French President Admits President Trump’s Climate Agenda is Winning

President Trump and President Emmanuel Macron. Macron photo by Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

French President Emanuel Macron has admitted that greens are losing because President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement.

Emmanuel Macron says the world is losing the battle against climate change

The World Today By Connie Agius

French President Emmanuel Macron has told fellow world leaders that the battle against climate change is being lost.

Speaking at the One Planet Summit in Paris, Mr Macron said the 2015 Paris climate accord was in a fragile state after President Donald Trump pulled the US out in June.

“We’re not going fast enough, there lies the tragedy,” Mr Macron said.

“We’ve committed to limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and if we carry on along this path, we’re heading towards 3 or 3.5.

“When I say that we’re losing the battle, I would like you to realise that of the countries represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 years.

“It’s as simple as that.”

And Mr Macron was quick to take aim at the US President’s decision to opt out of that agreement.

“There have been attempts and decisions to leave this accord. It’s very bad news,” he said.

“If we’re here today, it’s because many have decided not to accept the US Federal Government’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement.”

Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-13/we-are-losing-the-battle-french-president-tells-climate-summit/9254862

President Macron’s sadness over Trump’s Paris decision didn’t prevent a host of climate celebrities from jetting to Paris, to complain to each other about how difficult it is to convince ordinary people to live humble low carbon lifestyles.

Advertisements

148 thoughts on “French President Admits President Trump’s Climate Agenda is Winning

  1. In all honestly…I don’t see how this farce keeps going on
    If you went to the same Dr….and the Dr consistently got every diagnosis wrong…wouldn’t you change Drs?

    • You don’t understand socialism. When leaders get out of sync with the people, they change the people.

    • The calssic definition of Insanity

      Constantly and consistantly repeating the same mistakes and expecting a differnt outcome

      • Insanity or just empty headed arrogance in practical terms can amount to the same thing:-

        Constantly and consistantly repeating the same mistakes and not having a clue why, not going back to square one to reconsider the evidence again, not considering the possibility that you might have got it horribly wrong, not considering the possibility that the few, those precious few of independent mind just might have got it right.

    • Latitude
      It is a large movement, it will not stop over night. Those that thought that once Pres Trump made his statement it would all be over were living in Disneyland. When the BS is stacked that high and is entrenched in the population, it takes time and real science process to slowly unwind.

      The there is the latent / delayed effects of CO2 that they calculate will occur, so your butt may not be frying now but its gonna get get fried.

      New Zealand,s freshly elected Prime Minister is a strict AGW supporter, has appointed the Greens to run the climate policy, and has just recently had a gushing live TV interview with Al Gore, who stroked her ego and welcomed her into the club. NIWA, laden with IPCC believers has just produced a projected outcomes report for Auckland City Council straight from the script of the IPCC, all model based. And when the head scientist when introducing it states – we know whats causing it, we dig up carbon, burn it and emit CO2 into the atmosphere, this is what is causing it – you know the problem is not going away over night.

      At the 2017 temperature high we are about 80% of the way toward the 1.5C target, and all we have is good outcomes and great news. Not one single dark shadow.
      Regards

      • Well I tried in vain to get the former PM (John Key) to reject Kyoto, and get together with Australia to lead the world out of this pied piper scenario. No such luck. He referred my e-mails to his Sir whoever it was science advisor, and that was the end of that.

        So Kiwis let the cat out into the yard, and now they will have to pay the price. I hear y’alls will be having a new tax cut that will remove a bunch of money from everyone’s pay check to give away more free stuff.

        I don’t expect to be on the new PM’s e-mail list. The Nat’s still ask me for money, but since I don’t live there I shouldn’t interfere.

        G

      • Consummate politician that, putting the Greens in charge of it so when it goes belly up, the scapegoat is ready for slaughter

    • Thanks to idiot politicians electricty prices in Germany are now at a Global record of Euro 67 cents a Kw/h at those prices who can afford a Dr. ?

    • My observation is that the more simplistic the dogma the easier it becomes to instill it in simple-minded people and thus the more difficult it becomes to overcome

      I believe it was reputed to have been Cardinal Wolsey who said, to the effect, “Be very careful what you put into that mind because you will never, ever get it back out.” Don’t you think that is something of a fit for at least most of the greeniacs? .

  2. If it was that serious WHY are we still driving cars truck planes and the rest of modern life? Surely the French president and others are either stupid or key components of mass genocide?

    15 countries to be wiped out and they do nothing effective except make money! Stunning…

    • In today’s political climate, 15 countries are likely to be wiped out (or eaten) whatever the climate does.

      • Yeah, the downfall of Syria, Libya, Venezuela, … (with any hope North Korea) ….all collapsing because of climate change.

    • You are asking the wrong question. If it is so serious, and if China is doing one third of the emitting, and not planning to reduce at all their tons emitted, and is building coal fired power stations all over the world like there was no tomorrow…. and if the developing world is growing its emissions as fast as it can manage….

      ….then why do our activists not get excited about this? Why are they not even bothered by it? Why are they perpetually demanding that countries which do less than 25% of the total global emissions make dramatic reductions while no-one else takes on any hard targets?

      Why do they think its fine and only fair that China shall emit enough to single handedly destroy human civilization on earth?

      Is it maybe that they don’t actually think it is so serious, but are astroturfing for someone, who could that be, who would rather like to see the US and Europe de-industrialize?

      • yes…The entire accord (treaty) needs to be scrapped…Or rewritten to create balance among all nations.

        No nation can be asked to cut more than ALL other nations are required to cut.
        If the USA is required to cut 10% per decade, then
        China must cut 10% per decade
        India must cut 10% per decade
        Russia must cut 10% per decade

        No nation can be required to pay more to the global climate fund than any other nation.
        If the Climate Fund is required to be funded to the tine of $20T over 20 years ($1T per year) and 200 countries are involved, then every country is responsible for 0.5% of that fund and has to pay $500M per year each and no country is required to pay until all are paying.
        (Could be made to work IF the individual countries supplied proof of deposit but transfer to the main fund didn’t happen until 200 proofs of deposit existed.)

      • I don’t get it Bryan; The purpose of this “treaty” is to do what ??.

        France is free to cut out whatever they want to.

        So is anyone else; even USA.

        That’s what national sovereignty is all about; so lead by example Macron.

        G

      • George, the purpose of this treaty was to rape the US taxpayers. It was all an elaborate way to transfer money from the US to the UN kleptocracy. I suspect that the EUorcrats had also found a way to get their mitts in the money flow as well. That is why Marcon and the others are so upset at Trump.

      • Well Rhoda, I get what Paris was all about but I was wondering why Bryan is suggesting it be replaced by something else.

        How about a treaty to let everyone mind their own business. Who needs a treaty on climate ??

        G

      • “Why do they think its fine and only fair that China shall emit enough to single handedly destroy human civilization on earth?”

        Because China is communist, and so are they.

        Just look at Casto Jr, Obama and numerous other left-wing politicians open admiration for China’s authoritarian government.

      • michel
        Do you not realise that a FREE bean feast in Paris ( with Alaskan king crab ) 5 Star hotels wife kids mother father sisters brothers all assisting you to show the world that 25,000 to 30,0000 idiots are having an early Xmas , how can they be wrong ?
        France is the winner at $10-15,000 a head lets have another in January in some exotic paradise

    • Surely the could have done this conference via teleconference. Much small carbon foot print, if they actually believed in all of this B.S..

  3. But but but the science is settled…besides Trump is more indifferent than he is agenda driven…just like I’m indifferent that it is -10 deg C today here in Niagara Falls – nothing I can do about it, nothing a carbon tax can do about it (why would I want it -12 deg C as per the IPCC anyway), now I must go put some wood from my old plum trees on the fire

    • Exactly Bill – surely we all remember the T-shirts that said:

      What if they gave a war and nobody came?

      It always puzzled me but now I think I see how it might work. or not work…

  4. WINNING!!! … the PEOPLE of the planet are WINNING!!!! Not so much Trump. Trump doesn’t “need” to WIN … the poor people of the planet do. The poor people of the planet who NEED cheap, plentiful energy to join the 20th Century (first steps first). The ENERGY POOR of the industrialized nations need some WINNING!!! to reverse the theft of wind power, bio mass power, and frozen solar panel power. Much MORE WINNING!!!! is still needed. WINNING!!!!! by the PEOPLE … LOSING of the lieberal ELITES.

  5. “…many have decided not to accept the US Federal Government’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement”
    That’s a good one. Don’t accept it, then maybe they will still give you US tax payer dollars.

  6. …..and Trudeau will gift Canada with a billion $$ carbon tax……… because the Liberals need the money. It makes it more palatable for the Liberals to believe when the money is there as a sweetener. I guess it’s the same for many other Governments.

    • Yes. One of the strange side effects of the CAGW alarmism is that it creates the perception of a “good” tax. Its going to save the planet after all, we HAVE to do it. Then the tax dollars get quietly directed into general revenue save for a small percentage that are used to fund just enough projects to out a veneer on the “we’re doing something” meme.

  7. I previously thought it would take two Trump terms to squash the CAGW farce but it looks like one will do it. The momentum is gone and like American politics all they have remaining are complaints, finger pointing, shaming, with ostracizing thrown in for good measure. It won’t take long for other donor countries to find reasons to opt out and I’m betting they’ll find valid scientific reasons to cover their butts so they won’t appear to be harming the planet. God knows there’s enough valid reasons for them to easily choose from.

  8. When I say that we’re losing the battle, I would like you to realise that of the countries represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 years.

    Possibly true, but not due to climate change.

    Countries which have disappeared in the past 50 years:

    The Soviet Union — dissolved 1991
    Yugoslavia — fell apart/self destructed 1992
    Czechoslovakia — dissolved 1993

    I’m probably missing others. So at the rate of 3 in the past 26 years, it’s certainly possible President Macron is correct about 15 more gone in 100 years.

    Here’s hoping the UN and the EU are among them.

    • Note how the “no longer exists” year are conveniently too far out for anyone to ever verify the accuracy of the statement.

    • Within that timescale all of the countries currently committed to the EU will no longer exist. They will be subsumed into the new European superstate of Junckersonia.

  9. I expect President Micron (yes a slip of the fingers but I liked it) already has in mind the countries he hopes won’t exist in ten or fifteen years – for starters those pesky four East European nations that refuse to go along with the EU Brussels globalist agenda and I can’t help thinking he rather hopes the U.K. will unravel for its recent treasonable behaviour in choosing a non compliant role in the Franco-German Alliance. Greece they’ve already screwed over thoroughly.

    • MC
      I think you do injustice to the way that the EU has thoroughly *u<k3d Greece – not merely "screwed over thoroughly" per your comment.
      And the Greek Finance Minister's comment re the said penetrative transaction was available to the UK's negotiators.
      God help us.

      Auto

    • Moderately Cross of East Anglia

      It’s notable that those pesky Eastern European countries are never included in discussions of the future of the EU. Italy and Spain are precipitous relative to another “Brexit” and I’m quite sure the Greeks would love to leave.

      So far, there are now 7 of the final total of 28 EU member countries objecting to membership conditions and one, of course, already in the process of leaving. Around one third of the trading block unhappy with conditions.

      Not looking good.

  10. Go ahead Microbe, hand over vast swathes of tax payers cash to third world dictators. Cover La Belle France in bird blenders and roasters. Destroy your energy infrastructure and manufacturing capability. Pay 1.5 Mega-euros each for hordes of redundant US climate trough snufflers and then award them all colossal grants from the tax coffers to do research into feminism in glaciology and model ‘attribution’ studies. Make the citizens eyes water every time they see their domestic electricity bills. The adulation from your public will be deafening. When everyone else around the World sees what a brilliant strategy this is and what a great leader you are they will be consumed with admiration and envy and simply gagging to follow your brave lead.

    • If they are smart they won’t be able to read their bills because ALL of their lights will be off in an attempt to reduce costs

    • cephus
      I am proud of the mods that they didn’t need a /SNARC comment attached to your comment.
      Go =- Mods!

      Auto

  11. “We’re not going fast enough, there lies the tragedy,” Mr Macron said.

    “We’ve committed to limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and if we carry on along this path, we’re heading towards 3 or 3.5.

    “When I say that we’re losing the battle, I would like you to realise that of the countries represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 years.

    “It’s as simple as that.”

    in other words he does not seem to have a clue.

  12. ““We’re not going fast enough, there lies the tragedy,” Mr Macron said.”

    ““We’re not going to get U.S. taxpayer money, there lies the tragedy,” is what Mr Macron really means.

  13. So reversion to mean (trend) growth for the global economy will be blamed on Trump in the context of emissions. Climate politics remains a game of shadow boxing.

  14. The sad part of this charade is that the Paris thing accomplished almost nothing even if the US was in it and every country did everything they committed to, and few (if any) would have actually stepped up to their commits anyway. The US just becomes a distraction from the most important point which is that Paris failed miserably to get any where near any of its goals, it wouldn’t matter a bit if the US was in or out.

  15. “We’ve committed to limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius”…

    This statement always makes me laugh. Why not 1.51743 or 1.48334 ? Surely with all their wonderful computer models and God-like powers they can be a bit more precise.

  16. “We’ve committed to limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and if we carry on along this path, we’re heading towards 3 or 3.5”

    As a professional civil servant for most of his life, he must be spouting the religion of the AGW Cult in France. He has no history as an expert in climate or meteorology.

    “When I say that we’re losing the battle, I would like you to realise that of the countries represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 years.”

    Utter stupidity. What authority has this man to make such outrageous statements to the great and good of the World when he obviously has no personal professional knowledge to fall back on? He has quite clearly been got at by the AGW cult members who continue to spread their lies and misinformation in order to secure their future grant money.

  17. We are heading for 0.5C at the very most. The mission has already been accomplished. Let’s now focus on real problems.

  18. Excerpted from published commentary:

    President Macron’s sadness over Trump’s Paris decision didn’t prevent a host of climate celebrities from jetting to Paris, to complain …….

    Or a small host of “troughfeeding” climate scientists heading for France, to wit:

    American scientist Camille Parmesan and British scientist Benjamin Sanderson are among the 18 initial winners, including 13 based in the U.S., who were named recipients of French President Emmanuel Macron’s “Make Our Planet Great Again” climate grants.

    Read more @ http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12/12/us-based-climate-scientists-to-take-research-to-france.html

  19. I lost a $100 bet with a neighbour who had a grade 8 education that Trump would never be elected. We both agreed if he did, he would probably make a lousy President. Now I am not so sure. He goofs around on Twitter but he sure has sent a shock wave throughout with the world with things like crushing the Paris Accord. Now I wish he would do more goofing around on Twitter, and call that Macaroon nut job in France a real disgrace with his insanity on CAGW. On everything. Get a real good war of words going with some of these a-holes that are so intent on ripping off the world and killing millions of people with energy poverty including the nut job ‘climate scientists’ here in the USA . Trump is one of the few politicians who has honestly tried to keep the promises he made that got him elected, such as moving the USA embassy and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. If he keeps this up, he just may get re-elected, but he will need to do more to get the support of the main stream majority who know in the bottom of their hearts that this whole climate BS put forth by academia is crock of crap.

      • Well, if he had called Gillibrand a whore that would be one thing. However, for anyone who follows Trump, he has used the same wording against several men before he used it against a woman. He essentially said that Gillibrand would do anything to get a donation in order to get elected. He said that about a number of men. No one complained when he said it about the men. I didn’t think it was sexist when he said it against Gillibrand given the history. That means I’m probably not dirty minded enough.

        The good thing is that Trump is rolling back regulations and putting in place good judges. He will soon get a new tax plan passed.

      • She is a politician – thus by definition sells herself all the time. What the president said was the same thing he said of Sen Schumer – would do anything to get the campaign donations, meaning the typical crony rule making to please donors that happens far too often.

        I love how the left has its collective mind in the gutter. And thought it really funny when Sen Warren called Sen Gillibrand a slut.

      • That’s not an article, it’s an opinion piece, and written by a Trump hating idiot at that. The president has never publicly used the senator’s name and the word “whore” in the same sentence; that is a fiction.

      • Get your mind out of the gutter Simon. He didn’t say any such thing. For all you know, he meant Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand would clean windows for a $20 donation. It is because of Marxists like you that Trump is even in the White House to begin with, after that last demigod Marxist snake oil salesman polluted everything he touched. Like rigging the Paris Accord so the USA could join by a Executive Order. Luckily for the world, Trump was able to extract the USA from that Marxist Paris Agreement, by an EO.

      • OweninGA
        So in your world politicians are fare game to each other? Really? I have no respect for someone who stoops this low. There are men and woman in both parties who would not act like this.McCain for one. And a president needs to be twice as careful about what they say. Presidents need to be (as least seen to be) intelligent and appeal/speak to wide range of people. Trump is and does neither. His band of followers are dwindling and is limited now to only those who don’t see him for what he is and those who like the draconian backward thinking things he does.

        It is my understanding that USA today is very middle of the road. You can dismiss the NYT and the Wash Post, but not these guys. And let’s not forget he has made lurid comments like this before. Megan Kelly “blood coming out of her wherever.” He should be twice as careful… but Trump being Trump… he isn’t.

      • An interesting judgement , Simon .
        Where, therefore, in the scale of presidents , that has Trump at the bottom, would you place a President who took a young woman into the Oval office and committed a serious act that left her clothing indelibly stained with the outcome of their encounter ?
        Near the top ?

      • mikewaite
        Clinton is being shown to be a cad too. He certainly is far more diplomatic, but history will not view him well either given what is not coming out not. The difference between Trump and Clinton is Trump has no discipline or filter when he is challenged. His only strategy is to attack. While this may work in the business world when your bank balance is biggest, in politics it is a weakness.

      • Simon, your lack of a content filter when posting gives us: “Clinton is being shown to be a cad …”

        Clinton was shown to be a rapist, groper, assaulter, etc. many years ago. None of your “good” feminists and Democrats suggested he be ousted at the time.

        It is only now that the “good” feminist and Democrats can safely throw him under the bus.

        That is your politics in action.

      • Dave Fair
        You presume too much. If I had known what I know now I would have thrown Clinton under the bus then. But what blind supporters of Trump like you forget is that Clinton is not president and Trump is. So he is far more important to focus on with regard to what he does and what he says. His popularity is rightly falling. Many who voted for him are deserting him. Kind of renews your faith in the intelligence of the American people.

      • Dave Fair
        And what has being a feminist got to do with it? You don’t need to be a feminist to see Trump for the vile man he is. Read the article.

      • McCain has been bought and sold so many times no one knows where the original receipt is. Does the term “Keating 5” mean anything to you? It should if you are going to hold John “Vietnam POW” McCain up as a paragon of virtue (paragon of virtue signalling, maybe, but actual virtue – that went out the window ages ago.)

      • OweninGA
        Too funny….At least he was brave enough to go and didn’t pay a doctor to say he had bone spurs.

      • Simon,

        I served through several conflicts and was shot at by those who would do harm many times. That has no bearing on the conduct of a politician.

        Should they all be for sale? No. But as human beings, they go with the expert they know of and thus the campaign donor who is in the business the bill addresses is the easiest person to go talk to. Many are honestly naive about what they are being told by those donors (some know better but want/need the money and don’t care), but knowledge is NOT the core skill set of a politician – fund raising and projecting an image are the primary skills, so they are easily led astray.

        Add to that a basic lack of economic education in the country and little knowledge of the basis of civil society as understood by the framers of the constitution and you have an electorate that will put up with all sorts of bad behavior by politicians.

      • Paul I think you will find that Trump quote in the very same Twinkle in which he said he was banning travelers from seven “mostly moslem countries.”

        If I’m not mistaken the actual real live SCOTUS recently ruled that Trump could ban travelers from seven “mostly moslem countries.” I actually saw that as a real live footnote on a alphabet soup T&V news report.

        It’s probably already in the latest Merriam Webster Dictionary.

        G

      • “Trump is doing his best to be remembered as the worst president in US history”

        He has one HECK of a way to go to get anywhere near Obama.

        What a WASTE OF SPACE, that Kenyan was.

      • Brian R December 13, 2017 at 3:35 pm
        “Nice job reading an article that expounds on things the President never said.”

        Tell me what he never said?

        Simon

      • Simon wrote: “Trump is doing his best to be remembered as the worst president in US history. As this article says… “A president who would all but call Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand a whore is not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush. ”

        Trump is on his way to being one of the best presidents in U.S. history. Obama is the worst president evah!

        Trump didn’t call Gillibrand a whore, he said she would do anything for a campaign contibution. He’s said that about men, too. Noone claimed Trump was calling Romney a whore when he said that about Romney.

        Trump’s base is rock solid. Some independents are wavering a little, but you have to take into consideration that Trumps’s news coverage from the MSM is 90 percent negative. A drumbeat of negativity will knock down one’s favorables. Just look what happened to G. W. Bush.

        USA Today is a biased, Leftwing publication.

        Simon: “Megan Kelly “blood coming out of her wherever.”

        Trump has said the same thing to men: blood coming out of their eyes.

        Trump wasn’t making fun of a “disabled” reporter when he got up and gyrated and flailed his arms around and said, “I don’t know what I’m doing!” He did the very same thing to at least two other people including a military general.

        That’s Trump’s way of illustrating that the person he is talking about is clueless and doesn’t know which way to turn. This, btw, is to preempt your using this distortion of reality, like you did with Megan Kelly above.

        The “disabled” reporter’s disablity did not include flailing his arms around. His problem was one elbow would lock up sometimes. That’s all it was, but the MSM made him out to be a totally disabled man who went into spasms which Trump was supposedly making fun of. The Left and the MSM are pathetic liars.

        Four women came forward the other day to accuse Trump of sexual improprieties. These are some of the same women who accused him during the election. Of the four, one woman’s complaint was that Trump had “ogled” her, and other contestants who were taking part in a beauty contest! That’s all. He ogled her. I guess she could read his mind and knew his intent.

        Another said she was triggered by Trump when he asked her for her telephone number, which she gave him, but to hear her tell it, this was a very traumatic incident for her. Good, normal men ask females for their telephone numbers all the time. This is not a crime. It’s not even an abuse if it only happens one time, which is the case here.

        Another of the women claimed Trump molested her on an airplane trip, but Trump has an eye-witness that has disputed this claim. As far as I know, that is the most serious accusation against Trump. No proof of anything was every made public, although Trump made a lot of information public that refuted many of these claims. So far, Trump looks innocent of these charges.

        When you have mulitple women making claims of sexual assault, you have to take them seriously, *except* when you are dealing with the Clinton Crime Syndicate and Democrat politics.

        n a case like this, one should seriously consider that all these claims were manufactured by Hillary and her minions in an effort to damage Trump. Most of these accusations are frivilous. Funny how they all came forward right at a crucial moment in the election. Where the Clinton’s are concerned, you cannot assume anything. They are not above twisting the truth or any other underhanded action, when it suits their purposes.

        It looks to me like this whole Russian Collusion with Trump thing has been a trap set for Trump from the very beginning. Clinton hired the company Fusion GPS, the company known as the “Smear-for-Hire company, the one that makes up lies about its clients enemies, up to and including accusing them of being pedophiles and every other horrible thing.

        So Hillary knew what she was buying by doing business with Fusion GPS. She wanted dirt on Trump whether it was true or not, and she got it in her Russian Dossier. That’s what $12 million will buy you.

        And then she promptly handed this pack of lies over to Obama’s DOJ where they used it to convince the FISA court that Trump’s campaign needed to be looked at by the intelligence community. Obama and Hillary knew everything Trump was doing after that.

        Fortunately they still couldn’t defeat Trump. Thank God.

        And the meeting between the Russian attorney and Don Trump Jr. appears to be a complete setup. This female attorney met with Fusion GPS before she met with Don Jr. and she met with them right after she met with Don Jr. Get instuctions, then report back, is what it looks like to me.

        And at least two FBI agents, one of their wives and a girlfriend, also have ties to Fusion GPS, and have no love for Trump.

        The fix was in, but now fate has turned the tables. Now the real colluders with the Russians will be exposed: Hillary and Obama.

        I saw Trump at his rally in Florida last week, and at one point he was up on stage making fun of windmills. Not too much, because I guess windmill companies are constituents too, and he doesn’t want to trash their business too much, but he did laugh and mention that windmills don’t do anything if there’s no wind. He twisted his finger around in a circle as a visual.

        And Btw, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand had nothing but praise for Bill Clinton up until a few months ago. Now, she hypocritically says he should have resigned for his behavior in the White House. She’s got her finger in the air seeing which way the wind blows. Just like all the other hypocritical politicians we are plagued with today.

        Can you imagine Trump ever sticking his finger in the air to see which way the wind blows? No, Trump knows where he wants to go and is leading us in that direction. He doesn’t need a finger in the air to know which way to go because he has already thought about it and made his decisions. What he said about North Korea in 1998, is the same thing he is saying about them today, as one example. He’s thought about them a lot.

      • Simon – December 13, 2017 at 12:30 pm

        If I had known what I know now I would have thrown Clinton under the bus then.

        Simon, your above testament ….. absolutely, positively proves that you are nothing more than a highly partisan Clinton family loving, …… avid Democrat Party supporting, ….. “troughfeeder” at the government trough …… and thus none of the other opiniated commentary you have posted hereon can be believed to be truthful, ….. any more than your above quoted comment can.

        Simon, I have to assume that you are also engaged in the “badmouthing” of President Trump, along with your BELOVED congressional Democrats, ….. because of their FOOLISH CLAIM that his (Trump’s) new “tax plan” may, …..possibly, …… might, ….. probably, …. surely should …… increase the National Debt as much as $1 trillion.

        So tell us Simon, …… how’s come no one heard you or your beloved Democrat mentors “badmouthing” President “I-will-fundamentally-change-America” Obummer for his dastardly deed of, to wit:

        The U.S. debt increased $9 trillion during the 8 years Obama was in office.

        Such highly partisan Democrat and Rhino Politicians, who only care about enriching themselves, are truly a sick group of people that are the “best friends” that the Islamic terrorists could ever hope of having in their dedicate “conquest” of the Western World

      • TA December 13, 2017 at 6:15 pm
        Four women came forward the other day to accuse Trump of sexual improprieties. These are some of the same women who accused him during the election. Of the four, one woman’s complaint was that Trump had “ogled” her, and other contestants who were taking part in a beauty contest! That’s all. He ogled her. I guess she could read his mind and knew his intent.

        No need to read his mind he’s boasted about doing it! Walking into the women’s changing room to ogle naked 15 year old girls is pretty disgusting behavior.

        “I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else. You know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it… Is everyone OK? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that,”

      • Senator Gillibrand got upset, and said Trump had hurt her feelings. If you are worried that you feelings might get hurt, then you have not place in the rough and tumble of politics!

        • Victimization is the new super weapon, James. It has been perfected at our universities and is now out in liberal-land on a permanent basis.

      • Trump has pushed the US stock market to a record high, since taking over. He has kept the billions of dollars that the UN were expecting and put it back into the US economy. Some of this is being invested into US green energy. You won’t read that on MSM..

    • I thought the same about Trump. That he could never win. I had no opinion at that time as to how he would preform on the job and I thought it was an impossible task.

      I am still giving him a chance. Canceling the US participation in the Paris accord was low hanging fruit, however, it required courage to speak the truth and to take action.

      • Jerusalem, tax cuts, wall, increased border enforcement/deportations, terror country travel ban, economic growth, withdrawal from Paris Accord, hitting back against fake news and more, William.

  20. [Quote from Macron]“We’ve committed to limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and if we carry on along this path, we’re heading towards 3 or 3.5.”

    Ne t’inquiete pas (don’t worry), Monsieur le President. Mother Nature will take care of it.

    Meanwhile that extra CO2 will make everybody’s crops grow faster, including in France.

    Trump: Make America Green Again!

  21. Macron says: We’ve committed to limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius

    The level of hubris is amazing.

  22. Why would anyone listen to the French about anything except making onion soup?

    This especially true for energy.

    Many years ago I was on a business trip with two other former navy nukes. One thing we could agree on is our dislike for the French. Subsequently, the engineering division of the power company I worked for was bought a French government owned company.

    Let me explain the difference. In the US, we have competition and often an adversarial government.

    We have coal, natural gas, and nuclear to choose from for baseload power. The four companies that designed US commercial reactors also designed coal and gas plants. The US was the world leader.

    Then we elected Bill Clinton who tried to imitate Jimmy Carter in subjugating to world interests. Clinton did his best to destroy the US coal and nuclear industries. By the time the Clinton was gone the Japanese and French had acquired as much of US nuclear industry as they could.

    Bush was pronuclear. However, the NRC is adversarial as it should be. Here are the regulations, show us how meet them.

    The French nuclear industry is arrogant. Government policy supported nuclear because they had no coal. Reactor design came from the US and French regulators depended on the US for the hard work.

    The French failed to learn the lessons of the other countries when designing the next generation of reactors. First you get your design certified in the US for a standard design. Then you get approval in the country where you are building the reactor. Then you get a company with construction experience to build it in five years.

    So how are the French doing building 10 reactors in 4 countries? The French design has yet to be approved in the US. What did the French power company learn in partnering with US operators? Keep your existing plants running by replacing steam generators. No EPRs will get built in the US.

    In Finland and France, regulators are still waiting for their questions to be answered. The EPRs got built but have yet to operate.

    In China, 2 EPRs were ‘almost’ done in 2014. I am not surprised they are not making electricity. It takes a lot of work to get from almost done to everything works right. Then there are all those pesky questions.

    In contrast, China is pumping out old designs of reactors in 5 years like we used to do in the US.

    So the French have bet on nuclear for AGW and international trade. I am betting on South Korea.

  23. Let’s play Who’s a Winner: France’s unemployment rate is 10% vs. US’ 4.1%, GDP growth 1% vs. 3.3%, per capital income $42,000 vs. $54,000.. US wins.

    The more money France wastes on the Climate Change ho@x, the larger the economic gap becomes..

    C’est la vie, mon ami.

  24. Of course Trump’s position is winning. With regard to science, the truth will always eventually win. The only thing we have to worry about is if the scientific truth isn’t well established before the next Democrat is elected President. Fixing policy is definitely a step in the right direction, but there needs to be a serious effort to fix the science or those policies will revert back to foolishness.

  25. I would like you to realise that of the (governments) represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 (months) (and I think that mine may be one of soonest to go).

  26. “to complain to each other about how difficult it is to convince ordinary people to live humble low carbon lifestyles.”

    This.

    PS. And eat cake of course.

  27. Macron’s “battle” for climate policy is the battle of the global left and deep state to con the general public into believe in dangerous global warming when the globe on reality is not warming at all, more likely the reverse.

    Although with all climate data in the hands of activists and fiction writers, we will never know. Intil glacial advances become impossible to disguise as retreats and food disappears from stores.

  28. Of *course* the planet is doomed because Trump pulled out!

    If it wasn’t, he might be *entitled to his opinion* – and then where would we be!

  29. “When I say that we’re losing the battle, I would like you to realise that of the countries represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 years”……While we were pointlessly obsessing over non-existant ‘Climate Change”, we totally lost control of our countries’ immigration policies and in 50, 60 or 100 years 10-15 of Europe’s countries will not exist anymore but will have been sucked into Eurabia and be under Sharie Law..

      • No penalty for staying in and doing nothing.

        Sounds like the Iranian nuke deal, red lines, keep your doctor, etc. Failure was a hallmark of the Obama Administration.

  30. Myth: Climate change is a “battle”.

    Joke: Humans are fighting this “battle” against themselves,

    Absurdity: Humans are [losing] this “battle” against themselves.

    • Climate change IS a “battle”, in the war watermelons are waging against humanity. Not even sure that humans will win, but the malaria-DDT affair showed that it won’t be without heavy casualties anyway.

  31. The French presidents admits politicians had always zero intent of making any “real” progress anyway with this CC stuff- Trump was just making it obvious.

  32. “When I say that we’re losing the battle, I would like you to realise that of the countries represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 years.”

    There is zero evidence anything like this could possibly happen regarding increasing CO2 emissions. Only possibility this may actually happen are unrelated and down to the political agenda relating to global warming or policies nothing to do with it. Contributing towards everything energy related being expensive and increasing poverty while at the same time making a few friends extremely rich. It has always been about the money and power, never about the science.

    “We’ve committed to limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and if we carry on along this path, we’re heading towards 3 or 3.5.

    Full of spin, no we are heading towards limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 c if we carry on along this path. With honest global temperature data set this value will be more likely no more than about 0.5 c. Any remote extremely unlikely 3 or 3.5 are based on significantly higher CO2 emissions at the very least or very unlikely scenarios.

  33. Why should we stay in the accord? US CO2 emissions are already falling – faster than much of the rest of the world. Why do we need to be in the accord?

  34. Way too much spin here all because of a) the wilful misrepresentation of two words: “fragile” and “since” and b) the implication that Macron actually said these words.

    It was the ABC article that did the spinning for their agenda (climate panic) and you went along with it for your agenda (Trump is winning and the Paris Agreement is impotent).

    ABC used the word “since” to imply that what was a solid agreement is now fragile “since Trump pulled out in June”. It’s true that emission-cutting progress isn’t fast enough to reach 1.5-2°C but that was the case on the day the Paris Agreement was signed. Everyone at Paris knew the NDC’s (Nationally Determined Contributions) would result in 3.5°C of warming as opposed to around 4.2°C Business as Usual (median estimates). In that sense, their so-called commitment to 1.5-2° was always fragile. In other words, it was fragile during the 18 months before Trump pulled out and during the six months after he pulled out.

    The ABC article has simply added in the “since Trump pulled out in June” as an attempt to shame Trump. It’s technically true but meaningless because it’s been the case all along.

    The only quoted evidence from Macron’s actual words for ABC’s interpretation of “fragile” is this:

    “We’re not going fast enough, there lies the tragedy,” Mr Macron said.
    “We’ve committed to limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and if we carry on along this path, we’re heading towards 3 or 3.5.”

    “This path” isn’t the path since Trump pulled out. It’s the path that was laid out as of April 22nd 2016 when the NDC’s were formally committed to in the “high profile signing ceremony” in NYC (quote is from the agreement itself).

    They knew then, as Macron knew during his speech, that improved NDC’s (deeper emission-cut commitments) were needed in order to reach 1.5-2°C. Those extra commitments are expected to come over the coming decades in the 5-yearly NDC assessment meetings…except everyone knows the eye-watering emission cuts needed to get to even 2° probably won’t be forthcoming, hence Macron’s concern.

    But that concern was felt by all from the word go, back in Paris, 2015. All the big-hitting scenario modellers including MIT, Climate Interactive and Climate Action Tracker (who advise the policy makers) were projecting 3.5°C to 3.7°C for the Paris NDC’s. They were projecting this at the time of the conference and even before it, using the INDC’s (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions). And they were liaising with the delegates on this at the time of the conference as well.

    All Macron was doing in his speech was reiterating the same old concerns that are regurgitated time and again by the modellers/advisors, the COP delegates (at Paris, Marrakesh and Bonn) and world leaders. Trump leaving in June adds to their woes, yes, but Macron was not saying the 1.5°C/3.5°C disparity was because of Trump leaving. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject should know this, including ABC Climate Change reporters and
    WUWT.

    But ABC added in the “since Trump pulled out in June” for extra impact as if Macron and all other world leaders were struggling to stick to the Paris Agreement since the US departure. It’s quite clear he wasn’t saying this as shown by this quote:

    “If we’re here today, it’s because many have decided not to accept the US Federal Government’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement.”

    As for ABC’s use of the word “fragile”, they say:

    “Macron says 2015 Paris climate accord is in a fragile state…

    The only ABC quote of Macron’s that could relate even remotely to this view is:

    “When I say that we’re losing the battle, I would like you to realise that of the countries represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 years.”

    It’s perfectly clear he’s not talking about the Paris Agreement being fragile because of “losing the battle”. He’s saying they’re struggling to cut emissions fast enough, something that’s been the case since Paris 2015, Copenhagen 2009 and Kyoto 1997. He isn’t saying that the agreement itself is fragile (which it may become). He certainly isn’t saying that “greens are losing because President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement.” (quote from this WUWT article). Or that the “French President Admits President Trump’s Climate Agenda is Winning” (title of this WUWT article, no less).

    When we put the two words, “since” and “fragile” (both unattributed to Macron) together in ABC’s short sentence, it reads:

    “Macron says 2015 Paris climate accord is in a fragile state since Trump pulled out in June”

    This is a complete fabrication, concocted to elicit panic among Trump-bashing greens. ABC are their own worst enemy because now WUWT has taken this at face value (when you should know better). You’ve then exaggerated ABC’s claims still further by adding in the spurious claim in the title and that “greens are losing because president Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement”. You’re both as bad as each other. This is hurting WUWT’s brand because ‘AGW Twitter’ will always complain about this type of WUWT story which makes it easier to dismiss your many well-researched stories in between.

    It also affects the chances of people like me having our well-researched, anti-alarmist articles taken seriously. The following is a case in point as it is directly related to what Macron was saying and points to why there’s so much confusion surrounding what the Parties to the Paris Agreement actually agreed to do.

    I’ve been spending the last six months trying to draw attention to the fact that MIT, Climate Interactive and Climate Action Tracker are including unagreed emission-cut commitments in their modelled projections for the Paris Agreement. They’re constantly saying they are not including these post-2030 “commitments” when in fact they are. This results in the Paris Agreement’s supposed impact being up to a 1.1°C temperature reduction for 2100 as opposed to the actual 0.63 to 0.7 it is (i.e. for the NDC’s actually agreed at Paris).

    This is why Macron said 3°C to 3.5°C- he’s been duped along with us all: 3.5° is the correct NDC impact; 3° includes the spurious commitments.

    The three modelling organisations above, that have a huge influence on policy-making, public understanding of CC and your taxes, are overselling the impact of the Paris Agreement by anything between 43% (CI) and 75% (MIT). They are at pains to promote the exaggerated version to us, the public, in order to keep us on board with voting for CC mitigation policies and impressing us with the temperature reductions we’ll see for shelling out all those taxes. But when they arrive at the COP conferences, they cite the true, lower temperature reduction. All the delegates (and modellers) know the true figure and negotiate accordingly. Then after coming to an agreement and flying home, they revert to the oversold version that includes either a) the hoped-for (but unagreed) post 2030 additional CO2 cuts or b) eye-watering modelled scenarios that bear no relation at all to what was agreed in the NDC’s or even in the suggested in the MCS’s. Climate Action Tracker are particularly adept at pulling off ‘b’ and presenting this highly adjusted result on their home page as a Paris pledge. Pure fantasy.

    This is the story that you should be shouting from the rooftops. It’s a truly egregious abuse of the honest representation of scientific data. MIT used this trick in its shaming of president Trump regarding his (correct) citing of their research in his Paris Agreement speech. That was the 0.2°C reduction he cited for their NDC-impact findings (the difference between 0.2° and 0.63° stated above is yet more climate spin- too complicated to explain here).

    MIT went to great lengths in their statement to assure us they weren’t using the unagreed, post-2030 “commitments” to reach their “1°C” when in fact they were.

    I’ve researched this meticulously with copious references. I’ve linked the work on this site before but it’s elicited little interest. If the intricately spun MIT spin were given the airing it should, it would be one of the biggest fake news stories of the year. After all, MIT were calling out Trump’s correct 0.2°C by adding a known, spurious 0.35°C to their own findings for the impact of the Paris Agreement.

    And that statement was big news- broadcast all over the globe. Just imagine the cognitive dissonance outbreak when we all learn that MIT were dishonest in their admonishing of Trump and that Trump was right all along.

  35. And therein lies the difference. Alarmists concern themselves with winning, and will manipulate data to do so. Skeptics concern themselves with science, and will follow wherever it leads. It is still unclear which side will prevail. But it is a truly sad day when educated people cannot agree to sit down and review data objectively.

  36. The fact that we’re in the grip of a severe winter here in the UK might make our politicos think twice about the climate scam. First snow came very early, in November. Looks like Paris hasn’t seen the kind of weather we’ve had, so maybe that’s why Macron is still on the global warming bandwagon.

    On woodfortrees I note that most of the temperature graphs are starting to show a return towards the level period of 2000-2104. It will be interesting to see if it does go back and stay there,

    • you forgot that, when it is hotter, it is man-made climate change, and when it is colder, it is man-made climate change. Whatever happen is man-made climate change. Oh, and it is a disaster, too.

  37. This misses the substantial announces made by large companies on disinvestment in coal/fossil fuels, the statement by the UK Prime Minister on funding poorer countries fighting climate change and other achievements made at the conference – summarised here:

    World Bank, ING, & AXA Announce Fossil Fuel Divestment Worth Billions
    UK Vows At One Planet Summit To Lead Coal Phase-Out & Support World’s Poorest Address Climate Change
    Powering Past Coal Alliance Membership Blows Out Past 50
    World’s Space Agencies (Sans US & Russia) Propose New Space Climate Observatory On Eve Of One Planet Summit
    Canada Teams Up With World Bank To Support Clean Energy Transition In Developing Countries & Small Island States
    Caribbean Leaders Launch Ambitious “Climate-Smart Zone” At One Planet Summit

    The disinvestment/ending coal momentum is building up.

    • The western world is indeed disinvesting, not just in coal/fossil fuel, but in pretty much every industry. Europe even paid Mittal to close foundries in Europe, so that he build them back in India, and send the steel to Europe. that the way they reduce “carbon footprint”…
      And Griff-like cheer up!

      Meanwhile Chinese and Indian are investing in coal mine in Australia, and China build up its own “world bank”

    • You know what those disinvestments do, griff? They give other people a chance to snatch up the stocks at a good price and down the road they get even better returns.

      • And other people are not using dodgy politics to make real decisions. Ever wonder why socialism always fails?

    • “The disinvestment/ending coal momentum is building up.”

      Which explains the 1600 coal fired power stations being built around the world…. right Griff 😉

  38. “When I say that we’re losing the battle, I would like you to realise that of the countries represented here, 5, 10 or 15 of them won’t exist anymore in 50, 60 or 100 years. ”
    but but but… who cares about “countries” disappearing? Not Macron for sure, who is trying hard to have the whole European nations to dissolve into a new EUSSR, as just a first strep toward a single worldwide country.

  39. The elite cast doubt of their own story by flitting around the globe in private jets, eating at 5 star restaurants and generally telling us what to do, not as they do.
    No one can influence the sun or volcanoes on land and below the sea.
    By paying someone to “save the world” you create the biggest ponzi scheme ever, even better than novenas and papal interventions.

  40. Griff
    Canada has just approved another big coal mine in the north. Thousands of trains go by my house every year filled with cheap coal.
    King coal will be around till it’s no longer economical.
    Justin Zoolander is good at one thing,……… throwing up smokescreens! You know how that goes, it’s not what you do ….it’s what you say.

  41. When your story is that ”a cold nitrogen bath conduction chilling a planet is a giant magic heater”

    and that the cold light blocking refrigerants of the heater, providing phase change refrigeration of both planet AND bath is the ‘magically cold/hot core, of the giant magic sky heater,”

    it’s hard to get a lot of support from anyone but lib tards and alternate energy peddling wackos.

  42. When your story is that ”a cold nitrogen bath conduction chilling a planet is a giant magic heater”

    and that the cold light blocking refrigerants of the heater, providing phase change refrigeration of both planet AND bath is the ‘magically cold/hot core, of the giant magic sky heater,”

    it’s hard to get a lot of support from anyone but lib tards and alternate energy peddling wackos.

Comments are closed.