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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
You are correct, for it is not a treaty for us, because the Senate did not ratify it.
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 !
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”.
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.
Nicholas,
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.
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.
@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.
Trump should also withdraw from the UNFCCC as well as the Paris Accords.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up to select from the evidence and from time to time produce reports which would show that CO2 was the main driver of dangerous climate change and then a meeting in Rio in 1992 chaired by Maurice Strong produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , later signed by 196 governments.
The objective of the convention was to keep greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that they guessed would prevent dangerous man made interference with the climate system.
This treaty is really a comprehensive, politically driven, political action plan called Agenda 21 designed to produce a centrally managed global society which would control every aspect of the life of every one on earth.
It says :
“The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures”
In other words if the useless IPCC models show there is even a small chance of very bad things happening the Governments who signed the treaty should act reduce CO2 emissions. Since 1992 Trillions have been wasted on this dangerous anthropogenic global warming delusion but TRUMP and PRUITT get the SCIENCE RIGHT – NATURAL CYCLES DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
Here is the abstract for convenience :
“ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
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.
Dr Norman Page,
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.
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.
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.
“The exit from UNFCCC is the only means to escape GCF.”
That might put a new light on things.
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.
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.
Terry,
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.
“The problem is, following the process gives a pseudo-legitimacy to the agreement in the first place.”
My sentiment, too.
See comment above. There is a clear path requiring 1 year.
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.
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.
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.
ask them how going along and following is a leader
“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.
Now The USA is the “Free World”.
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.
+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?
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).
markl:
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 suggest you get a ‘shrink’ to explain your problem to you.
Richard
“….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?
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.
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?
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.
Good call!
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?
The Met Office and the BBC can’t even get a 3 day forecast correct, let alone 45 days.
AC
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.
Auto
Well, I am disappointed than nobody pointed out that today was a special day that goes well with Tea and even climate talk …..
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/01/national-doughnut-day-free-donuts-krispy-kreme-dunkin-donuts/361383001/
Nice and interesting post BTW.
Thanks, but I still missed out on free doughnuts dangit!
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.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/climate/climate-goals-paris-accord.html?hp
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
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.
… since getting out of the UNFCCC automatically gets you out of the Paris Agreement, as stated in the articles of the Paris Agreement.
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.
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…
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!
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.
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?
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 .
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.
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.
I watched his presentation . I believe he offered the openness to renegotiation as a means to defuse the issue of being close minded . His conditions and reasons for leaving the accord were very clear and economically based and overwhelming . Now it’s Europeans who are saying there is no renegotiation .
I at first wished he had been more blunt about the science being utter bs , but seeing the MSM hound Spicer in the press conference yesterday about whether he believed it all was a hoax when he had made that irrelevant by just citing the indisputable fact that ceding everything it would make an insignificant difference showed the brilliance of his presentation . The press’s perseveration on the issue made them look brain-damagely stupid — not that any of them will ever recognize it .
Overall , the press confefe really revealed it was all about the hit the cult of the State was taking , not rational economics or even “settled” science .
If Trump did not insure the paperwork to fulfill his Paris-withdrawal was completed, then this would make him the biggest liar ever. What?, you think he has been taking a firm stance all along on getting out, and then not doing the paperwork? It’s busy work, anyhow. The best way to get out is just do nothing that the agreement says. There are not legal sanctions enumerated in the agreement. It’s lame that way.
There’s something very wrong about an executive order of one president that can obstruct the executive order of another president, just because a treaty signed off on during the last months of the one president just happens to have a three year waiting period before the other president can enact his own executive order in regard to his own leadership rein.
I think new laws might need to be made to address this. The law surrounding this whole withdrawal thing seems very murky anyway. I can’t find a straight answer about the details anywhere, and I’ve consulted to lengthy law articles on treaty law, specifically talking about the Paris Agreement. This seems to be new territory that ignites a long standing debate between the various branches of government that apparently has not been settled.
Like climate science, the law surrounding withdrawing from treaties based on climate science, is unsettled.
“to” = “two”
How deliciously fitting that champagne bubbles are CO2.
Beer too .
And those in my cheap French fizz – about a pound a bottle, when I visit Calais.
Auto – in south London, so Eurotunnel is less than an hour and a half [at 0600!] away.
Paris Pledge Exit … One giant step for man kind ,one giant step back for climate conmen .
Germany and the white flag wavers of France can whine all they want because the United Suckers of America are no longer going to be duped by gullible dumb asses like Lurch .
The real problem for places like Germany is they have absolutely screwed the competitive position of their
industries by having energy costs triple that of the USA . Now it just got a whole lot worse .
The USA is going to kick their ass because of the globalist agenda is going off the rails .
President Trump just called bull shit on the earth has a fever a con game. The rent seekers and globalists can’t handle it . They need to find some other suckers fast.
Any politician that tries to push the global warming con game is going to be sticking nuts on donuts for a living .
I like your attitude, Amber. 🙂
Virtually everyone here either knows or thinks that the science behind AGW/GHG is wrong BUT there is a huge spectrum of “opinion” on exactly how and why. Trump has no idea about this, he just sees the economic implications for the USA. His rejecting of the Paris Climate Treaty (for the *moment* – see renegotiation) may be a useful step in the right direction but it is not motivated by a desire to correct faulty science.
There is a window of opportunity to push the science angle now. I am well aware there are other highly significant “angles” to this issue;, left wing agenda, world government, etc but I rate the science issue by far the most important. The efforts we make should be directed in this area but they will be diluted if we start (continue?) squabbling about which alternative (to AGW/GHG) theory we want as a replacement.
Although logically and scientifically you don’t have to have an alternative theory when you are picking holes in the existing one (ripping it to shreds really in this case) it is inevitable that you will be asked to give one by the other side. So it really is time to make up our minds on this.
Are we going to go with ;
1. Yes, GHGs including CO2 are a thing BUT it’s effect is much smaller.
2. No, there is no such thing as a GHGs, the climate works differently.
3?. ? Feel free to suggest something else ?
In deciding between 1. & 2. What method would you like to use to make up your mind.? Hint – a science based approach might be useful, dare we suggest “experimental evidence”.
I say/suggest: Dirt
That 4-letter word, a really awful attempt at ‘humor’ is gonna consign us to the dustbin of history – assuming the lawyers don’t get there first.
Call it ‘topsoil’ or if you want science, how about ‘A horizon’
It is *infinitely* more precious & rare than coal/oil/gas/uranium/gold/diamonds/whatever and without it, all those things are utterly *utterly* worthless and useless.
Good topsoil, as sought by farmers for the last 10,000 years, contains carbon. Lots of carbon. In organic form as ancient cellulose & lignin, much as the countless trillions (per single handful) of bacteria and critters or simply just as charcoal. It also contains/requires a finely divided fraction of recently exposed (new) rock.
Ploughing & cultivation exposes those organics to sunlight, usually when the sun is strongest and highest – such as now in the Northern Hemisphere. This is where most people live (next to their food supply) and where the good topsoil is, not least as ice-age glaciations provide the fresh rock.
(There goes a beautiful theory about ice-age lengths and their timings. Take it that plants, via the water they contain while alive and certainly dead, drives weather and creates ‘climate’ The acidic nature of decomposing plants erode the rock fraction of the soil and when its used up, slow their growth, die and lose their control of the weather.
They decompose to CO2, an atmospheric coolant** and an ice age ensues. The CO2 slowly rains/snows out, the sun can then melt the ice. When it does, a load of fresh rock is exposed and the plants can flourish again, moderating the climate. Until, lets guess 10 or 15 thousand years they exhaust the rock and so the cycle repeats. Simple and beautiful as the best things are)
** Think about it. CO2 is high absorption it is therefore a strong emitter. By definition. If it warms the upper atmosphere it is effectively moving the warm part of Earth (the surface) closer to the cold part (outer space) The thermal path is thus shorter and the thermal gradient steeper. Heat loss is thus greater. CO2 cools. Also by nature of it being heavier than N2 and O2, it has higher thermal conductivity. More cooling.
1. Get some CO2 meters attached to weather stations. like the Wunderground network of PWSs.
2. Put some thermometers under the soil, also at these weather stations
3. Get some people out regularly (maybe 5 or 10 year intervals) sampling the carbon content of (especially) farmland soil.
4. Teach people (farmers especially) about *exactly* how nitrogenous fertiliser actually works in the soil
5. Get a bit more than the present fluffy woolly idea of what the Urban Heat Island is.
6. Get some clear headed and self confident people to do science. People who can entertain wild ideas (like this I hear you say) People who can do science without using a computer and are at least taught that a computer is nothing less than a reflection of its [programmer. People who don’t mind getting their hands dirty and most, desperately, utterly, crucially, people who will admit a mistake and can change their minds.
How much moolah have you just saved dumping Paris? Put 10% of it into what I suggest.
Maybe also, American friends, get a sense of humour. Then you won’t need to ‘invest’ all that dosh on bullets and bombs
;-D
Those academics who do not mind getting their hands dirty are on your side. Humus building is an urgent necessity and more CO2 in the air is the first requirement for that. All the bad CO2-“surplus” can be employed usefully as C un the ground.
Peta,
Given the continuing terrorist attacks in London, I don’t think ‘a sense of humor’ will change anything for British citizens or US citizens either. My heart breaks and my deepest sympathies go to the unarmed folks that suffered from those despicable atrocities.
As for how I spend a modest portion of my personal ‘dosh’, I’ll continue to exercise my constitutionally guaranteed 2nd Amendment rights for my hunting, recreational shooting, and self defense enjoyment.
“1. Yes, GHGs including CO2 are a thing BUT it’s effect is much smaller.”
I would go with:
GHGs including CO2 are a thing BUT its effect on the Earth’s atmosphere is undetermined at this time.
“Undetermined at this time, but probably not very large.”
TA – a mite improved, perhaps?
The sensitivity now looks like ~1 degree C/doubling.
Perhaps even <1 degree C/doubling.
Maybe.
Nothing like the freak-shows' 3C-6C/doubling.
So, if we get to 810 ppm [doubling the current approximate Hawaii average (is that a very good/good/fair/poor/utterly lousy proxy for the rest of the planet's 190 million square miles? I have no idea, and I bet – ten British pounds – nobody else has either)] – so, if 810 ppm, it 'should' be a degree warmer.
Mostly night-times, in the extra tropics.
So Toronto will be -17C in January, not -20C or -22C. [All 'say' plus/minus] Welcome, but not likely to calve glaciers. Still -17C.
You all know the nautical term about "freezing the balls off a brass monkey"?
Well, it will still be cold enough to do that.
Differential expansion and contraction.
Auto, pretty p155ed off about the Marxians and Stalinists still, after Ronnie R's 'Well, I think we won the Cold War!', trying to steal our planet, condemn billions like me to a (probably unpleasant) death, and live it up thereafter; with several hundred million peons being enslaved, for practical purposes – and concubines – don't imagine the worldview excludes the propagation of like-minded children. . . . .
Mao, Ceacescau, didn't seem to need romance or love.
POTUS – DJT – has it right. Spot on. Thank goodness.
If only Mrs. May and her vegetables – next weekend – are in a position to eliminate 'renewable' subsidies and, similarly, ditch Paris and the kleptocratic nature of a presumed agreement between 'elites'.
Enough.
Hope you are ok, Auto. I noticed you mentioned you lived in south London in another post.
…. ah, ‘An American in Paris’
https://youtu.be/wlvzGT1Ta2w
… all that CO2 in the stage effects, how prophetic of Vincente Minnelli ….
“….the entire process has been driven by computer models and hysteria….” Or maybe by money and power