm

The President made many good points in his speech which MSM are ignoring. I have extracted these excerpt from the transcript of The President’s speech
As the Wall Street Journal wrote this morning: “The reality is that withdrawing is in America’s economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.”
Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need — believe me, this is not what we need — including automobile jobs, and the further decimation of vital American industries on which countless communities rely. They rely for so much, and we would be giving them so little.
According to this same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal — and I happen to love the coal miners — down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.
For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years — 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years.
Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. There are many other examples. But the bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.
China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it: India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours. Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants.
In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers these jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries.
This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.
We have among the most abundant energy reserves on the planet, sufficient to lift millions of America’s poorest workers out of poverty. Yet, under this agreement, we are effectively putting these reserves under lock and key, taking away the great wealth of our nation — it’s great wealth, it’s phenomenal wealth; not so long ago, we had no idea we had such wealth — and leaving millions and millions of families trapped in poverty and joblessness.
The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries. At 1 percent growth, renewable sources of energy can meet some of our domestic demand, but at 3 or 4 percent growth, which I expect, we need all forms of available American energy, or our country — (applause) — will be at grave risk of brownouts and blackouts,
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. Tiny, tiny amount. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030,
The United States, under the Trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth. We’ll be the cleanest. We’re going to have the cleanest air. We’re going to have the cleanest water. We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work and we’re not going to lose our jobs.
The Green Fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion — nobody else is even close; most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism.
In 2015, the United Nation’s departing top climate officials reportedly described the $100 billion per year as “peanuts,” and stated that “the $100 billion is the tail that wags the dog.” In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020
America is $20 trillion in debt. Cash-strapped cities cannot hire enough police officers or fix vital infrastructure. Millions of our citizens are out of work. And yet, under the Paris Accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us.

Reply to  LittleOil
June 2, 2017 5:31 pm

Interesting how the media hypes governmental and quasi-governmental cost analysis that is negative towards health care reform. But will either ignore or have a panel of their experts question the items you have raised.

Reply to  LittleOil
June 2, 2017 6:08 pm


Reply to  Latitude
June 2, 2017 6:09 pm

those should be plus 1…..+1+1 etc

Reply to  LittleOil
June 3, 2017 2:13 am

Well, the NERA report has been widely criticised as being ‘worst case’ and ignoring many points…
Do note the Chinese now expect emissions to peak in 2020, not 2030.

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 4:33 am

Yep! Just like one would expect. Griff believes that words and claims from a communist state are more credible than the those from a leader of a Constitutional Republic.

Reasonable Skeptic
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 4:55 am

One of the first things in your link says
“EPA Projects Clean Power Plan Will Reduce Electricity Bills, Provide Net Economic Benefits.”
This immediately makes the report useless. Find a western nation or state/province that has gone from fossil fuel based electrical generation to solar and wind generation and lowered their electricity bills.

Mike Schlamby
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 7:48 am

Media matters? Why not MAD magazine?

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 12:12 pm

“Media matters? Why not MAD magazine?”
And where to you go to for unbiased news?

Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 8:00 pm

“And where to you go to for unbiased news?”
*rolls the eyes*

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
June 3, 2017 11:12 pm

There is hardly anyplace that reports the news without some bias so the term Unbiased News is really an oxymoronic statement

Robert of Texas
June 2, 2017 5:25 pm

Has anyone actually turned on their TVs and listened to the hysteria? We are all doomed. Tomorrow (or maybe its the day after…) all ice will melt, giant tidal waves will sweep across the world, and it will also be 0.2C hotter! OMG!
I am going to drink that bottle of Campaign I have been saving…no sense it going to waste.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Robert of Texas
June 2, 2017 8:16 pm

Assuming USA CO2 emissions mattered more than our money (ROTFL), the USA has reduced gross CO2 emissions from 6,000 million tons (maxed in 2007) to 5,300 in 2015. That’s better than a 10% reduction.
Yea us!

Reply to  Robert of Texas
June 3, 2017 9:09 am

Just remember what happened to the boy that cried wolf too many times, when there was no wolf. The people stopped believing him and his cries about an imaginary danger, and stopped paying attention to him.

June 2, 2017 5:28 pm

It’s not a treaty. Did Obama submit it to theSenate in the first place? I recall not. A good old boy handshake can be just as easily be unshaken.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
June 2, 2017 5:51 pm

You are correct, for it is not a treaty for us, because the Senate did not ratify it.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
June 2, 2017 8:34 pm

By itself, the Paris Agreement is not a treaty, as I understand it, BUT it IS an extension of a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate years ago, namely the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The trick trying to be pulled is to say that since the U.S. Senate accepted THAT treaty, and the Paris Accord is merely the latest undertaking of THAT treaty, then the U.S. is legally obliged to stay in the Paris Agreement, which I think is bull. This line of reasoning would enable a major change involving untold additional amounts of money, hardship, adaptation pressure, etc. that the original Treaty did NOT specify, … WITHOUT any consideration whatsoever of additional negotiations to implement it as part of the original treaty.
In other words, you can’t just toss in something that causes a potentially huge additional stress without tossing in some additional negotiation to accept or reject this huge additional stress as a valid extension of an original agreement. It’s no longer the original agreement, hence, the original negotiation is NOT adequate to support it as part of the original agreement.
You might have read my comment in another topic about Twinkies. To summarize that: It would be like telling all the countries to implement a plan to stop eating so many Twinkies and call this an extension of an already ratified treaty. Bull !

Mike Schlamby
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 3, 2017 7:54 am

Well, treaty schmeaty. What are they going to do about it one way or the other? Have hissy fits and tantrums and say mean things about President Donald J Trump? Oh, no, not that! If they want to enforce their treaty, let them send their armies and try to invade.
Pffft. Where I’m from we have an applicable two-word expression of sentiment beginning with “f” and ending with “’em”.

June 2, 2017 5:28 pm

It’s not a treaty. Did Obama submit it to theSenate in the first place? I recall not. A good old boy handshake can be just as easily be unshaken.

J Mac
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
June 2, 2017 6:50 pm

A ‘good old boy’ handshake is a binding contract, where I grew up. But then, Obama is not a ‘good old boy’ because his words and actions can’t be trusted. Please don’t denigrate the honest Americans that many respect as real ‘good old boys’.
You’re right that the Paris Climate Accord was not a treaty, as it was never submitted to the US Senate for ratification. It was a deceitful attempt by Barack Hussein Obama to create a personal pseudo-agreement that would be difficult for the next president to dismiss. To Obama’s chagrin, President Trump showed he was not intimidated by orchestrated socialist public pressure and rejected it with public alacrity.

Warren in New Zealand
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
June 2, 2017 7:58 pm

Out where I am, New Zealand, very rural, a handshake on anything means commitment. But we do make quick decisions on exactly who we shake hands with on any deal.

Reply to  Warren in New Zealand
June 11, 2017 4:33 am

@J Mac & Warren,
Handshakes are fine for two party transactions. But what we are talking about is like the two of you shaking hands on a deal that limits my ability to do things that have nothing to do with the stated objective of the handshake, and then reaches into my wallet to pay for it. No, Nicholas is right; a handshake is not good enough for that, no matter how well intentioned or pedigreed the participants might be. I have to be involved, and in this case that means the involvement of my two Senators, so that they can look after my interests.

June 2, 2017 5:33 pm

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

Phil R
Reply to  Dr Norman Page
June 2, 2017 7:01 pm

Dr Norman Page,

Trump should also withdraw from the UNFCCC as well as the Paris Accords.

It’s late here and I don’t know the details, but I thought we were supposed to withdraw from any UN organization that recognized Palestine. According to Wikipedia (I know, dubious source), Palestine signed the agreement on April 22, 2016. The curious thing is that only “full members” of the UNFCCC are allowed to sign the agreement. Even the Holy See can’t sign the agreement because it is an observer state, not a full member.
First, how can Palestine sign if it’s not even a recognized country?
Second, that in and of itself should be legitimate grounds to leave the UNFCCC.

Reply to  Phil R
June 3, 2017 9:22 am

Trump wants to try to get a deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I don’t think Trump would want to highlight a disagreement over the Palestinians being granted membership at the UNFCCC, at this time.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the other day that the U.S. seat at the UNFCCC was “secure”. I inferred that the U.S. is not going to pull out of the UNFCCC, since Pruitt said “secure” as though it were a good thing.
He was saying that the U.S. still had a seat at the table, through the UNFCCC, after being asked a question about U.S. influence after withdrawing from the Paris Accord. Pruitt was affirming that the U.S. would still have that seat to sit in.
After Trump gives the Israeli/Palestinian deal his best shot, he may change his policy on a lot of things, depending on the results or lack thereof.

Reply to  Phil R
June 3, 2017 9:36 am

You are correct. Pl 103-236 passed by Congress in 1994.
And, Trump also promised to withdraw from Green Climate Fund. That is UNFCCC separate from Paris, with its Korean headquarters established in 2010. The exit from UNFCCC is the only means to escape GCF. And Article 25 of UNFCCC section 3 as well as Article 28 section 3 of Paris make exiting UNFCCC an automatic Paris exit. And only takes 1 year after delivery of written notice. So that is the legal path being followed.

Reply to  Phil R
June 3, 2017 12:09 pm

“The exit from UNFCCC is the only means to escape GCF.”
That might put a new light on things.

Peter Sable
June 2, 2017 6:14 pm

Solar as a jobs program is just using picks and shovels to build roads instead of graders and backhoes. Sure, you can claim to employ more people, but it’s idiot economics.

Terry Gednalske
June 2, 2017 6:20 pm

I agree that President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris accord was correct and wise. Amid all of the frenzied rhetoric that’s been in the media, I have read/heard the assertion that it will take nearly four years to fully withdraw. There is never an explanation of why it should take so long, or what obligations will remain in place over the four year transition. Because many WUWT contributors are well versed in these matters, I am hoping that someone here can provide the explanation. If you have the answer, thanks in advance.

Phil R
Reply to  Terry Gednalske
June 2, 2017 7:09 pm

The answer is as simple as it is mystifying. one of the articles of the Paris Accord says any member can leave after five years. Since it was only signed last year, no one has been a member for five years.
Hence, another article says a member can leave after three years, but needs to give a one-year notice (if leaving before the five-year limit). That’s where the three/four year process to leave comes from.
The problem is, following the process gives a pseudo-legitimacy to the agreement in the first place. We should just say it’s null and void and walk away, and/or completely withdraw from the UNFCCCC. At best I can hope that Trump is walking a balancing act between keeping his promise and playing the international political game.

Reply to  Phil R
June 3, 2017 9:30 am

“The problem is, following the process gives a pseudo-legitimacy to the agreement in the first place.”
My sentiment, too.

Reply to  Phil R
June 3, 2017 9:37 am

See comment above. There is a clear path requiring 1 year.

June 2, 2017 6:26 pm

We do not have money to support the Paris Climate Agreement. We have huge annual federal deficits, a huge federal debt, and hugh annual trade deficits. I extimate that the money the federal government is borrowing today will end up costing the tax payers more than 12 times the moeny borrowed to pay it back over the nest 180 years. Before we can possible help out we need to pay off our existing debts and turn our ecomony around so that as a nation we are making money rather than losing money as we are now.
In addition to our financial problems, 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 really zero, hence the Paris Climate Agreement if implemented to its fullest will have no effect on climate. IT is just a big waste of money which we cannot afford.
If somehow we could stop the climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of our current climate. So there is no benefit to be achieved here.

June 2, 2017 6:28 pm

Whoa, whoa. “California, Connecticut, New York …….. pay 15 to 18 cents”. You’re a bit off there my friend. Here in CA near San Jose, my recent bill is for S0.20 a kwhr! That’s just the base (1st 338kwhr) rate. The next “tier” it goes to $0.28!! Welcome to the land of fruits, nuts, Democrats and insanity.

Leo Smith
June 2, 2017 6:50 pm

…the 100% right, ethical, moral and scientific thing to do…>/blockquote>
That’s how alarmists talk. Using language like that shows they have won.
Whatever happened to ‘just plain common sense’ ?

Steve Oregon
June 2, 2017 6:53 pm

In watching various hysterics clamor on about how Trump is no longer the leader of the free world it dawned on me that his exit from the Paris Accord was an act of world leadership rarely possible or exhibited by a US president.
President Trump has lead the world out of the biggest global fraud in human history.
As the years roll forward and AGW is abandoned Trump will be vindicated and history will record his leadership of the free world to be precisely & immensely what the left is mendaciously alleging he has surrendered.

Reply to  Steve Oregon
June 3, 2017 9:20 am

ask them how going along and following is a leader

Reply to  Steve Oregon
June 3, 2017 9:36 am

“In watching various hysterics clamor on about how Trump is no longer the leader of the free world it dawned on me that his exit from the Paris Accord was an act of world leadership rarely possible or exhibited by a US president.”
Just ask yourself: Is there any other politician in the U.S. or the world for that matter, who would have done what Trump has done?
No Republican candidate could have stood up to the world’s elites this way. No Repubican candidate could have stood up to the dishonest MSM this way. It would never have happened without Trump.
The MSM hates and fears Republicans/Conservatives, but they not only hate and fear Trump, they loathe him for shining a light on their dishonesty and making them look bad. Deservedly so, I might add. They are every bad thing Trump says they are.

Reply to  Steve Oregon
June 4, 2017 7:39 am

Now The USA is the “Free World”.

June 2, 2017 6:54 pm

Can we just cut to the chase? The Paris accord was simply the globalists’ latest device to extract trillions of dollars from ordinary people’s pockets via the UN. And globalism is just the cool new world for communism.

Reply to  Tom
June 2, 2017 8:34 pm

+1 I’m amazed that people think there’s some kind of conspiracy theory when the Marxist/Socialist cabal is mentioned. I believe it’s because that’s what the MSM claims whenever it’s brought up but who believes the MSM anymore?

A C Osborn
Reply to  markl
June 3, 2017 4:16 am

It is a conspiracy, but it is out in the open, they admit it is “not about the Climate or Environment, it is about wealth Distribution” and the killing of Capitalism (and Democracy).

Reply to  markl
June 3, 2017 10:39 am

We are rejoicing because we have had an important ‘win’ in a significant country (probably the most significant country). But the struggle continues in 189 other countries that remain on the global warming political bandwagon.
It is important that we build on the credibility achieved by our ‘win’ in the USA and don’t destroy that credibility with silliness.
You say

I’m amazed that people think there’s some kind of conspiracy theory when the Marxist/Socialist cabal is mentioned

I suggest you get a ‘shrink’ to explain your problem to you.

Reply to  richardscourtney
June 3, 2017 5:07 pm

“….I suggest you get a ‘shrink’ to explain your problem to you…..” Give up because you have nothing to say? I gave you direct quotes from high/influential members in the UN stating the purpose of CAGW and you discount it. Who needs help?

Reply to  markl
June 4, 2017 3:28 pm

I suggest that there is a cabal that masquerades as communist/socialist, but only because it sells well to some . . not because those (I am quite sure) hyper-wealthy control freaks at the core of it have any intention of sharing their wealth/power with the little people. A “bait and switch” game, with “socialism” as the bait . . and good old fashioned elitism as the actual intent.

Reply to  JohnKnight
June 4, 2017 4:02 pm

You may be right. I attribute the involvement of the very rich to either guilt and the “ism” support is atonement or their misguided attempt to make a difference in the world and nothing else to show for their wealth. I think the ideology controls them and they’re nothing more than useful idiots. After all, how many super wealthy people earned their money through Socialism?

June 2, 2017 7:03 pm

Trump should have used his speech to strongly encourage states and counties and cities to comply with the Paris agreement. Then they would have no choice but to RESIST by immediately igniting and incinerating every garbage dump and tire heap under their local control.

Mike Schlamby
Reply to  KTM
June 3, 2017 8:01 am

Good call!

June 2, 2017 7:07 pm

The 45-day European model forecast flipped from above normal rain to below normal rain over the past week. How on the world can it predict 70 years if it’s having trouble at 45 days?

A C Osborn
Reply to  Rob
June 3, 2017 4:17 am

The Met Office and the BBC can’t even get a 3 day forecast correct, let alone 45 days.

Reply to  A C Osborn
June 3, 2017 1:06 pm

Agreed, totally.
I now – pretty much – trust 24 hour forecasts here in London.
But carry a brolly, always.
Three day forecasts – interesting, but never to be relied upon.
Never – carry a brolly, always.
Even now, in the UK, anything past three days is absolutely a horoscope with numbers.
Elsewhere I the world, it may be possible to forecast a bit further ahead: –
“Atacama Desert forecast for June, July, August: – Dry.
September through December – Dry.”
I can live with that, although not there, thanks.
But here, in the UK [specifically, southern London] – no.
Just horoscopes with numbers.

June 2, 2017 7:12 pm

Well, I am disappointed than nobody pointed out that today was a special day that goes well with Tea and even climate talk …..
Nice and interesting post BTW.
Thanks, but I still missed out on free doughnuts dangit!

Timo Soren
June 2, 2017 8:34 pm

I am sorry if this is off topic but some Brad Plumer of NYT wrote a piece and refused to reference President Trump as Prez and only used Mr. Trump throughout the piece.
I will work hard to never read the paper again.

Bryan A
Reply to  Timo Soren
June 4, 2017 8:17 am

Quite so, without the U.S. participatory payments into the Climate Green FUnd, the world will be unable to afford any mitigation measures to the model induced hysteria

June 2, 2017 8:39 pm

Trump should also withdraw from the UNFCCC as well as the Paris Accords.

This should have been his FIRST action, in my opinion. He should have given his year’s notice to withdraw, in order to have been done with the whole sordid mess. That way, he could formally get out in a year, and have three more years as president to follow up on this action.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 2, 2017 8:41 pm

… since getting out of the UNFCCC automatically gets you out of the Paris Agreement, as stated in the articles of the Paris Agreement.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 2, 2017 8:45 pm

Well, as I’m thinking about it, he might would have had to go to the Senate for that move. Maybe he is working on that one, and just postured to refuse to accept the Paris Agreement in the guise of “getting out”, which technically (supposedly) takes four years, according to the articles of the Paris Agreement.

June 2, 2017 8:50 pm

I am beginning to lose interest in this issue. If something bad happens, all will respond to prevent reoccurrence. Until something obviously bad happens, most will do nothing.
Nothing more than “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf’ ” so far…

David Ramsay Steele
June 2, 2017 9:51 pm

I was aghast and apprehensive when Trump was elected. But he keeps saying and doing things I love. How unfair is that?
This could be Trump’s “evil empire” moment. It was eight years from Reagan calling the USSR an evil empire, with derision and contempt from the elite, to the dissolution of the Soviet Empire, and universal acceptance of the USSR as having been nothing more and nothing less than an evil empire. I’m betting it will be less than eight years until the collapse of global warming pseudoscience!

June 2, 2017 10:25 pm

One correction or fine point. In California (PGE) I pay $0.25/kHw on the average with Tiers running $0.60/kWh for marginal watts used in the summer. I”m already at European rates with ‘net-metering’ and Arnold-Jerry Economics. It ain’t even started yet. Great article nonetheless.

June 2, 2017 10:27 pm

According to press reports, several business leaders exclaim that Trump’s policy is wrong because “climate change is real,” Does anyone out there claim climate change to be unreal?

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
June 2, 2017 10:41 pm

This is the old 97% fallacy. Everyone pretty much accepts CO2 blocks radiation, even the three “denyerz” at the last senate hearing. What is less clear is whether it is a problem , one that requires up-ending the world economy and unelected world government .

June 2, 2017 10:37 pm

President Trump has rejected and exited the Paris climate treaty

NO HE HASN’T. He has said he intends to. That is not the same thing. Don’t count your climate chickens until they are hatched.
Until he signs an official notification that he is either pulling the US out of Paris Agreement and sends it the UNFCCC or gives official notice that he pulling out of UNFCCC itself, he has done nothing. He has only spoken.
He seems to be under the illusion that there is something to “renegotiate”. That is worrisome.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Greg
June 3, 2017 4:30 am

Of course there is something to renegitiate, I am sure if the rest of the world would like to give the US $100B per year and not expect them to reduce emissions he will stay in.